Sentences, Books I–II

Chapter 1 (105).

1. On the properties of the persons, but first on the name hypostasis. We must now 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, namely, hypostasis. For he says that poison lies hidden under this name. He says this, however, according to the way heretics used it to deceive the simple, namely, for person and essence, so that, whether one hypostasis or three were said, they would lead the less experienced into an absurdity, since this name was not so common among Catholics, nor was its meaning determined as it is now. Therefore Jerome says that this name should not be used without distinction or explanation, especially when one was contending with heretics. He writes in On the Catholic Faith to Pope Damasus: «The new name of hypostases is demanded from me, a Roman man, by the Arian leader. We ask what they think three hypostases mean: ‘three subsisting persons’, they say. We answer that we believe this. This does not satisfy them; they insist on the name, because I do not know what poison lies hidden 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 ousia, does not say that the three persons are one hypostasis, he is alien from Christ; for, by saying three hypostases, he attempts to assert three natures under the name of piety. Let it be enough for us to say one substance and three perfect, equal persons; if it pleases, let us be silent about three hypostases. It is not a good sign when meanings differ in the same word. Or if you think that we ought to say ‘three hypostases’ with their interpretations, we do not deny it. But believe me: poison lies under honey, for Satan transforms himself into an angel of light». By these words he does not prohibit the use of the name ‘hypostasis’, but shows that heretics used it perversely; against them caution was needed in distinguishing its meaning. Otherwise he would contradict himself, since above he confesses three hypostases.

Chapter 2 (106).

1. On the properties of the persons and their relative names. Let us now consider the properties of the persons, which are also often called notions or relations in Scripture. «In that holy Trinity—which we repeat for this reason, so that it may be more firmly impressed upon our hearts—there is, Augustine says in On the Faith to Peter, one thing in having begotten and another in having been born, and another in proceeding than in having begotten or having been born; hence it is clear that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another».

¹ nec MNVW. 21 dicit esse] add. OP.]

²

³

⁴

2. What is proper to the Father, what is proper to the Son, and what is proper to the Holy Spirit. «It is proper to the Father alone, not because he himself was not born, but because he begot one Son; it is proper to the Son alone, not because he himself did not beget, but because he was born from the Father’s essence; but it is proper to the Holy Spirit, not because he was neither born nor begot, but because he alone proceeds from the Father and the Son». Behold, he has briefly assigned the three properties of the three persons, one of which is not another. For he signified this when he said: «One thing is having begotten, another having been born, and another proceeding»; that is, generation is one property or notion, birth another, and procession another. These are called by other names, paternity and filiation.

3. Here he treats the relative names which signify the relations themselves. Those properties are designated by the names of the persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—which are relative and are said of one another because they signify relations. These are not accidental to God, but exist eternally and unchangeably in the persons themselves, so that not only are the names relative, but the relations or notions themselves are in the things themselves, namely, in the persons.

Chapter 3 (107).

1. That not everything said of God is said according to substance; some things are said according to relation, though nothing according to accident. We must therefore know that not everything said of God is said according to substance, because some things are said according to relation. Relation is not an accident, because it is not mutable. As Augustine teaches in Book V of The Trinity: «Nothing in God is said according to accident, because nothing happens to him; yet not everything that is said is said according to substance. In created and mutable things, what is not said according to substance remains to be said according to accident. In God, however, nothing is said according to accident, because nothing in him is mutable or can be lost; yet not everything that is said is said according to substance. For he is spoken of in relation, as the Father in relation to the Son and the Son in relation to the Father; the relation is not an accident, because both that which is called Father and that which is called Son are always Father and always Son: the Son was always begotten and never began to be Son. If he had at some time begun to be Son, or at some time ceased to be Son, he would be spoken of according to accident. And because the Father is called Father only by reason of having the Son, and the Son is called Son only by reason of having the Father, these are not said according to substance but are said in relation to one another; yet neither are they said according to accident, because what is called Father and what is called Son is eternal and unchangeable for them». — Behold, from these words it is plainly shown that some things are said of God according to substance, some according to relation, and nothing according to accident. It is also shown that the property of the Father is that he has the Son, and the property of the Son is that he has the Father. Therefore, when he said that what is called Father and what is called Son are ‘eternal and unchangeable’, he intended this to be understood: the property by which the Father is Father, and the property by which the Son is Son, is eternal and unchangeable, because the Father is always Father and the Son always Son.

⁵ est add. BCW. 5 nec] non NRV. 11 Rubrica] om. NRW. 18 non omnia] nomina BCMNPTX. 23–25 quia... dicitur] mg. N2O2.]

⁶

⁷

2. Hilary determines the properties of the Father and the Son. Hence Hilary, assigning the properties of the persons, says in Book XII of The Trinity: «If it is always proper to the Father that he is always Father, it must always be proper to the Son that he is always Son. For where the Father is always Father, the Son is always Son; therefore whoever is not always Father has not always begotten». Likewise in the same work: «When God has been born, it is clear that what the Son is is proper to him».

Chapter 4 (108).

1. Why it is said to be proper to the Only-Begotten that he is the Son of God, although human beings too are sons of God. Here it is asked how it can be said to be proper to God who is born that he is the Son of God or begotten from God, since human beings too are called and are sons of God, according to the saying: All are sons of the Most High; and the Lord said to Moses concerning the people of Israel: Israel is my firstborn son.

2. Solution. But the difference is great: human beings are sons of God by being made, not by the property of birth; God the Son, however, is Son by the property of origin and by the truth of birth, not by being made or adopted. And they exist before they are sons of God: they are made sons, they are not born sons of God.

⁸ filius add. L2NRW. 8 ex] om. LNRVWX. 15 semper] est add. BCNV; semper] est add. CNV.]

⁹

¹⁰

3. He confirms the solution by an authority. The clear distinction between God the Son and human sons: he is a Son born, they are sons made. Hence Hilary, showing that only God who is born is the Son of God by the property of origin, distinguishes him most clearly from human sons of God in Book XII of The Trinity, saying: «Only the one who is born from the true Father is truly Son. We too are sons of God, but by being made. For we were once sons of wrath, but we became sons of God by adoption rather than being born so. And because everything that is made did not exist before it was made, we, who were not sons, are made sons. For we were not sons before, but were made so by grace; we were not born or begotten, but acquired. God acquired us for himself, and for this reason he is said to have begotten us; for we never know God to be said to have begotten sons with the signification of property». «For by adoption a human being is a son of God, not by generation; and sonship is not a property for him but a designation. Hence he is not truly a son, because he is neither properly said to have been born nor was he always a son. But the only-begotten God was never not a son, nor was there anything before he was a son, nor was he anything except a son. Therefore, since he is always Son by the property and truth of being begotten, he is the Son of the one who alone begot him by origin; and only the one who begot him is his Father, because just as he is Son by origin, so the other is Father by generation».

Chapter 5 (109).

1. That the human being is called a son of the Trinity, and the Trinity can be called the Father of human beings. The human being, who is a son of God by being made, is a son not only of the Father but also of the Son and the Holy Spirit, that is, of the whole Trinity; and the Trinity itself can be called his Father. — Hence Augustine says in Book V of The Trinity: «The Trinity cannot be called Father, except perhaps metaphorically in relation to the creature, on account of the adoption of sons. For what is written, Hear, Israel: the Lord your God is one God, must certainly not be understood as excluding the Son or the Holy Spirit; and we rightly call this one Lord our God also our Father, since by his grace he regenerates us». — Hilary likewise says on this subject in Book VI of The Trinity: «God is Father to all for whom he is Father through faith; by this faith we confess Jesus Christ to be the Son of God».

2. It has now been shown why it is said to be proper to God who is born that he is the Son, namely, because he alone is properly called ‘born’. Hence Hilary says in Book III of The Trinity: «When the Lord says: Glorify your Son, he did not testify by name alone that he is Son, but also by property. We are sons of God, but this is not such a son. He is the true and proper Son: by origin, not adoption; by truth, not designation; by birth, not creation».

Chapter 6 (110).

1. That the Holy Spirit is properly called the gift of God, because he is gift by property just as the Son is Son by birth, and both are said relatively and according to the same relation. The same must be said of the Holy Spirit, who is properly called the gift of God, although many other things are also gifts of God. But the Holy Spirit is gift by an unchangeable and eternal property, just as the Son is Son by property. For he is called gift by that by which he is the Holy Spirit, and by both names he is said relatively; and the Holy Spirit and gift are said according to the same relation, although the relation itself does not appear in the name ‘Holy Spirit’ as it does in the name ‘gift’. — Hence Augustine says in Book V of The Trinity: «The Holy Spirit, who is not the Trinity but is understood in the Trinity, is said relatively insofar as he is properly called the Holy Spirit, since he is referred both to the Father and to the Son, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. But the relation itself does not appear in this name; it appears when he is called the gift of God, for he is the gift of the Father and the Son, because he proceeds from the Father and from the Son».

2. What the Holy Spirit is. «The Holy Spirit, therefore, is an ineffable communion of the Father and the Son. And perhaps he is called by this name for the reason we have already stated, and it is not burdensome to repeat it: the same name can apply to the Father and the Son. For he is properly called what they have in common, because the Father too is spirit and the Son spirit, and the Father holy and the Son holy. Therefore, so that the communion of both may be signified by a name which applies to both, he is called the gift of both, the Holy Spirit». — Behold, you have why the Holy Spirit is properly called gift, and that he is said relatively both as gift and as Holy Spirit; and that he bears a name proper to himself which applies commonly to the Father and the Son, but distinctly. It should be known that when the Father or the Son is called ‘spirit’ or ‘holy’, neither is said relatively, but according to substance.

¹¹ homines BCX. 8 Deo] dei BCL2RVX. 24 sed] et add. BCRTVWX. 6 III libro] trp. BCMNT. 14 et] om. LNRX. 15 qui] quod COP. 27 Rubrica] om. LNOPRW.]

¹²

¹³

Chapter 7 (111).

Whether the Father, Son, or the Trinity itself can be called the Holy Spirit. Here it may be asked whether the Father, the Son, or even the Trinity itself can be called the Holy Spirit, just as ‘spirit’ and ‘holy’ are each said separately. On this Augustine says in Book V of The Trinity: «The Trinity can in no way be called Son; but it can indeed be called Holy Spirit universally, according to what is written: God is spirit. Therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, since there is one God and God is certainly holy and God is spirit, can be called the Trinity and the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, then ‘Holy Spirit’ will not be said relatively but according to essence, because the Holy Spirit properly, who is not the Trinity but is in the Trinity, is said relatively».

Chapter 8 (112).

Some think that the Holy Spirit is not said relatively to the Father and the Son because the terms do not answer one another reciprocally, but this is false. Some, however, think that the Holy Spirit or the gift is not said relatively to the Father or the Son. For, they say, if these are said relatively to one another, their names answer one another reciprocally: just as the Father is called ‘the Father of the Son’ and the Son ‘the Son of the Father’, so the Father should be called ‘the Father of the Holy Spirit or of the Gift’, and the Spirit or Gift ‘the Spirit or Gift of the Father’. — But this is not so in every relative expression: not everything said relatively has a corresponding reciprocal name. Hence Augustine, rejecting their opinion, says in Book V of The Trinity: «Let it not trouble you that we said that the Holy Spirit—not the Trinity itself, but he who is in the Trinity—is said relatively, although the name of the one to whom he is referred does not answer his name reciprocally». «For we say ‘the Holy Spirit of the Father’, but we do not say reciprocally ‘the Father of the Holy Spirit’, lest the Holy Spirit be understood as his son. Likewise we say ‘the Holy Spirit of the Son’, but we do not say ‘the Son of the Holy Spirit’, lest the Holy Spirit be understood as his father. This happens in many relative expressions: a term by which they answer one another reciprocally is not found. When, therefore, we say ‘the Gift of the Father and the Son’, we cannot indeed say ‘the Father of the Gift’ or ‘the Son of the Gift’; but, so that these expressions may answer one another, we say ‘the gift of the giver’ and ‘the giver of the Gift’, because a customary term could be found here, but not there». «When we say ‘the gift of the giver’ and ‘the giver of the Gift’, we say both relatively to one another». The giver, however, was not God except in time, whereas the Holy Spirit is Gift also from eternity.

¹⁴ vel donum add. CVX. 27 vicissim] invicem LNV. 29 quoniam] quod CLT.]

¹⁵