Dist. 26
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/1/d/26/q/bon-sent-I-d26-littera
----------------------------------------
### DISTINCTION XXVI.

#### Cap. I. *On this name "hypostasis".*

Now we must say something about the properties of the persons, which we have frequently mentioned in this treatise. But first let us hear what Jerome says about this name *hypostasis*. For he says that under this name a poison lurks. But he says this insofar as the heretics used it to seduce the simple, namely [using it] for *person* and for *essence*, so that, whether one only or three hypostases were said, they might lead the less skilled to incongruity, since this name was not so widespread among Catholics, nor its signification so determined, as now. And therefore Jerome says that this name should not be used without distinction or exposition, then namely, when one was contending with heretics, writing thus *On the Catholic Faith to Pope Damasus*: "From the Arian prelate the new name of *hypostases* is demanded of me, a Roman man. We ask, what they think to be understood by the three hypostases; *three subsisting persons*, they say. We answer, that we so believe. The sense does not suffice them; they demand the name itself; because I know not what poison lurks in the syllables. We cry out: if anyone does not confess three hypostases, that is, three subsisting persons, let him be anathema. But if anyone, understanding *hypostasis* as *usia* (essence), does not declare one hypostasis in three persons, he is alien from Christ, who namely, saying three hypostases, under the name of piety attempts to assert three natures. Let it suffice us to say one substance and three perfect equal persons; let us be silent about three hypostases, if it pleases. This name is not of good suspicion, since in the same word the senses dissent. Or if you think it right that we ought to say three hypostases together with their interpretations, we do not deny [it]. But believe me, poison lurks under honey; for the angel of Satan transforms himself into an Angel of light." By these words he does not deny that the name *hypostasis* must be used, but he shows that the heretics used it perversely, against whom caution was needed in the distinction of signification; otherwise he would contradict himself, who above confesses three hypostases.

#### Cap. II. *On the properties of the persons and on their relative names.*

Now let us see concerning the properties of the persons, which are also said for the most part in Scripture [to be] notions or relations in that holy Trinity, which therefore is repeated by us, so that it may be more tenaciously fixed in our heart. Augustine says *in the book On Faith to Peter*: "It is one thing to have begotten, another to be by nature, and another thing to proceed than to have begotten or been born. Whence it is manifest that the Father is one, the Son another, the Holy Spirit another." "And it is proper to the Father alone, not because He Himself is not born, but because He has begotten; and proper to the Son alone, not because He Himself has not begotten, but because He was born from the essence of the Father; but proper to the Holy Spirit, not because neither was He Himself born nor did He beget, but because He alone proceeds from the Father and the Son." Behold, He briefly has assigned three properties of the three persons, of which one is not the other. For He signified this when He said: *It is one thing to have begotten than to have been born, and another to proceed* — that is, one property or notion is generation, and another is being-born, another is procession, which by other names are called paternity, filiation, spiration. Those names of the persons designate these properties, namely *Father*, *Son*, and *Holy Spirit*, which are relative and are said with reference to one another; because they note relations, which are not accidental to God, but in the persons themselves are immutably from eternity, so that not only are the appellations relative, but also the relations or notions are in the things themselves, namely in the persons.

#### Cap. III. *That not all things are said of God according to substance; for some [are said] according to relation, yet none according to accident.*

Wherefore it must be known that not everything which is said of God is said according to substance; for some things are said according to relation, which is not an accident, since it is not mutable. For as Augustine says *in the fifth book On the Trinity*: "Nothing in God is said according to accident, since nothing happens to Him; yet not everything which is said is said of God according to substance. In created and mutable things what is not said according to substance, it remains [must be the case] that it be said according to accident. But in God indeed nothing is said according to accident, since nothing in Him is mutable or losable; yet not everything which is said of God is said according to substance. For [something] is said in relation to something, just as Father in relation to Son, and Son in relation to Father, which is not an accident; because both He is always Father, and He is always Son; and so always, since the Son is always born, nor did He ever begin to be Son. But if He had at some time begun to be, or at some time would cease to be Son, He would be said according to accident. And since the Father is not called Father, except from this that the Son is to Him, and the Son is not called Son, except from this that He has a Father; these things are not said according to substance, but they are said with reference to one another, nor yet according to accident, since both that He is called Father, and that He is called Son, is eternal and incommutable to them." Behold by these words it is openly shown that some things are said of God according to substance, some according to relation, yet none according to accident. It is also shown that it is the property of the Father, that He has a Son, and the property of the Son, that He has a Father. And therefore, when he said that it is eternal and incommutable that He is called Father, and that He is called Son; he wished it to be understood thus, that is: the property by which the Father is Father, and the property by which the Son is Son, is eternal and incommutable, since both the Father is always Father, and the Son is always Son. Whence Hilary, assigning the properties of the persons *in the twelfth book On the Trinity* says: "If it is always proper to the Father, that He is always Father, it is necessary that it always be proper to the Son, that He is always Son. For where the Father always is, there always is also the Son: therefore he who is not always Father, has not always begotten." Likewise in the same place: "When God is born, it is manifest that it is proper that He is Son."

#### Cap. IV. *Why it is said to be proper to the Only-begotten to be Son of God, although men too are sons of God.*

Here it is asked how it can be said to be proper to the One born of God that He is Son of God or begotten from God, since men too are called sons of God and are [such], according to that [text]: *All sons of the Most High*. And to Moses concerning the people of Israel the Lord says: *My son the firstborn, Israel*. But there is a great distance: for men are sons of God by being made [such], not by the property of being-born; but God the Son is Son by the property of origin and by the truth of [His] being-born, not by being-made or by adoption; and they indeed exist before they are sons of God; for they are made sons of God, not born sons of God. Whence Hilary, showing that God alone, born by the property of origin, is Son of God, most clearly distinguishes between Him and the men [who are] sons of God *in the twelfth book On the Trinity*, saying thus: "To the true Father, only He who is born of Him is truly Son. And we indeed are sons to God, but through being-made. For we were once sons of wrath, but we have been made sons to God through adoption rather than [as those who] are born. And since everything which is made, before it is made, was not, we, since we had not been sons, are made [sons]. For before we were not sons, but through grace we were made [such], not born nor begotten, but acquired. For God acquired us for Himself, and

through this it is said that we have begotten. For we never recognize that God is said to have begotten sons with the signification of [proper] property. For man is made a son of God by adoption, not by generation; nor is it for him a property, but a designation, and on that account he is not truly a son, since he is neither properly said to be born, nor was he always a son. But the Only-begotten God neither was at any time not a son, nor was He anything before [being] son, nor [is] He Himself anything except son. And so He who is always Son, by the property and truth of His being-born is the Son of Him alone who begot [Him]; and only He who begot is His Father; because just as that one is Son by origin, so this one is Father by generation."

#### Cap. V. *That a man is called son of the Trinity, and the Trinity father.*

But man, who is a son of God, since he is made [so], is a son not only of the Father, but also of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, that is, of the whole Trinity; and the Trinity itself can be called his Father. Whence Augustine in the fifth book *On the Trinity* says: "The Trinity cannot be called father, except perhaps transferred to the creature on account of the adoption of sons. For what is written: *Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God, [the Lord thy] God is one*, must by no means be understood with the exception of the Son or the Holy Spirit; whom we rightly call our one Lord and God, also our Father, regenerating us by His grace." Concerning this also Hilary in the sixth book *On the Trinity* says: "God is father to all by faith, to whom He is father by that faith by which we confess Jesus Christ to be the Son of God." Behold it has been shown why it is called proper to the One born of God that He is Son, namely because He alone is properly said to be born. Whence Hilary in the third book *On the Trinity* says: "The Lord, in saying: *Glorify Thy Son*, attested that He was the Son not only by name but also by property. We are sons of God, but not such a son [is He] here. For He is the true and proper Son by origin, not by adoption; by truth, not by designation; by birth, not by creation."

#### Cap. VI. *That the Holy Spirit is called Gift by the same property by which He is [called] Holy Spirit, and in both ways relatively to the Father and the Son.*

So also it must be said of the Holy Spirit, who is properly called the Gift of God, although there are also many other gifts of God. But the Holy Spirit is Gift by such an immutable and eternal property, just as the Son is Son by [His] property. For He is called Gift by that [property] by which [He is called] Holy Spirit, and assuredly by both names He is said relatively, and by the same relation He is called Holy Spirit and Gift; although that very relation does not so appear in this name *Holy Spirit*, as in this name *Gift*. Whence Augustine in the fifth book *On the Trinity* thus says: "The Holy Spirit, who is not the Trinity, but is understood in the Trinity, in that He is properly called Holy Spirit, is said relatively, when He is referred both to the Father and to the Son, since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. But the relation itself does not appear in this name, but it appears, when He is called the Gift of God; for He is the Gift of the Father and of the Son, since He proceeds both from the Father and from the Son. Therefore the Holy Spirit is an ineffable certain communion of the Father and the Son. And therefore perhaps He is so called, as we have already said, nor does it weary [us] to repeat, since the same appellation can befit the Father and the Son. For He Himself is properly called that, which they [are] in common: for both the Father is spirit and the Son is spirit, and the Father is holy and the Son is holy. Therefore that the communion of both might be signified out of a name which befits both, the Holy Spirit is called the gift of both." Behold you have why the Holy Spirit is properly called Gift, and that He is said relatively whether [as] Gift or [as] Holy Spirit, and that He holds as proper to Himself a name which befits the Father and the Son in common, but separately. And it must be known that when the Father or the Son is called spirit, or holy, neither is said relatively, but according to substance.

#### Cap. VII. *Whether the Father or the Son or the Trinity itself can be called Holy Spirit.*

Here it can be asked whether the Father or the Son or even the Trinity itself can be called Holy Spirit, just as disjunctively He is called both spirit and holy. Concerning this Augustine in the fifth book *On the Trinity* thus says: "The Trinity in no way can be called Son, but the Holy Spirit can indeed be said universally, according to that which is written: *For God is Spirit*. Therefore the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, since God is one, and surely God is holy, and God is spirit, can be called both trinity and holy spirit. Yet then *holy spirit* will not be said relatively, but according to essence, since properly the Holy Spirit, who is not the Trinity, but [is] in the Trinity, is said relatively."

#### Cap. VIII. *That not all things, which are said relatively, correspond to one another by their own [reciprocal] vocabulary.*

Some however think that the Holy Spirit or Gift is not said relatively to the Father or to the Son. For if, they say, these things are said relatively to themselves, they correspond to one another by their own [reciprocal] terms: so that, just as it is said:

Father [is] father of the Son, and Son [is] son of the Father, so let it be said: father of the Holy Spirit or father of the Gift, and the Holy Spirit or Gift [is] spirit or gift of the Father. But it is not so in all relatives. For not all things which are said relatively correspond to one another by their own reciprocal vocabulary. Whence Augustine, refuting their opinion, in the fifth book *On the Trinity*: "Let it not move you, he says, that we have said the Holy Spirit is not the Trinity itself, but Him who is in the Trinity, to be said relatively, although a vocabulary corresponding to the one to whom He is referred does not in turn correspond to Him. For we say *Holy Spirit of the Father*, but we do not in turn say *Father of the Holy Spirit*, lest the Holy Spirit be understood as His son. Likewise we say *Holy Spirit of the Son*, but we do not say *Son of the Holy Spirit*, lest the Holy Spirit be understood as His father. For in many relatives this happens, that no vocabulary be found by which they correspond to one another. When therefore we say *Gift of the Father and of the Son*, we cannot indeed call [Him] *father of the Gift* or *son of the Gift*, but in order that these may correspond to one another, we say *gift of the giver*, and *giver of the gift*, since here a customary vocabulary could be found, there it could not". "Therefore *gift of the giver*, and *giver of the gift*, when we say [these], we say both relatively to one another". "But God was not Giver except from time, although the Holy Spirit is Gift even from eternity."

---