Bonaventure

Quaestio III.

Qua ratione unitas approprietur Patri, aequalitas Filio, concordia Spiritui sancto.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each entry gives first the Latin source text (La.), then the English rendering (En.).

Tertio quaeritur de ratione appropriationis trium nominum praedictorum.

1. Et primo de unitate. Et quod non sit appropriabilis, videtur, quia unum et ens convertuntur¹; ergo unitas et essentia; sed essentia nulli est appropriabilis: ergo nec unitas.

2. Item, si appropriatur, cum Spiritus sanctus sit amborum unitas, ut dicit Augustinus², videtur, quod debeat appropriari personae Spiritus sancti.

3. Item, obiicitur de aequalitate, quae appropriatur Filio. Nihil enim magis est indifferens in rebus aequalibus quam ipsa aequalitas; sed indifferens non est appropriabile: ergo nec aequalitas est appropriabilis.

4. Item, si appropriatur, debet appropriari Patri, quia aequalitas non est aliud quam unum sive unitas in quantitate³; sed unitas appropriatur Patri: ergo et aequalitas.

5. Item, obiicitur de concordia, quae appropriatur Spiritui sancto. Si enim concordia plures reducit ad unitatem, videtur potius de proprio facere commune quam de communi proprium: ergo si appropriare est de communi facere proprium, concordia nulli est appropriabilis.

6. Item, videtur quod debeat appropriari Filio, quoniam Filius est pax nostra, qui fecit utraque unum, ad Ephesios secundo⁴. Item, ad Colossenses primo⁵: Pacificans per sanguinem crucis eius, sive quae in terris, sive quae in caelis sunt.

7. Item, obiicitur contra rationem Augustini⁶: «Omnia aequalia propter Filium etc.», ergo Pater est aequalis propter Filium: ergo habet aliquid a Filio, quod falsum est. Item quaero, quam causam dicit propter, utrum efficientem, aut finalem? Quamcumque harum dicat, cum tota Trinitas sit efficiens et finis omnis rei, tam unitas quam aequalitas, quam concordia est propter Patrem, similiter propter Filium: ergo nulla est ratio appropriandi.

Conclusio.

Ad explicandum personarum ordinem appropriatur unitas Patri, aequalitas Filio, concordia Spiritui sancto.

Respondeo: Intelligendum est, quod sicut appropriatio Hilarii fuit ad explicandam personarum originem, sic ista est ad explicandum ordinem.

Quoniam igitur persona Patris est prima, ante quam non est alia, et quae non est ex alia; ideo appropriatur ei unitas, quae est prima in numero, et ante quam nihil est in numero⁷.

Ad argumenta:

1. 2. Ex hoc patet responsio ad duo prima, quia accipitur hic unitas secundum eam rationem qua dicit primitatem, non essentiae indivisionem — quia⁸ sic convertitur cum ente — aut voluntatis conformitatem, — quia sic appropriatur Spiritui sancto. Ut prima autem Patri appropriatur.

Similiter⁹, quia persona Filii secundum rationem intelligendi est secunda et perfecte exprimens Patrem, et hoc facit aequalitatem: ideo aequalitas ratione ordinis primo reperitur in Filio. Tunc enim primo intelligitur, cum Filius intelligitur nasci.

3. 4. Et ex hoc patet obiectum. Quod enim aequalitas approprietur, hoc non est ratione unitatis, sed ratione primae associationis et perfectae. Aequalitas enim tunc primo intelligitur, quando intelligitur associatio; et haec intelligitur primo in Filio, qui est secunda persona.

Similiter, persona Spiritus sancti secundum rationem intelligendi est tertia; concordia autem ponit duos concordabiles et etiam concordantem: ideo primo incipit concordia, ubi primo intelligitur oriri persona tertia.

5. 6. Et sic patet illud, quod concordia appropriatur alicui non quia de communi faciat proprium¹⁰, sed quia distinctos connectit, et hoc secundum rationem suae emanationis; quod non convenit Filio ratione emanationis, sed ratione mediationis, quia mediator Dei et hominum¹¹. Ex his patent omnia obiecta.

7. Ad illud vero quod ultimo quaeritur: «omnia sunt unum propter Patrem, omnia aequalia propter Filium¹²»; dicendum, quod si omnia distribuat pro creatis, tunc propter dicit causam formalem exemplarem secundum rem et appropriationem, quia omnis aequalitas habet exemplar in aequalitate Filii et sic de aliis¹³. Si autem distribuat pro creatis et increatis, tunc propter dicit causam formalem exemplarem secundum rationem intelligendi appropriatam; quia intellectus noster non intelligit aequalitatem in Patre nisi propter hoc, quod habet Filium per omnia exprimentem eius naturam et potentiam: similiter de aliis. Et tunc propter non dicit causam exemplaritatis secundum rem, sed secundum rationem intelligendi. Et sic non notatur, quod Pater habet aliquid a Filio, sed quod intellectus noster aliquid cognoscit de Patre per hoc, quod cognoscit Filium.

Question III. By what reason unity is appropriated to the Father, equality to the Son, concord to the Holy Spirit.

Third, it is asked concerning the reason for the appropriation of the three aforesaid names.

1. And first concerning unity. And that it is not appropriable, it seems, since one and being are convertible¹; therefore [also] unity and essence; but essence is appropriable to none [of the persons]: therefore neither is unity.

2. Likewise, if it is appropriated, since the Holy Spirit is the unity of both, as Augustine says², it seems that it ought to be appropriated to the person of the Holy Spirit.

3. Likewise, [the same] is objected concerning equality, which is appropriated to the Son. For nothing is more indifferent in equal things than equality itself; but what is indifferent is not appropriable: therefore neither is equality appropriable.

4. Likewise, if it is appropriated, it ought to be appropriated to the Father, since equality is nothing other than the one or unity in quantity³; but unity is appropriated to the Father: therefore equality also.

5. Likewise, [the same] is objected concerning concord, which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. For if concord reduces many to unity, it seems rather to make of what is proper [something] common than of what is common [something] proper: therefore, if to appropriate is to make of what is common [something] proper, concord is appropriable to none.

6. Likewise, it seems that it ought to be appropriated to the Son, since the Son is our peace, who has made both one, [as is said] in [the letter] to the Ephesians, [chapter] two⁴. Likewise, [in the letter] to the Colossians, [chapter] one⁵: Making peace through the blood of his cross, whether the things on earth or the things in heaven.

7. Likewise, [the contrary] is objected against the reasoning of Augustine⁶: "All things equal on account of the Son etc."; therefore the Father is equal on account of the Son: therefore he has something from the Son, which is false. Likewise I ask: which cause does he mean by on account of [propter] — the efficient, or the final? Whichever of these he should mean, since the whole Trinity is the efficient [cause] and end of every thing, both unity, equality, and concord is on account of the Father, similarly on account of the Son: therefore there is no reason for appropriating.

Conclusion.

To unfold the order of the persons, unity is appropriated to the Father, equality to the Son, concord to the Holy Spirit.

I respond: It must be understood that, just as the appropriation of Hilary was for unfolding the origin of the persons, so this [other appropriation] is for unfolding [their] order.

Since therefore the person of the Father is first, before whom is no other, and which is not from another; therefore unity is appropriated to him, which is first in number, and before which there is nothing in number⁷.

To the arguments:

1. 2. From this is plain the response to the first two [arguments], since unity is here taken according to that account by which it expresses primacy, not the indivision of essence — since⁸ thus it is convertible with being — nor conformity of will — since thus it is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. But [it is appropriated to the Father] as first.

Likewise⁹, since the person of the Son according to the account of intellection is second and perfectly expressing the Father, and this makes equality: therefore equality, by reason of order, is first found in the Son. For then [equality] is first understood, when the Son is understood to be born.

3. 4. And from this the objection is plain. For that equality is appropriated [to the Son], this is not by reason of unity, but by reason of the first and perfect association. For equality is then first understood, when association is understood; and this is first understood in the Son, who is the second person.

Likewise, the person of the Holy Spirit according to the account of intellection is third; and concord posits two [things] that can be in concord, and also one that brings them into concord: therefore concord first begins where the third person is first understood to arise.

5. 6. And so is plain that [point], that concord is appropriated to someone not because it makes of what is common [something] proper¹⁰, but because it connects distinct [persons], and this according to the account of its emanation; which does not belong to the Son by reason of emanation, but by reason of mediation, since [he is] the mediator of God and of men¹¹. From these things all the objections are plain.

7. But to that which is asked last: "all things are one on account of the Father, all things equal on account of the Son¹²"; it must be said that, if all things be distributed for created things, then on account of [propter] expresses the formal exemplar cause according to reality and appropriation, since every equality has its exemplar in the equality of the Son, and so of the others¹³. But if it be distributed for created and uncreated [things], then on account of expresses the formal exemplar cause according to the account of intellection [as] appropriated; since our intellect does not understand equality in the Father except on account of this, that he has the Son expressing through all things his nature and power: similarly of the others. And then on account of does not express the cause of exemplarity according to reality, but according to the account of intellection. And thus it is not noted that the Father has something from the Son, but that our intellect knows something of the Father by this, that it knows the Son.