Bonaventure

DISTINCTIO XXXII.

Cap. I

Utrum Pater vel Filius ea dilectione diligant, quae procedit ab utroque, id est Spiritu sancto.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each entry gives the Quaracchi NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM editorial-content stream (right-column footer band) on printed pp. 553–556, in Latin followed by an English rendering. Per-page distribution: p. 553 = 2 entries (¹–²); p. 554 = 8 entries (³–¹⁰); p. 555 = 4 entries (¹¹–¹⁴); p. 556 = 1 entry (¹⁵). The parallel left-column text-critical band on Lombard's body text (variant readings: `Spiritu sancto`/`substantiam`/`concordibus`/`incongrue`/Hilary-quotation codex variants) is omitted by convention, matching the d8-littera and d37-littera precedent.

Hic oritur quaestio ex praedictis deducta. Dictum est enim supra¹ atque Sanctorum auctoritatibus ostensum, quod Spiritus sanctus est communio Patris et Filii et amor, quo Pater et Filius se invicem diligunt. Ideo quaeritur, utrum Pater vel Filius per Spiritum sanctum vel Spiritu sancto² diligat. Quod utique videtur oportere dici secundum auctoritates supra positas, quibus ostenditur, Spiritum sanctum esse quo genitus a gignente diligatur genitoremque suum diligat. Sed contra: si Pater vel Filius dicatur diligere per Spiritum sanctum, videtur esse per Spiritum sanctum, quia

non est aliud Deo esse et aliud diligere, sed idem; quia, ut ait Augustinus in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate³: «Quidquid secundum qualitates in illa simplici natura dici videtur, secundum essentiam est intelligendum», ut bonus, magnus, immortalis, sapiens, diligens et huiusmodi. Ideoque, si Pater vel Filius diligit per Spiritum sanctum, per ipsum Spiritum esse videtur. Neque tantum essentia sua diligit, sed etiam Dono. Huic quaestioni, cum altitudinem nimiae profunditatis contineat, id solum respondemus, quod Augustinus significare videtur, scilicet quod Pater et Filius se diligant et unitatem servent non solum essentia sua, sed suo dono proprio; quod licet supra⁴ positum sit, iterare tamen non piget, quia sic expedit. Ait ergo Augustinus in sexto libro de Trinitate⁵ ita: «Manifestum est, quod non aliquis duorum est, quo uterque coniungitur, quo genitus a gignente diligatur genitoremque suum diligat, sintque non participatione sed essentia sua, neque dono superioris alicuius, sed suo proprio servantes unitatem pacis⁶». Ecce hic dicit, quod essentia sua et Dono suo servant unitatem. Idem in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate⁷ ait: «In illa Trinitate, quis audeat dicere, Patrem nec se nec Filium nec Spiritum sanctum diligere nisi per Spiritum sanctum»? — Hic aperte ostendit, Patrem non tantum per Spiritum sanctum diligere; non autem simpliciter dicit, Patrem non diligere per Spiritum sanctum.

Cap. II

Utrum Pater sit sapiens sapientia, quam genuit.

Praeterea diligenter investigari oportet, utrum Pater sapiens sit sapientia, quam genuit, quae tantum Filius est. Quod videtur a simili posse probari. Si enim Pater diligit amore, qui ab ipso procedit, cur non et sapientia vel intelligentia, quam ipse genuit, sapit vel intelligit? — «Hanc quaestionem urgere videtur, ut ait Augustinus in septimo libro de Trinitate⁸, quod scripsit Apostolus dicens Christum, Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam, ubi quaeritur, utrum ita sit Pater sapientiae et virtutis suae, ut hac sapientia sapiens sit, quam genuit, et hac virtute potens, quam genuit. — Sed absit, ut ita sit; quia si hoc est ibi esse quod sapere, non per illam sapientiam, quam genuit, sapiens est Pater, alioquin non ipsa ab illo, sed ille ab ipsa est. Si enim sapientia, quam genuit, causa est illi, ut sapiens sit, etiam ut sit, ipsa illi causa est; quod fieri non potest, nisi gignendo eum aut faciendo; sed nec genitricem nec conditricem Patris ullo modo quisquam dixerit sapientiam. Quid enim est insanius? Ergo et Pater ipsa sapientia est, qua sapiens est; Filius vero dicitur sapientia Patris et virtus Patris, non quia Pater per eum sit sapiens vel potens, sed quia Filius, sapientia et virtus, est de Patre, sapientia et virtute». — Ex his ergo patet, quod Pater non est sapiens sapientia genita, sed se ipso sapientia ingenita.

Notula. Augustinus in libro Octoginta trium Quaestionum⁹: «Cum sapiens Deus dicitur et sapientia sapiens dicitur, sine qua eum vel fuisse aliquando vel esse posse, nefas est credere, non participatione sapientiae sapiens dicitur, sicut anima, quae et esse et non esse sapiens potest; sed quod ipse eam genuerit, qua sapiens dicitur sapientia». — Animadverte, lector, Patrem dici sapientem genita sapientia, quod aliis obviat testimoniis. Verum hoc Augustinus corrigit in libro primo Retractationum inquiens: «Dixi in libro Octoginta trium Quaestionum, quaestione vigesima tertia, quae est de Patre, quod eam genuit qua sapiens dicitur sapientiam; sed melius istam quaestionem in libro postea de Trinitate tractavi».

Post haec quaeri solet a quibusdam, utrum Filius sit sapiens sapientia genita, vel ingenita. Si enim non est sapiens sapientia genita, nec se ipso sapiens est; si vero sapientia genita sapiens est, non videtur esse sapiens sapientia ingenita; et ita non videtur esse sapiens a Patre, cum a Patre habeat omnia. — Responsio. Ad quod dicimus, quod una est sapientia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, sicut una essentia, quia sapientia in illius naturae simplicitate est essentia; et tamen Filius est tantum sapientia genita, et Pater tantum sapientia ingenita; et sapientia genita est de sapientia ingenita vel a sapientia ingenita. Et cum idem sit ibi esse quod sapientem esse, relinquitur, ut sapientia genita sit sapiens de sapientia ingenita. Non ergo Filius dicitur sapientia Dei, tanquam ipse solus sit intelligens vel sapiens sibi et Patri et Spiritui sancto; quia, ut ait Augustinus in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate¹⁰: «Si solus ibi Filius intelligit et sibi et Patri et Spiritui sancto, ad illam reditur absurditatem, ut Pater non sit sapiens de se ipso, sed de Filio, nec sapientia sapientiam genuerit, sed ea sapientia Pater dicatur sapiens esse, quam genuit. Ubi enim non est intelligentia, nec sapientia potest esse. Ideoque, si Pater non intelligit ipse sibi, sed Filius intelligit Patri, profecto Filius Patrem sapientem facit. Et si hoc est Deo esse quod sapere et ea illi essentia est quae sapientia; non Filius a Patre, quod verum est, sed a Filio potius Pater habet essentiam; quod absurdissimum atque falsissimum est. Est ergo Deus Pater sapiens ea quae ipse est sua sapientia; et Filius, sapientia Patris, est sapiens de sapientia, quae est Pater, de quo est genitus Filius. Ita et Pater est intelligens ea quae ipse est sua intelligentia. Non enim esset sapiens, qui non esset intelligens. Filius autem, intelligentia Patris, de intelligentia genitus est, quae est Pater, de qua intelligens est».

Epilogus. Proinde Pater est sapientia et Filius sapientia, et uterque una sapientia, et tamen solus Pater est ingenita sapientia, et Filius solus genita sapientia; nec tamen alia sapientia Pater, alia Filius, sed una eademque est:

sicut Pater est Deus ingenitus, et Filius est Deus genitus, neque Deus genitus est Deus ingenitus; non ideo tamen alius Deus est Pater, alius Filius, sed unus Deus uterque, non autem unus. Alius est enim genitus, alius ingenitus, sed non alius Deus, immo uterque unum sive unus Deus. Ita non est sapientia genita sapientia ingenita, sed alia est sapientia genita, alia ingenita; non est tamen alia sapientia, sed una eademque sapientia.

Cap. III

An Filius sit sapiens se ipso vel per se ipsum.

Ex praedictis constat, quod Filius non est sapiens a se neque de se, sed a Patre et de Patre. Quaeri autem solet, utrum Filius sit sapiens se ipso vel per se ipsum. — Opinio prima. Quidam dicunt, multiplicem hic fieri intelligentiam, et ideo distinguendum fore, ita ut, cum dicis Filium esse sapientem se ipso vel per se ipsum, si sui natura et essentia sapientem intelligas, verus sit intellectus; si vero a se ipso vel de se ipso sapientem esse intelligas, falsitati subiectam habes intelligentiam. — Opinio secunda. Alii vero simpliciter et absque determinatione concedunt huiusmodi locutiones: Filius est sapiens per se, sed non a se vel de se; et Filius est Deus per se et est per se, sed non a se vel de se; hoc confirmantes verbis Hilarii¹¹, qui Filium non a se, sed per se agere, in libro nono de Trinitate ait: «Naturae, inquit, cui contradicis, haeretice, haec unitas est, ut ita per se agat Filius, ne a se agat, et ita non a se agat, ut per se agat. Intellige Filium agentem, et per eum Patrem agentem. Non a se agit, cum Pater in eo manere monstratur; per se agit, cum secundum nativitatem Filii agit ipse quae placita sunt. Infirmus sit non a se agendo, nisi a Deo ipse agit; non sit vero in unitate naturae, si quae agit et in quibus placet non per se agit». Sicut ergo, inquiunt, Filius per se agit, sed non a se, ita Filius debet dici sapiens per se, sed non a se; sic et per se Deus est vel esse dicendus est, ut aiunt, sed non a se vel de se.

Cap. IV

An una tantum sit sapientia Patris.

Post haec a quibusdam solet quaeri, utrum una tantum sit sapientia Patris; quod non esse nituntur probare hoc modo: Filius, inquiunt, est sapientia Patris genita, qua Pater sapiens non est: est igitur aliqua sapientia Patris, qua sapiens non est; est autem et sapientia Patris ingenita, et ea Pater sapiens est: est ergo quaedam sapientia Patris, qua sapiens est, et ipsa non est illa sapientia Patris, qua Pater sapiens non est: non est ergo una tantum sapientia Patris. — Item, sapientia ingenita est sapientia Patris, et sapientia genita est sapientia Patris; non est autem sapientia ingenita sapientia genita: non est igitur una tantum sapientia Patris. — Improbatur. Haec et his similia tanquam sophistica et a veritate longinqua cunctisque in theologia peritis patentia abiicimus, responso¹² indigna advertentes, id tamen adiicientes, quia una est tantum sapientia Patris, sed non uno modo dicitur. Nam sapientia Patris dicitur illa quam genuit, et sapientia Patris dicitur ea qua sapiens est: diversa est ergo ratio dicti. Illa enim dicitur Patris, quia eam genuit; et ea dicitur Patris, quia ea sapit. Una est tamen sapientia Patris, quia sapientia genita est eadem sapientia et ea qua sapiens est, sive ea qua sapiens est intelligatur persona Patris, sive essentia Patris; quia persona Patris, quae intelligitur, cum dicitur sapientia ingenita, et persona Filii, quae significatur, cum dicitur sapientia genita, una eademque sapientia est, quae essentia divina intelligitur communis tribus personis.

Cap. V

Sicut in Trinitate est dilectio, quae est Trinitas, et tamen Spiritus sanctus est dilectio, quae non est Trinitas, nec ideo duae sunt dilectiones; ita et de sapientia. Et sicut in Trinitate dilectio est, quae est Pater, Filius et Spiritus sanctus, quae est ipsa essentia deitatis; et tamen Spiritus sanctus dilectio est, quae non est Pater vel Filius, nec ideo duae dilectiones sunt in Trinitate — quia dilectio, quae proprie Spiritus sanctus est, est dilectio, quae Trinitas est, non tamen ipsa Trinitas est; sicut Spiritus sanctus est essentia, quae Trinitas est, non tamen ipse¹³ Trinitas est — ita in Trinitate sapientia est, quae est Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, quae est essentia divina; et tamen Filius est sapientia, quae non est Pater vel Spiritus sanctus. Nec ideo duae sapientiae ibi sunt, quia sapientia, quae proprie est Filius, est sapientia, quae est Trinitas, ipsa tamen non est Trinitas; sicut Filius est essentia, quae est Trinitas, ipse tamen non est Trinitas.

Cap. VI

Quare Pater non dicitur sapiens sapientia genita, sicut dicitur diligens dilectione, quae ab ipso procedit.

Praeterea diligenter notandum est, quod ea ratione, qua Pater non dicitur sapiens esse sapientia, quam genuit, videtur fore dicendum, quod Pater non diligat Filium, vel Filius Patrem ea dilectione, quae ab utroque procedit, scilicet quae proprie Spiritus sanctus est. Sicut enim idem est Deo sapere quod esse, ita idem est ei diligere quod esse. Ideoque, sicut negatur Pater esse sapiens sapientia, quam genuit — quia si ea diceretur sapiens, non ipsa ab eo, sed ipse ab ea intelligeretur esse — ita videtur non debere concedi, quod Pater vel Filius diligat dilectione, quae tantum Spiritus sanctus est; quia si ea diligit Pater vel Filius, non Spiritus sanctus videtur esse a Patre et Filio, sed Pater et Filius a Spiritu sancto, quia idem est ibi diligere quod esse. — At supra dictum est atque auctoritate Augustini sancitum, «quod in Trinitate tria sunt: unus diligens eum qui de illo est, et unus diligens eum de quo est, et ipsa dilectio», «et non est aliquis duorum, quo genitus a gignente diligitur et genitorem suum diligit». Quibus verbis aperte significatur, Patrem Filium, et Filium Patrem diligere ea etiam¹⁴ dilectione, quae non est aliquis eorum, sed tantum Spiritus sanctus. Cum igitur idem sit ibi diligere quod esse, quomodo dicitur Pater vel Filius non esse ea dilectione, qua alter alterum diligit, cum ideo Pater negetur sapere sapientia, quam genuit, ne ea esse intelligatur?

Difficilis quaestio. Difficilem esse mihi fateor hanc quaestionem praecipue, cum ex praedictis oriatur, quae similem habere rationem videtur, quod meae intelligentiae attendens infirmitas turbatur, cupiens magis ex dictis Sanctorum referre quam afferre. «Optimus enim lector est, inquit Hilarius in primo libro de Trinitate¹⁵, qui dictorum intelligentiam exspectet ex dictis potius quam imponat, retulerit magis, quam attulerit, neque cogat id videri dictis contineri, quod ante lectionem praesumserit intelligendum. Cum igitur de rebus Dei sermo est, concedamus Deo sui cognitionem dictisque eius pia veneratione famulemur». — Quaestionem relinquit. Investiget ergo diligenter pius lector rationem dictorum, si forte dictorum aliquam valeat reperire causam, qua nota praemissa quaestio aliquatenus explicari valeat. Ego autem quaestionem non absolvens, sed errorem excludens profiteor, non ita dictum esse, Patrem diligere Filium, vel Filium Patrem ea dilectione, quae ab utroque procedit, quae non est aliquis eorum, sed tantum Spiritus sanctus, tanquam ea dilectione Pater sit vel Filius. Sed sic ea Pater diligit Filium, et Filius Patrem, ut etiam Pater per se ea quae ipse est dilectione diligat — sic et Filius — non autem sic, ut Pater per se non diligat et Filius, sed per eam tantum. «Quis haec in illa Trinitate, inquit Augustinus, opinari vel affirmare praesumat»? — Eam tamen quaestionem lectorum diligentiae plenius diiudicandam atque absolvendam relinquimus, ad hoc minus sufficientes.

---

DISTINCTION XXXII.

Chapter I

Whether the Father or the Son loves with that love which proceeds from both, that is, the Holy Spirit.

Here a question arises drawn from what has been said. For it has been said above¹ and shown by the authorities of the Saints that the Holy Spirit is the communion of the Father and the Son, and the love by which the Father and the Son love one another. Therefore it is asked whether the Father or the Son loves through the Holy Spirit or by the Holy Spirit². Which indeed seems necessary to be said according to the authorities placed above, by which it is shown that the Holy Spirit is that by whom the Begotten is loved by the Begetter, and loves His own Begetter. But on the contrary: if the Father or the Son is said to love through the Holy Spirit, it seems to be through the Holy Spirit, because

it is not one thing for God to be and another to love, but the same; because, as Augustine says in the fifteenth book On the Trinity³: "Whatever seems to be said according to qualities in that simple nature is to be understood according to essence" — such as good, great, immortal, wise, loving, and the like. Therefore, if the Father or the Son loves through the Holy Spirit, He seems to be through the very Spirit. Nor does He love by His essence alone, but also by the Gift. To this question, since it contains the height of an excessive depth, we respond only this much, which Augustine seems to signify: namely, that the Father and the Son love one another and preserve unity not only by their essence but by their own proper Gift; which, although it has been set down above⁴, it is not irksome to repeat, because it is so expedient. Augustine says, then, in the sixth book On the Trinity⁵ thus: "It is manifest that He is not someone of the two by whom each is conjoined, by whom the Begotten is loved by the Begetter, and loves His Begetter, and that they are not by participation but by their own essence, nor by the gift of any superior, but by their own proper [gift] preserving the unity of peace⁶." Behold, here he says that they preserve unity by their essence and by their Gift. The same in the fifteenth book On the Trinity⁷ says: "In that Trinity, who would dare to say that the Father loves neither Himself, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit except through the Holy Spirit?" — Here he plainly shows that the Father does not love only through the Holy Spirit; but he does not say simply that the Father does not love through the Holy Spirit.

Chapter II

Whether the Father is wise with the wisdom He begot.

It must furthermore be diligently investigated whether the Father is wise with the wisdom He begot, which is only the Son. This seems to be capable of proof from a parallel. For if the Father loves with the love which proceeds from Him, why does He not also know or understand with the wisdom or intelligence which He Himself begot? — "This question seems to press upon us, as Augustine says in the seventh book On the Trinity⁸, from what the Apostle wrote calling Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, where it is asked whether the Father stands so to His own wisdom and power that He is wise with this wisdom which He begot, and powerful with this power which He begot. — But far be it that it should be so; because if it is the same thing there to be as to know, then the Father is not wise through that wisdom which He begot — otherwise she is not from him, but he from her. For if the wisdom He begot is the cause to Him of being wise, it is also the cause to Him of being; which cannot happen unless by begetting Him or making Him; but no one would in any way call wisdom the begetter or maker of the Father. For what is more insane? Therefore the Father Himself is the very wisdom by which He is wise; but the Son is called the wisdom of the Father and the power of the Father, not because the Father is wise or powerful through Him, but because the Son, [being] wisdom and power, is from the Father, [who is] wisdom and power." — From these things therefore it is clear that the Father is not wise with begotten wisdom, but by Himself, with unbegotten wisdom.

Notula. Augustine in the book Of Eighty-three Questions⁹: "When God is called wise, and Wisdom is called wise, without which it is impious to believe that He could ever have been or could be, He is not called wise by participation of wisdom — as a soul, which both can and cannot be wise — but [He is called wise] because He Himself begot her, by whom He is called wise — [who is] wisdom." — Take note, reader, that the Father is said to be wise with begotten wisdom, which conflicts with other testimonies. But Augustine corrects this in the first book of the Retractations, saying: "I said in the book Of Eighty-three Questions, in question twenty-three, which is about the Father, that He begot her by whom He is called wise — wisdom; but I treated this question better in the book afterwards On the Trinity."

After this it is wont to be asked by some whether the Son is wise with begotten or unbegotten wisdom. For if He is not wise with begotten wisdom, then He is not wise by Himself; but if He is wise with begotten wisdom, He does not seem to be wise with unbegotten wisdom; and so He does not seem to be wise from the Father, although He has all things from the Father. — Response. To which we say that there is one wisdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, just as there is one essence, because in the simplicity of that nature wisdom is essence; and yet the Son is only begotten wisdom, and the Father is only unbegotten wisdom; and begotten wisdom is from unbegotten wisdom or by unbegotten wisdom. And since to be there is the same as to be wise, it remains that begotten wisdom is wise from unbegotten wisdom. Therefore the Son is not called the Wisdom of God as though He alone is the one understanding or knowing for Himself and for the Father and for the Holy Spirit; because, as Augustine says in the fifteenth book On the Trinity¹⁰: "If only the Son there understands both for Himself and for the Father and for the Holy Spirit, one returns to that absurdity that the Father is not wise from Himself, but from the Son; nor did wisdom beget wisdom, but the Father is said to be wise with that wisdom which He begot. For where there is no understanding, neither can there be wisdom. And so, if the Father does not understand for Himself, but the Son understands for the Father, then the Son surely makes the Father wise. And if for God to be is the same as to know, and the same essence is to Him which is wisdom, then not the Son from the Father — which is true — but rather the Father from the Son has His essence; which is most absurd and most false. Therefore God the Father is wise with that which He Himself is, His own wisdom; and the Son, the wisdom of the Father, is wise from the wisdom which is the Father, from whom the Son is begotten. So too the Father is understanding with that which He Himself is, His own intelligence. For He would not be wise who was not understanding. But the Son, the intelligence of the Father, is begotten of the intelligence which is the Father, of which He is understanding."

Epilogue. Accordingly the Father is wisdom and the Son is wisdom, and each is one wisdom, and yet only the Father is unbegotten wisdom, and only the Son is begotten wisdom; nor for that reason is the Father one wisdom and the Son another, but it is one and the same:

just as the Father is unbegotten God, and the Son is begotten God — neither is begotten God unbegotten God; nor for that reason, however, is the Father one God and the Son another, but each is one God, though not one [person]. For [one is] begotten and [the other] unbegotten, but not one God [is one thing] and another [another thing], rather each is one or one God. So begotten wisdom is not unbegotten wisdom, but begotten wisdom is one thing and unbegotten another; yet there is not another wisdom, but one and the same wisdom.

Chapter III

Whether the Son is wise by Himself or through Himself.

From what has been said it is clear that the Son is not wise from Himself or of Himself, but from the Father and of the Father. But it is wont to be asked whether the Son is wise by Himself or through Himself. — First opinion. Some say that a manifold understanding arises here, and that therefore a distinction must be made: so that when you say that the Son is wise by Himself or through Himself, if you understand Him to be wise by His own nature and essence, the understanding is true; but if you understand Him to be wise from Himself or of Himself, your understanding is subject to falsity. — Second opinion. Others, however, simply and without qualification grant such expressions: the Son is wise through Himself, but not from Himself or of Himself; and the Son is God through Himself and is through Himself, but not from Himself or of Himself; confirming this from the words of Hilary¹¹, who says, in book nine On the Trinity, that the Son acts not from Himself but through Himself: "There belongs to the nature, [Hilary] says, which you contradict, heretic, this unity, that the Son so acts through Himself that He does not act from Himself, and so does not act from Himself that He may act through Himself. Understand the Son to be acting, and the Father to be acting through Him. He does not act from Himself, since the Father is shown to remain in Him; He acts through Himself, since according to the nativity of the Son He Himself does what is pleasing. Let Him be weak by not acting from Himself, unless God Himself acts; but let Him not be in unity of nature, if what He acts and in what He pleases He does not act through Himself." Just as therefore — they say — the Son acts through Himself but not from Himself, so the Son must be called wise through Himself, but not from Himself; and so He is or must be said to be God through Himself, as they say, but not from Himself or of Himself.

Chapter IV

Whether there is only one wisdom of the Father.

After this it is wont to be asked by some whether there is only one wisdom of the Father; which they strive to prove not to be so in this way: the Son, they say, is the begotten wisdom of the Father, by which the Father is not wise: there is therefore some wisdom of the Father by which He is not wise; but there is also unbegotten wisdom of the Father, and by it the Father is wise: there is therefore a certain wisdom of the Father by which He is wise, and it is not that wisdom of the Father by which the Father is not wise: therefore there is not only one wisdom of the Father. — Likewise, the unbegotten wisdom is the wisdom of the Father, and the begotten wisdom is the wisdom of the Father; but the unbegotten wisdom is not the begotten wisdom: therefore there is not only one wisdom of the Father. — It is refuted. These and like things, as sophistical and far from the truth and obvious to all those skilled in theology, we cast aside, judging them unworthy of a reply¹², adding nevertheless this: that there is only one wisdom of the Father, but it is not said in one mode. For the wisdom of the Father is said to be that which He begot, and the wisdom of the Father is said to be that by which He is wise: the ratio of the saying is therefore diverse. For the former is called the Father's because He begot her; and the latter is called the Father's because by it He is wise. There is, however, one wisdom of the Father, because the begotten wisdom is the same wisdom and the very [wisdom] by which He is wise — whether the [wisdom] by which He is wise be understood as the person of the Father, or as the essence of the Father; because the person of the Father, which is understood when unbegotten wisdom is said, and the person of the Son, which is signified when begotten wisdom is said, are one and the same wisdom, which is understood as the divine essence common to the three persons.

Chapter V

Just as in the Trinity there is the love which is the Trinity, and yet the Holy Spirit is the love which is not the Trinity, nor for that reason are there two loves; so also concerning wisdom. And just as in the Trinity there is the love which is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is the very essence of deity; and yet the Holy Spirit is the love which is not the Father or the Son, nor for that reason are there two loves in the Trinity — because the love which is properly the Holy Spirit is the love which is the Trinity, but is not the Trinity itself; just as the Holy Spirit is the essence which is the Trinity, but is not Himself¹³ the Trinity — so in the Trinity there is the wisdom which is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is the divine essence; and yet the Son is the wisdom which is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. Nor for that reason are there two wisdoms there, because the wisdom which is properly the Son is the wisdom which is the Trinity, but it itself is not the Trinity; just as the Son is the essence which is the Trinity, but He Himself is not the Trinity.

Chapter VI

Why the Father is not said to be wise with begotten wisdom, just as He is said to be loving with the love which proceeds from Him.

Furthermore, it must be diligently noted that, by the same reasoning by which the Father is not said to be wise with the wisdom He begot, it would seem to be said that the Father does not love the Son, nor the Son the Father, with that love which proceeds from both — namely, that which properly is the Holy Spirit. For just as for God to know is the same as to be, so for Him to love is the same as to be. And therefore, just as the Father is denied to be wise with the wisdom He begot — because if He were said to be wise with her, she would not be understood to be from him, but he from her — so it seems that it ought not to be granted that the Father or the Son loves with that love which is only the Holy Spirit; because if the Father or the Son loves with her, the Holy Spirit does not seem to be from the Father and the Son, but the Father and the Son [seem to be] from the Holy Spirit, since to love there is the same as to be. — But it has been said above and confirmed by the authority of Augustine "that in the Trinity there are three: one loving Him who is from Him, and one loving Him from whom He is, and the love itself," "and there is none of the two by whom the Begotten is loved by the Begetter and loves His Begetter." By which words it is openly signified that the Father loves the Son, and the Son the Father, also¹⁴ with that love which is none of them but only the Holy Spirit. Since therefore there to love is the same as to be, how is the Father or the Son said not to be that love by which one loves the other, when for that very reason the Father is denied to know with the wisdom which He begot — lest He be understood to be by her?

A difficult question. I confess this question to be especially difficult to me, since it arises from what has been said, [a question] which seems to have a similar ratio; so that the weakness of my understanding, attending to this, is troubled, desiring rather to report than to bring forward from the sayings of the Saints. "For the best reader, says Hilary in the first book On the Trinity¹⁵, is he who awaits the understanding of words from the words rather than imposes [it], who has reported rather than brought, and does not compel that to seem to be contained in the words which he had presumed before reading was to be understood. When therefore the speech is about things of God, let us grant to God the knowledge of Himself, and let us serve His words with pious veneration." — He leaves the question. Let the pious reader therefore diligently investigate the ratio of the words, if perchance he can find some cause for the words by which, having been noted, the foregoing question may to some extent be explained. But I, not absolving the question but excluding error, profess that it is not so said that the Father loves the Son, or the Son the Father, with that love which proceeds from both — which is none of them but only the Holy Spirit — as though the Father or the Son were [constituted] by that love. But the Father so loves the Son with her, and the Son the Father, that even the Father loves through Himself, with that love which He Himself is — and so too the Son — yet not in such a way that the Father does not love through Himself, and the Son [does not] either, but only through her. "Who," says Augustine, "would presume to opine or affirm these things in that Trinity?" — Yet we leave that question to the diligence of readers to be more fully judged and resolved, being for this purpose less than sufficient.

---