Dist. 34
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/34/q/bon-sent-I-d34-littera
----------------------------------------
### 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 Trinity*, 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 understanding 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 said: *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 thus: "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 dwells 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 union." — 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 says: "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 says: "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 another*, 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 thus: "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 Augustine, 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 above, 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 persons*, 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 Jacob, and the God of every creature. Which assuredly is said on account of the principle of creation or the privilege of grace, 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 above 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 creature. 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 wise." "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 book *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 said 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 wonderful beyond us, and that we have not been able to attain to it.

---