Bonaventure

DISTINCTIO XXXIV.

Cap. I.

De verbis Hilarii, quibus secundum primorum intelligentiam videtur dicere, non idem esse divinam naturam et rem naturae, et non idem esse Deum et quod Dei est.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each entry gives the Quaracchi critical apparatus (Notae ad Libr. Sententiarum, reflowed from the two-column footer band on printed pp. 582–584) in Latin, followed by an English rendering.

Praedictis est adiiciendum, quod quidam perversi sensus homines in tantam prosilierunt insaniam, ut dicerent, non idem esse naturam Dei et personam sive hypostasim, dicentes, eandem essentiam non posse esse Patrem et Filium sine personarum confusione. Si enim, inquiunt, ea essentia, quae Pater est, Filius est, idem sibi Pater est et Filius. Si hanc rem dicis esse Patrem, aliam quaere, quam dicas esse Filium. Si vero aliam non quaesieris, sed eandem dixeris; idem genuit et genitus est. Propter haec et huiusmodi inter naturam et personam dividunt, ita ut non recipiant unam deitatis naturam et simplicem esse tres personas. Idque testimonio Hilarii defendere nituntur, qui in octavo libro de Trinitate¹ quaerens, utrum Apostolus, nominans spiritum Dei et spiritum Christi, idem significaverit utroque verbo, inquit ita: « Gentium praedicator, volens naturae unitatem in Patre et Filio docere, ait: Spiritus Dei in vobis est. Si quis autem spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius. Si autem spiritus eius, qui suscitavit Iesum etc. Spirituales omnes sumus, si in nobis est spiritus Dei; sed et hic spiritus Dei est et spiritus Christi. Et cum Christi spiritus in nobis est, eius spiritus in nobis est, qui suscitavit Christum. Et cum eius qui suscitavit Christum in nobis est spiritus, et spiritus in nobis est Christi; nec tamen non Dei est spiritus, qui in nobis est. Discerne igitur, haeretice, spiritum Christi a spiritu Dei, et excitati a mortuis spiritum Christi a spiritu Dei Christum a mortuis excitantis; cum qui habitat in nobis spiritus Christi spiritus Dei sit, et spiritus Christi a mortuis excitati spiritus Dei tantum sit Christum a mortuis excitantis. Et quaero nunc, in spiritu Dei utrum naturam, an rem naturae significatam existimes. Non est enim idem natura quod res naturae, sicut non idem est homo et quod hominis est; nec idem est ignis et quod ipsius ignis est: et secundum hoc non idem est Deus et quod Dei est ». — Huius dicti occasione praefati haeretici dogmatizaverunt, non idem esse personam et naturam Dei, asserentes, naturam Dei non esse tres personas, intelligentes in his praemissis verbis Hilarii per rem naturae personam, et nomine naturae divinam naturam. Et ideo dicunt, Hilarium interrogasse haereticum, utrum per spiritum Dei putaret significatam esse naturam, an rem naturae, ut sic ostenderet, distinguendum esse inter naturam et rem naturae, id est personam.

Hoc quidem dicunt, non intelligentes² pia diligentia Scripturae circumstantiam, qua considerata, percipi potest, quomodo praemissa dixerit Hilarius. Subsequenter enim in eadem serie ostendit, in spiritu Dei aliquando significari Patrem, ut cum dicitur³: Spiritus Domini super me; aliquando significari Filium, ut cum dicitur: In spiritu Dei eiicio daemonia, naturae suae potestate se daemones eiicere demonstrans; aliquando Spiritum sanctum, ut ibi: Effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem. Quod dicit consummatum fuisse, cum Apostoli, Spiritu sancto misso, omnibus linguis locuti sunt. Deinde, quare hanc distinctionem fecerit, et quod in superioribus verbis Apostoli idem Spiritus significatus sit, et quod ipse sit res unius naturae Patris et Filii, aperte ostendit inquiens ita⁴: « Haec idcirco sunt demonstrata, ut quacumque parte haeretica falsitas se contulisset, finibus veritatis concluderetur. Habitat enim in nobis Christus, quo habitante habitat Deus, et cum habitat in nobis spiritus Christi, non alius tamen⁵ habitat quam spiritus Dei. Quodsi per Spiritum sanctum Christus in nobis intelligitur esse, hunc tamen ita spiritum Dei ut spiritum Christi esse noscendum est. Et cum per naturam Dei natura ipsa habitet in nobis, indifferens natura Filii creditur esse a Patre, cum Spiritus sanctus, qui est spiritus Christi, et Spiritus Dei res naturae demonstretur unius. Quaero nunc igitur, quomodo non ex natura unum sunt. A Patre procedit Spiritus veritatis, a Filio mittitur et a Filio accipit. Sed omnia quae habet Pater, Filii sunt, et idcirco qui ab eo accipit Dei spiritus est, et idem spiritus Christi est. Res naturae Filii est, sed et eadem res et naturae Patris est, et Dei excitantis Christum a mortuis spiritus est, et idem spiritus Christi est a mortuis excitati. In aliquo differt Christi et Dei natura, ne eadem sit, si praestari potest, ut spiritus, qui Dei est, non sit et Christi ». « Est ergo in nobis spiritus Dei, et est in nobis spiritus Christi; et cum spiritus Christi inest, inest spiritus Dei. Ita cum quod Dei est et Christi est, et quod Christi est Dei est; non potest quid aliud diversum Christus esse, quam Deus est. Deus igitur Christus est unus cum Deo spiritus », « se-

cundum illud: Ego et Pater unum sumus. In quo docet Veritas, unitatem esse naturae, non solitudinem unionis⁶ ». — Ecce, si haec verba diligenter attendas, invenis, Spiritum sanctum rem naturae dici Patris et Filii, et eundem dici esse naturam Dei, ubi dicitur: per naturam Dei natura ipsa habitat in nobis, si per Spiritum sanctum Christus est in nobis. Itaque in Trinitate non ita distinguendum est inter naturam et rem naturae, sicut in rebus creatis, quia, ut ait Hilarius⁷: « comparatio terrenorum ad Deum nulla est; et si qua comparationum exempla interdum afferuntur, nemo ea existimet absolute in se rationis perfectionem continere ». « Non enim humano sensu de Deo loquendum est ».

Ad naturam ergo rerum creatarum respiciens inquit⁸: « Non idem est natura quod res naturae », subiiciens exempla de ipsis creaturis. Inde ostendens, errorem esse, sub mensura creaturarum metiri Creatorem, addit: Et secundum hoc « non idem est Deus, et quod Dei est », ac si diceret: si ad instar creaturarum de Creatore sentis, cogeris fateri, quia non idem est Deus et quod Dei est; quod dicere impium est, cum Spiritus Dei Deus sit, et Dei Filius sit Deus.

Non ergo secundum corporales modos, ut in eadem serie subdit, accipienda sunt haec quae de Deo dicuntur. Ubi evacuans opinionem eorum qui ita putant aliud esse Deum, et aliud quod Dei est⁹, aliudque naturam Dei et rem naturae, ut est in creaturis, aperte docet, non aliud esse Deum et quae sua sunt, ita ut insint illi, sic dicens¹⁰: « Homo aut aliquid ei simile, cum alicubi erit, alibi non erit, quia id quod est illic continetur, ubi fuerit in forma, ut non ubique sit qui insistens alicubi sit. Deus autem immensae virtutis, vivens potestas, quae nusquam non adsit nec desit usquam, se omnem per sua edocet, et sua non aliud quam se esse significat, ut ubi sua insint, ipse esse per sua intelligatur. Non autem corporali modo, cum alicubi sit, non etiam ubique esse credatur, cum per sua in omnibus esse non desinat. Non aliud autem sint, quam quod est ipse, quae sua sunt. Et haec propter naturae intelligentiam dicta sunt ». His verbis aperte significat — si tamen intelligis, haeretice — quia divina natura non aliud est ab his quae sua sunt, ita ut insint, et per illa in omnibus est suis, quae non insunt. Sua enim sunt etiam quae non insunt, id est omnes creaturae; et sua sunt quae insunt, ut tres personae, quae sunt eiusdem naturae et eadem natura, sicut supra Augustini¹¹ testimonio firmavimus dicentis: tres personas esse eiusdem essentiae vel eandem essentiam, sed non ex eadem essentia, ne aliud intelligatur essentia, aliud persona. — Non tamen diffitemur aliquam distinctionem habendam fore secundum intelligentiae rationem, cum dicitur hypostasis, et cum dicitur essentia; quia ibi significatur quod est commune tribus, hic vero non. Est tamen hypostasis essentia, et e converso. Fateamur ergo unum atque idem esse, tres personas secundum essentiam, differentes autem proprietatibus. Unde Augustinus super locum praetaxatum Psalmi¹² ait: « Quaeris, quid sit Pater? Respondetur: Deus. Quaeris, quid sit Filius? Respondetur: Deus. Quaeris, quid sit Pater et Filius? Respondetur: Deus. De singulis interrogatus, Deum responde. De utroque interrogatus, non deos, sed Deum responde. Non sic in hominibus. Tanta enim ibi est substantiae unitas, ut aequalitatem admittat, pluralitatem non admittat. Si ergo tibi dictum fuerit, cum dicis, Filium esse quod Pater est: profecto Filius Pater est; responde: secundum substantiam tibi dixi hoc esse Filium quod Pater est, non secundum id quod ad aliud dicitur. Ad se enim dicitur Deus, ad Patrem Filius dicitur. Rursumque Pater ad se dicitur Deus, ad Filium dicitur Pater. Quod dicitur ad Filium Pater, non est Filius; quod dicitur Filius ad Patrem non est Pater; quod dicitur Pater ad se et Filius ad se, hoc est Pater et Filius, id est Deus ».

Cap. II.

Utrum ita possit dici unus Deus trium personarum, ut dicitur una essentia trium personarum, et tres personae unius Dei, ut tres personae unius essentiae.

Hic considerandum est, cum Deus sit divina essentia, et ita dicatur unus Deus esse tres personae sicut una essentia dicitur tres personae, utrum ita valeat sane dici, unus Deus trium personarum, vel tres personae unius Dei, sicut dicitur una essentia trium personarum, et tres personae unius essentiae. — In his locutionibus Scripturae usus nobis aemulandus videtur, ubi frequenter reperitur ita dictum: una est essentia trium personarum, et tres sunt personae unius essentiae; nusquam autem occurrit legisse, unum Deum trium personarum¹³, vel tres personas unius Dei. Quod ideo puto sanctos doctores vitasse, ne ita forte acciperetur in divinis personis, ut accipitur, cum de creaturis simile quid dicitur. Dicitur enim Deus Abraham, Isaac et Iacob¹⁴, et Deus omnis creaturae. Quod utique dicitur propter principium creationis vel gratiae¹⁵ privilegium, et creaturae subiectionem vel servitutem. Cum ergo in Trinitate nihil sit creatum vel serviens vel subiectum, non admisit fides in Trinitate talem

locutionis modum. Ita etiam e converso non dicitur de Dei essentia, quod ipsa sit essentia Abraham, Isaac et Iacob vel alicuius creaturae, ne Creatoris et creaturae naturam confundere videamur.

Cap. III.

Quod potentia, sapientia, bonitas in Scriptura interdum ad personas distincte referuntur.

Ex praedictis¹⁶ constat, quod sicut essentia, ita potentia, sapientia, bonitas de Deo dicuntur secundum substantiam. Quae autem secundum substantiam de Deo dicuntur tribus personis pariter conveniunt. Una est ergo potentia, sapientia, bonitas Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, et hi tres eadem potentia, eadem sapientia, eadem bonitas. Unde aperitur in Trinitate summa esse perfectio. Si enim ibi deesset potentia vel sapientia vel bonitas, non esset summum bonum. Sed quia ibi est perfecta potentia, infinita sapientia, incomprehensibilis bonitas, recte dicitur et creditur summum bonum. Cumque unum et idem penitus sit in Deo potentia, sapientia, bonitas; in sacra tamen Scriptura frequenter solent haec nomina distincte ad personas referri, ut Patri potentia, Filio sapientia, Spiritui sancto bonitas attribuatur. Quod quare fiat, non est otiosum inquirere.

Cap. IV.

Quare Patri potentia, Filio sapientia, Spiritui sancto bonitas tribuatur, cum sit una potentia, sapientia, bonitas trium.

«Id ergo sacri eloquii prudentia facere curavit, ne Dei immensitatem similitudine creaturae metiremur¹⁷. Dicit enim Scriptura sacra, quia Deus Pater est, et quod Deus Filius est; et audivit hoc homo, qui hominem patrem viderat, Deum patrem non viderat, et cogitare coepit, ita esse in Creatore, ut viderat esse in creaturis, a quibus haec nomina translata sunt ad Creatorem, in quibus pater est prior filio, filius est posterior patre, et ex antiquitate in patre defectus, ex posteritate in filio imperfectio sensus solet notari. Ideo occurrit Scriptura dicens Patrem potentem, ne videatur prior Filio, et ideo minus potens, et Filium sapientem, ne videatur posterior Patre, et ideo minus sapiens¹⁸ ». « Dictus est etiam Spiritus sanctus Deus et dictus est habere spiritum Deus; et videbatur hoc quasi nomen inflationis et tumoris — unde humana conscientia ad Deum pro rigore et crudelitate accedere metuit — Ideo Scriptura temperavit sermonem suum spiritum bonum nominans, ne crudelis putaretur qui mitis erat; non quod Pater solus sit potens vel magis potens, et Filius solus sapiens vel magis sapiens, et Spiritus sanctus solus bonus vel magis bonus. Una est ergo potentia, sapientia, una bonitas trium, sicut essentia; ideoque, sicut dicitur Filius homoousios, id est consubstantialis Patri, ita et coomnipotens ».

Cap. V.

De hoc nomine homoousion, ubi in auctoritate receptum sit, et quid significet.

Hic non est praetermittendum, quod Augustinus in libro secundo¹⁹ contra Maximinum dicit de hoc nomine homoousion, quo Latini tractatores frequenter utuntur. « Pater, inquit, et Filius unius sunt eiusdemque substantiae. Hoc est illud homoousion, quod in Concilio Nicaeno adversus haereticos Arianos a catholicis Patribus veritatis auctoritate firmatum est; quod postea in Concilio Ariminensi, propter novitatem verbi, minus quam potuit intellectum — quam tamen fides antiqua pepererat — multis paucorum fraude deceptis haeretica impietas sub haeretico imperatore Constantio labefactare tentavit. Sed post non longum tempus libertate fidei catholicae praevalente, postquam vis verbi, sicut debuit, intellecta est, homoousion illud catholicae fidei sanitate longe lateque defensum est et diffusum. Quid enim est homoousion nisi unius eiusdemque substantiae? Quid est, inquam, homoousion nisi Ego et Pater unum sumus? Non ergo inter profanas vocum novitates hoc vitandum est ».

Praeterea sciendum est, quod in assignatione distinctionis nominum inter alia, quae supra diligenter executi sumus, quaedam diximus²⁰ translative ac per similitudinem de Deo dici, ut speculum, splendor, character, figura et huiusmodi. De quibus pio lectori breviter trado quod sentio, ut scilicet, ratione similitudinis considerata, ex causis dicendi dictorum intelligentiam assumat, sed catholicam.

De sacramento Unitatis atque Trinitatis summae et ineffabilis multa iam diximus. Nihil tamen eius ineffabilitate dignum tradidisse profitemur, sed potius ex nobis mirificatam²¹ eius scientiam, nec potuisse nos ad illam pervenire.

---

DISTINCTION XXXIV.

Chapter I.

On the words of Hilary, by which, according to the understanding of certain earlier ones, he seems to say that the divine nature and the thing-of-the-nature are not the same, and that God and what is of God are not the same.

It must be added to what has been said above, that certain men of perverse sense leapt forth into such great madness as to say that the nature of God and person — or hypostasis — are not the same, asserting that the same essence cannot be Father and Son without confusion of the persons. For if, they say, that essence which is Father is Son, then Father and Son are the same to themselves. If you say that this thing is Father, seek another which you may say is Son. But if you do not seek another, but say it is the same, then the same has begotten and has been begotten. On account of these and the like things, they divide between nature and person, so that they do not accept the deity to be one nature and the three persons to be simple. And they strive to defend this on the testimony of Hilary, who in the eighth book On the Trinity¹, asking whether the Apostle, naming the spirit of God and the spirit of Christ, signified the same by both expressions, speaks thus: "The preacher of the Gentiles, wishing to teach the unity of nature in Father and Son, says: The Spirit of God is in you. But if any one have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus, etc. We are all spiritual, if the Spirit of God is in us; but this same Spirit is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. And when the Spirit of Christ is in us, His Spirit is in us, who raised up Christ. And when the Spirit of him who raised up Christ is in us, the Spirit of Christ is in us; nor yet is the Spirit who is in us not God's. Distinguish therefore, heretic, the Spirit of Christ from the Spirit of God, and [distinguish] the Spirit of Christ raised from the dead from the Spirit of God who raised Christ from the dead; since the Spirit who dwells in us, the Spirit of Christ, is the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ raised from the dead is only the Spirit of God who raised Christ from the dead. And I now ask, by the spirit of God whether you reckon nature, or thing-of-the-nature, to be signified. For nature is not the same as thing-of-the-nature, just as a man and what is of man are not the same; nor is fire the same as what is of fire itself: and according to this God and what is of God are not the same." — Taking occasion from this saying, the aforesaid heretics laid down as dogma that person and nature of God are not the same, asserting that the nature of God is not three persons, understanding in these aforesaid words of Hilary by thing-of-the-nature the person, and by the name nature the divine nature. And therefore they say that Hilary asked the heretic whether by the spirit of God he reckoned nature, or thing-of-the-nature, to be signified, that he might thus show that one must distinguish between nature and thing-of-the-nature, that is, person.

This indeed they say, not understanding² with pious diligence the circumstance of the Scripture; which once considered, it can be perceived how Hilary said the things above. For subsequently in the same passage he shows that by the spirit of God sometimes the Father is signified, as when it is said³: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; sometimes the Son is signified, as when it is said: In the spirit of God I cast out demons, demonstrating that He casts out demons by the power of His own nature; sometimes the Holy Spirit, as where: I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh. Which He says was fulfilled when the Apostles, the Holy Spirit having been sent, spoke in all tongues. Then, why he made this distinction, and that in the words above of the Apostle the same Spirit is signified, and that He Himself is the thing of the one nature of Father and Son, he plainly shows by speaking thus⁴: "These things have been demonstrated for this reason, that on whatever side heretical falsity should betake itself, it might be enclosed by the boundaries of truth. For Christ dwells in us; with Him dwelling, God dwells; and when the Spirit of Christ dwells in us, no other dwells⁵ than the Spirit of God. But if through the Holy Spirit Christ is understood to be in us, yet He is to be known as the Spirit of God just as the Spirit of Christ. And since through the nature of God the same nature dwells in us, the nature of the Son is believed to be undifferentiated from the Father, since the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God, is shown to be the thing of one nature. I ask now, then, how they are not one out of nature. From the Father proceeds the Spirit of truth, by the Son He is sent, and from the Son He receives. But all things which the Father has are the Son's, and therefore he who receives from Him is the Spirit of God, and is the same Spirit of Christ. He is the thing of the nature of the Son, but the same thing is also of the nature of the Father, and is the Spirit of God who raised up Christ from the dead, and the same is the Spirit of Christ raised from the dead. In something the nature of Christ and of God differ — lest it be the same — if it can be brought about, that the Spirit who is of God should not also be of Christ." "There is therefore in us the Spirit of God, and there is in us the Spirit of Christ; and when the Spirit of Christ is within, the Spirit of God is within. Thus, since what is of God is also of Christ, and what is of Christ is of God, Christ cannot be anything diverse, other than what God is. Therefore Christ is God, one Spirit with God,"

"according to that: I and the Father are one. By which Truth teaches that the unity is of nature, not the solitude of union⁶." — Behold, if you carefully attend to these words, you will find that the Holy Spirit is called the thing of the nature of Father and Son, and that the same is said to be the nature of God, where it is said: through the nature of God the same nature dwells in us, if through the Holy Spirit Christ is in us. Therefore in the Trinity one must not so distinguish between nature and thing-of-the-nature as in created things, since, as Hilary says⁷: "the comparison of earthly things to God is null; and if any examples of comparisons are sometimes brought forward, let no one judge that they contain in themselves absolutely the perfection of the reasoning." "For one must not speak of God by human sense."

Looking therefore at the nature of created things, he says⁸: "Nature is not the same as thing-of-the-nature," subjoining examples from the very creatures. Then, showing that it is an error to measure the Creator by the measure of creatures, he adds: And according to this "God and what is of God are not the same," as if he were saying: if you have a sense of the Creator on the model of creatures, you are forced to confess that God and what is of God are not the same; which to say is impious, since the Spirit of God is God, and the Son of God is God.

Therefore these things which are said of God are not to be received in bodily ways, as he subjoins in the same passage. There, evacuating the opinion of those who so think that God is one thing, and what is of God is another⁹, and the nature of God one thing and the thing-of-the-nature another, as is the case in creatures, he plainly teaches that God is not other than the things which are His, in such a way that they are in Him, speaking thus¹⁰: "Man, or anything like him, when he is in some place, will not be elsewhere, since that which is is contained there, where he was in form, so that he is not everywhere who, while standing somewhere, is. But God of immeasurable strength, a living power, which is nowhere not present, nor anywhere lacking, teaches Himself wholly through what are His, and signifies that what are His are not other than Himself, so that, where what are His are within, He Himself is understood to be through what are His. Yet not in a corporeal mode — when He is somewhere, that He should not also be believed to be everywhere — since through what are His He does not cease to be in all things. Nor are what are His other than what He Himself is. And these things have been said for the sake of an understanding of the nature." By these words he plainly signifies — if at least you understand, heretic — that the divine nature is not other than these things which are His, in such a way that they are in [Him]; and through them He is in all His things which are not in [Him]. For His are also those things which are not in Him, that is, all creatures; and His are those things which are in Him, namely the three persons, who are of the same nature and are the same nature, just as we above confirmed by the testimony of Augustine¹¹, who says: that the three persons are of the same essence, or the same essence — but not from the same essence — lest one thing be understood by essence, another by person. — Yet we do not deny that some distinction must be held according to the manner of understanding, when one says hypostasis and when one says essence; for in the latter is signified that which is common to the three, in the former not. Yet hypostasis is essence, and conversely. Let us therefore confess that to be one and the same — three persons according to essence, but differing in their properties. Whence Augustine, on the place of the Psalm marked above¹², says: "Do you ask, what is the Father? It is answered: God. Do you ask, what is the Son? It is answered: God. Do you ask, what are Father and Son? It is answered: God. When asked of the singular, answer God. When asked of both, answer not gods but God. Not so among men. For so great is there the unity of substance, that it admits equality, but does not admit plurality. If therefore it shall have been said to you, when you say that the Son is what the Father is, 'so then the Son is the Father' — answer: I said this to you according to substance, that the Son is what the Father is, not according to that which is said with reference to another. For with reference to Himself He is called God, with reference to the Father the Son is called. And in turn the Father with reference to Himself is called God, with reference to the Son He is called Father. What is said with reference to the Son is Father, and is not Son; what is said with reference to the Father is Son, and is not Father; what is said of the Father with reference to Himself, and of the Son with reference to Himself, that is Father and Son, that is, God."

Chapter II.

Whether one God of three persons can be said in the same way as one essence of three persons, and three persons of one God as three persons of one essence.

Here it must be considered: since God is the divine essence, and one God is so said to be three persons just as one essence is said to be three persons, whether it can soundly be said one God of three persons, or three persons of one God, in the same way as one says one essence of three persons and three persons of one essence. — In these locutions the usage of Scripture seems to be one we should emulate, where one frequently finds it said: one is the essence of three persons, and three are the persons of one essence; but nowhere does it ever occur to have read, one God of three persons¹³, or three persons of one God. Which the holy doctors I think therefore avoided, lest perhaps it be understood in the divine persons as it is understood when something similar is said of creatures. For God is called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob¹⁴, and the God of every creature. Which assuredly is said on account of the principle of creation or the privilege of grace¹⁵, and the subjection or servitude of the creature. Since therefore in the Trinity nothing is created or serving or subject, the faith has not admitted such a manner of locution in the Trinity.

So also conversely it is not said of the essence of God that itself is the essence of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or of any creature, lest we seem to confound the natures of Creator and creature.

Chapter III.

That power, wisdom, [and] goodness in Scripture are sometimes referred distinctively to the persons.

From what has been said above¹⁶ it is clear that, just as essence, so power, wisdom, [and] goodness are said of God according to substance. But those things which are said of God according to substance equally pertain to the three persons. There is therefore one power, wisdom, [and] goodness of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and these three are the same power, the same wisdom, the same goodness. Whence it is opened up that in the Trinity is supreme perfection. For if there power or wisdom or goodness were lacking, it would not be the highest good. But because there is perfect power, infinite wisdom, incomprehensible goodness, it is rightly said and believed [to be] the highest good. And though power, wisdom, [and] goodness are utterly one and the same in God, yet in sacred Scripture these names frequently are wont to be referred distinctively to the persons, so that to the Father power, to the Son wisdom, [and] to the Holy Spirit goodness is attributed. Why this is done, it is not idle to inquire.

Chapter IV.

Why power is attributed to the Father, wisdom to the Son, [and] goodness to the Holy Spirit, although there is one power, wisdom, [and] goodness of the three.

"This therefore the prudence of the sacred eloquence took care to do, lest we should measure the immeasurability of God by the likeness of a creature¹⁷. For sacred Scripture says that God is Father, and that God is Son; and a man heard this who had seen a human father and had not seen a divine Father, and began to think that it is so in the Creator as he had seen it to be in the creatures from which these names have been transferred to the Creator — in whom the father is prior to the son, the son is posterior to the father, and from antiquity in the father a defect, and from posteriority in the son an imperfection of sense are wont to be noted. Therefore Scripture comes forward calling the Father powerful, lest He should seem prior to the Son, and therefore less powerful, and the Son wise, lest He should seem posterior to the Father, and therefore less wise¹⁸." "The Holy Spirit too has been called God, and God has been said to have a Spirit; and this seemed to be as it were a name of inflation and swelling — whence the human conscience feared to approach God on account of His sternness and harshness — Therefore the Scripture tempered its speech, naming the Spirit good, lest He should be thought cruel who was meek; not as though the Father alone is powerful or more powerful, and the Son alone wise or more wise, and the Holy Spirit alone good or more good. There is therefore one power, wisdom, [and] one goodness of the three, just as essence; and therefore, as the Son is called homoousios, that is, consubstantial with the Father, so also coomnipotens [co-omnipotent]."

Chapter V.

On this name homoousion: where it has been received in authority, and what it signifies.

Here it must not be passed over: what Augustine in the second book¹⁹ Against Maximinus says of this name homoousion, which Latin treatise-writers frequently use. "The Father, he says, and the Son are of one and the same substance. This is that homoousion which in the Council of Nicaea against the Arian heretics was confirmed by the catholic Fathers on the authority of truth; which afterwards in the Council of Ariminum, on account of the novelty of the word, less than it was able to be understood — which yet the ancient faith had brought forth — was attempted to be undermined by heretical impiety under the heretical emperor Constantius, with many being deceived by the fraud of a few. But after no long time, with the freedom of the catholic faith prevailing, after the force of the word, as was right, was understood, that homoousion was far and wide defended and diffused by the soundness of the catholic faith. For what is homoousion but [being] of one and the same substance? What is, I say, homoousion but I and the Father are one? Therefore it is not to be avoided among the profane novelties of words."

It must moreover be known that, in the assignation of the distinction of names — among other things which we have above diligently pursued — we have said²⁰ some things to be said of God transferentially and through likeness, such as mirror, splendor, character, figure, and the like. Concerning which I briefly hand over to the pious reader what I think: namely, that, with consideration of the reason of the likeness, he may take from the causes of saying [them] the understanding of what is said, but a catholic [understanding].

We have already said many things on the sacrament of the Unity and Trinity, supreme and ineffable. Yet we acknowledge that we have handed down nothing worthy of His ineffability, but rather that the knowledge of Him has been made wonderful²¹ beyond us, and that we have not been able to attain to it.

---