Dist. 31
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/31/q/bon-sent-I-d31-littera
----------------------------------------
### DISTINCTION XXXI.

#### Chapter I

*Whether the Son is said to be equal or like the Father according to substance.*

It must furthermore be considered, since the three persons are co-equal to one another, whether this is said relatively or according to substance; and if relatively, whether equality is to be considered according to relation or according to essence; and finally, what equality itself is. — To which we say that, just as nothing is *like* itself — "for likeness," as Hilary says, "is not to itself" — so neither is anything called *equal* to itself; and accordingly, just like *like*, so also *equal* is said relatively. Therefore the Son is said relatively to be equal to the Father, and the Holy Spirit equal to both. — Yet the Son is equal to the Father, and the Holy Spirit equal to both, on account of the supreme simplicity and unity of the essence. *The Son is therefore equal to the Father according to substance, not according to relation.* Whence Augustine in the fifth book *On the Trinity* says: "We ask, according to what the Son is equal to the Father. Not according to that which is said in relation to the Father is the Son equal to the Father; it remains, therefore, that He is equal according to that which is said in relation to Himself. But whatever is said in relation to itself is said according to substance. It remains therefore that He is equal according to substance. The substance of both is therefore the same." Likewise in the sixth book: "It is enough to see that the Son is in no way equal to the Father, if in any respect — namely in what pertains to signifying His substance — He be found unequal. In all things therefore the Son is equal to the Father and is of the same substance." "The Holy Spirit also is equal to the Father and to the Son, and equal in all things on account of the supreme simplicity of that substance." From these things it is clear that according to substance the Son is equal to the Father, and the Holy Spirit equal to both, and the appellation only is relative. — The equality therefore of Father and Son is not a relation or notion, but on account of the unity of nature is *non-disparity*.

We say the same thing also of *like* and *likeness*. For when the Son is said to be like the Father, it is indeed said relatively, but He is like the Father on account of the unity of essence. There is therefore an appellation that is only relative, but the likeness is "an essence not differing." Whence to certain men it seems, not unlearnedly, that by the name of *equality* or *likeness* nothing is posited but [something] is removed, so that for this reason the Son is called equal to the Father — because He is neither greater than He nor less, and this on account of the unity of essence. So also He is called *like*, because He is neither different nor alien nor in anything dissimilar, and this on account of the simplicity of essence. Therefore not according to that the Son is begotten by the Father is He equal or unequal to the Father, nor like or unlike, but equal and like according to substance.

#### Chapter II

*Hilary's statement, in which he sets forth the proper attributes of the persons in the Trinity.*

It must not here be passed over that the illustrious man Hilary, assigning the proper attributes of the persons, says that *eternity* is in the Father, *species* in the Image, *use* in the Gift. These are words of such great difficulty that Augustine labored mightily over their understanding and explanation, as he himself shows in the sixth book *On the Trinity*, speaking thus: "When a certain man wished most briefly to suggest the proper attributes of the individual persons in the Trinity, *eternity*, he says, *is in the Father, species in the Image,*

*use in the Gift*. And since he was a man of no mediocre authority in the treatment of the Scriptures and the assertion of the faith — for Hilary set this down in his books — having scrutinized as best I can the hidden meaning of these words — that is, of *Father* and *Image* and *Gift*, of *eternity*, *species* and *use* — I do not think he meant by the term *eternity* anything other than that the Father has no father from whom He should come; whereas the Son is from the Father, that He may be and that He may be co-eternal to Him. For an *Image*, if it perfectly fills out that of which it is the image, is itself made equal to it, and not the other to its image; and in this image he named *Species*, I believe, on account of beauty, where there is so great a congruence and the first equality and the first likeness, in nothing dissenting and in no way unequal and in no part dissimilar, but answering to identity with that of which it is the image; where there is the first and supreme life, in which to live and to be are not different but the same; and the first and supreme intellect, in which to live and to understand are not different but the same — that is, one — as it were a *perfect Word in which nothing is lacking*, and a certain art of the omnipotent and wise God, full of all the unchangeable living *rationes*, and all things one in it, just as it itself is one from one with whom it is one; there God knows all things which He has made through it."

*Notula.* Hilary in the book *On the Synods*: "An image of that of which it is imaged is a species not differing. For no one is an image to himself; but the image must show forth Him whose image it is. An *image* therefore is the imaged and undivided likeness of one thing made equal to another. There is therefore the Father, there is also the Son, because the Son is the image of the Father; and because He is image — that He may be the image of the thing — He must necessarily have in Himself the species and the nature and the essence of His author, in respect of which He is image."

"There is, moreover, a certain ineffable embrace of the Father and the Image, which is not without enjoyment, without charity, without joy. That love, then, that delight, that felicity or beatitude — if it can worthily be expressed by any human voice — was briefly called *use* by him, and is in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, not begotten, but the sweetness of begetter and begotten, with vast bounty and richness pouring Himself upon all creatures according to their capacity. Therefore those three both seem to be limited in regard to one another, and are in themselves infinite. He who sees this either in part or *through a glass and in a riddle*, let him rejoice that he knows God and give thanks. But he who does not see, let him strive through piety to see, not through blindness to slander, since God is one, yet is the Trinity." — Behold, you have how Hilary's words quoted above are to be taken, although they are of such depth that, even with the explanation applied, the human sense can scarcely understand them at all, since the very explanation of them which Augustine here published has in itself much of difficulty and ambiguity.

*The three properties assigned by Hilary are explained.* For according to the foregoing exposition the three properties assigned above are not here distinguished, but the hypostases themselves are shown to be distinguished from one another. By the name of *eternity*, however, the same property seems to be designated which is noted by this name *unbegotten*. — But let us see what he means when he says: "*An Image, if it perfectly fills out that of which it is the image, is itself made equal to it, and not the other to its image*." For he seems to say that the Son, who is the image of the Father, is made equal to the Father, but not the Father to the Son, although the Son is said in Scripture to be equal to the Father, and the Father to the Son; but the Son has from the Father that He should be equal to Him, while the Father does not have it from the Son, and yet the Son is fully and perfectly equal to the Father, that is, an image to Him whose image He is.

*Hilary therefore is said to have assigned the proper attributes of the persons in the aforesaid words*, since he placed the relative names of the persons, namely *father*, *image* and *gift*, which are said relatively of the persons and note the properties by which the persons are distinguished. — For thus the Holy Spirit is called *gift* relatively, just as *donation*. Yet he did not signify the properties themselves by those other three names, according to the aforesaid exposition of Augustine, except by the single name of *eternity* — by which he wished to be understood not paternity itself, but that notion by which He is called *unbegotten*.

*Likewise Augustine distinguishes the three persons in the Trinity by three names.* This too must be known, that Augustine, wishing to show the distinction of the same three persons without expressing those three properties mentioned above, in the first book *On Christian Doctrine* speaks thus: "In the Father is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the concord of unity and equality: and these three are all *one* on account of the Father, all *equal* on account of the Son, all *connected* on account of the Holy Spirit. So therefore the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and each one of them is God, and at the same time all are one God; and each one of them is full substance, and at the same time all are one substance. The Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Son is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son; but the Father is only father, and the Son is only son, and the Holy Spirit is only holy spirit. The same eternity belongs to the three, the same unchangeableness, the same majesty, the same power." — In these words the distinction of the three persons is plainly suggested.

#### Chapter III

*Why unity is attributed to the Father.*

But it troubles many that he attributes *unity* to the Father, *equality* to the Son. For since *unity* is said according to substance, it is not only in the Father but also in the Son and in the Holy Spirit; and there is one equality

### Pars II.

of Father and of Son and of Holy Spirit. Why then is *unity* attributed to the Father and *equality* to the Son? Perhaps for the same reason that, according to Augustine, *unity* is attributed to the Father by which, according to Hilary, *eternity* was attributed to Him above: namely, because the Father is such that He is from no other, and because He has begotten the Son as one God with Himself, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as one God with Him. Therefore *unity* is said to be in the Father, because there is nothing else from which He is — for He is not from another — nor anything or anyone from Him from eternity which is not one with Him; for the Son and the Holy Spirit are one with the Father. Whence Truth says: *I and the Father are one*.

*A note on the text.* Hilary in the book *On the Synods*: "If anyone should say the Son is unbegotten and without beginning, as though saying that there were two without principle and two unbegottens and two unborn ones, he would make two gods: let him be anathema. For the head, which is the principle of all things, is the Son; but the head, which is the principle of Christ, is God. For thus to one un-initiate principle of all we refer all things through the Son. To confess the Son unbegotten is most impious. For God will no longer be one, since to declare one God demands the nature of one unbegotten God. Since therefore God is one, there cannot be two unbegottens; since for this reason God is one — since the Father is God, and the Son of God is God — because unbegottenness alone resides in one. The Son, however, [is] God for this reason, because He exists begotten from unbegotten essence. The holy faith therefore rejects that the Son be declared unbegotten, that through one unbegotten God it may declare one God, that it may embrace the only-begotten nature, begotten from unbegotten essence, in the one name of unbegotten God. For the head of all is the Son, but the head of the Son is God; and to one God all things are referred by this gradation and confession, since from Him all things derive their principle, to whom He Himself is principle." The same in the same: "To all creatures the will of God brought substance, but to the Son a perfect nativity gave nature from unbegotten and unborn substance. For all things have been created such as God willed them to be. But the Son, born of God, subsists such as God is, and did not bring forth a nature dissimilar to His own; but, begotten from the substance of God, brought essence according to nature by origin, not essence according to a creature of will."

#### Chapter IV

*Why the Father and the Son are said to be one [thing] or one God, but not one [person].*

Here it must be said that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are rightly said to be *one* and *one God*, but not *one* [masculine, sc. one person]. For two or more things can rightly be said to be *one*, if they are of one essence, and there is one nature of them. But *one* (masculine or feminine) cannot be said of diverse things unless there be added what they are *one* [as]; once that is added, it can rightly be said of things both of one and of diverse substance. Whence Augustine in the sixth book *On the Trinity* chapter three speaks thus: "I do not know whether it is found in the Scriptures, *Some are one*, when their nature is diverse. But if any several things are of the same nature and have diverse opinions, they are not one in so far as they have diverse opinions. When therefore *one* is said in such a way that it is not added, *one as what*, then several things are also called one; the same nature and essence, not dissenting nor disagreeing, is signified." "Whence Paul and Apollos, who were both men and held the same opinion, are said to be *one*, when it is said: *He who plants and he who waters are one*. But when it is added what they are *one* [as], something can be signified that is made one out of many, although of diverse nature: as soul and body certainly cannot be called *one* — for what is so diverse? — unless it be added or understood, *one as what*, that is, *one man*. Whence the Apostle: *He who clings*, he says, *to the Lord, is one spirit*. He did not say: he is one [masculine], or they are one [thing], but he added *spirit*. For diverse in nature are the spirit of man and the spirit of God, but by clinging the spirit of man becomes one spirit with God," because he becomes a partaker of His truth and beatitude. If then of those things which are of diverse substance it is rightly said that they are *one spirit*, how much more are those who are of one substance rightly said to be *one God*? "The Father therefore and the Son are one, namely according to the unity of substance and one God." In which also the Arian heresy is condemned, which holds that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as Augustine says in the book *On Heresies*, are not of one and the same substance and nature — or, to speak more expressly, essence, which in Greek is called *ousia* — but [holds] that the Son is a creature. So too the Sabellian, which, as Augustine says in the same book, said that Christ Himself was both the Father and the Holy Spirit, so that there was a trinity of names without subsistence of persons. "Both pestilences, as Augustine says *On John*, the Truth crushes when He says: *I and the Father are one*. Hear both, attend, both *one* and *we are*, and you will be freed from both Charybdis and Scylla. For what He said, *one*, frees you from Arius; what He said, *we are*, frees you from Sabellius. If *one*: therefore not diverse; if *we are*: therefore Father and Son. For He would not say *we are* of one, nor *one* of diverse [things]. Let the Sabellians therefore be ashamed, who say that He is the Father who is the Son, confounding the persons — who are also called Patripassians, who say that the Father suffered. The Arians, on the other hand, say that the Father is one thing, the Son another, [that they are] not one substance but two; the Father greater, the Son lesser. Do not say this, you Catholic! Sail therefore in the middle, avoid each dangerous side, and say: The Father is father, and the Son is son: another [is] the Father, another the Son, but not another [thing], rather the same very thing, because [there is] one God." — Behold, it has been shown why *unity* is said to be in the Father, since those three are one.

*Notula.* Hilary in the book *On the Synods*: "Better, perhaps, the faith seems to have spoken expressly of the inhering likeness of the Father and the Son, when concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it so understood that there was signified in the names the proper substance and order and glory of each one of those named, so that they are indeed three by substance, but one by consonance. The assembled synod of the saints therefore, willing to destroy that impiety which would dissolve the unity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit by the number of names — so that, with no cause for each name subsisting, a triple appellation might obtain a union of names under the falsity of the names, and the Father alone, being one and the same, would have both the name of the Holy Spirit and of the Son — therefore declared *that there are three substances*, teaching the persons of the subsisting [ones] through substances, not separating the substance of the Father and the Son by the diversity of a dissimilar essence. But what was said, *that they are indeed three by substance, but one by consonance*, has nothing to be slandered; because, the Spirit, that is the Paraclete, being co-named, it is fitting that unity be predicated rather by consonance than by essence through likeness of substance." Likewise in the same: "When we confess God the Father, and proclaim Christ the Son of God, and yet between these the confession of two gods would be irreligious; they cannot, according to the indifference of nature and the indifferent name, not be one in the genus of essence, of which the name of essence cannot be other than one." "For the religious unity of the name, established from the essence of an undifferentiated nature, did not take away the person of the begotten essence, so that the unique and singular substance of God might be understood through the union of the name, since the name of the essence of both — that is, *one God* — is predicated on account of the un-dissimilar substance of the un-discernible nature in each."

#### Chapter V

*Why equality is said to be in the Son.*

Now let us see why *equality* is said to be in the Son, although there is one and supreme equality of the three. Perhaps this was said because the Son is begotten by the Father equal to the Begetter and to the Gift, who proceeds from both, and therefore those three are said to be equal on account of the Son. For the Son has from the Father that He should be equal to Him and to the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit has from both that He should be equal to both. We say this without the haughtiness of assertion and without prejudice to a greater understanding, preferring in the opening of such hidden discourses to hear those more skilled rather than to pour anything upon others.

#### Chapter VI

*Why concord or connection is said to be in the Holy Spirit.*

That in the Holy Spirit there is said to be the concord of both, and through Him all things are connected, is easier of understanding for us when we recall to mind what has been said before. For above, according to the authorities of the Saints, it has been said that the Holy Spirit is the love by which the Father loves the Son, and the Son the Father. Rightly therefore the Holy Spirit is called the connection or concord of the Father and the Son, and through Him all things are connected. Whence Augustine in the sixth book *On the Trinity*: "A certain consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit of both." The same in the seventh book *On the Trinity*: "The Holy Spirit is the supreme charity, joining each [of the two] together and joining us to them."

---