Sentences, Books I–II

Chapter 1 (131).

1. How the Son is said to be equal to the Father, whether substantially or relatively; and likewise how he is said to be similar. Since the three persons are equal to one another, we must consider whether this is said relatively or substantially; and, if relatively, whether equality is considered according to relation or essence, and what equality itself is. — He teaches. Just as nothing is said to be similar to itself—for “similarity is not similar to itself,” as Hilary says—so nothing is said to be equal to itself; hence equal, like similar, is said relatively. The Son is therefore said relatively equal to the Father, and the Holy Spirit equal to both. Yet the Son is equal to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both, because of the supreme simplicity and unity of essence; the Son is therefore equal to the Father substantially, not relatively. Augustine says: “We ask in what respect the Son is equal to the Father. He is not equal in the respect in which he is called Son in relation to the Father; therefore he is equal in the respect in which he is said in relation to himself. Whatever is said in relation to itself is said substantially; therefore he is equal substantially. The substance of both is therefore the same.”

Likewise, in Book VI: “It is enough to see that the Son is in no way equal to the Father if he is found unequal in any respect—that is, in anything pertaining to the signification of his substance. Therefore, in all respects the Son is equal to the Father and is of the same substance.” “The Holy Spirit too is equal, and equal in all respects, because of the supreme simplicity of that substance.”

2. What equality is. The equality of Father and Son is not a relation or notion, but, because of the unity of nature, undifference.

3. How “similar” is said and what similarity is. The same is to be said of similar and similarity. When the Son is called similar to the Father, this is said relatively, but he is similar because of unity of essence; the name is therefore merely relative, while similarity is undifference.

¹ MOPT, om. alii.]

²

³

⁴

⁵

4. Some think that by the name of equality or likeness something is not posited, but removed. Hence some, and not without reason, think that by the name of equality or likeness something is not posited but removed: so that the Son is called equal to the Father because he is neither greater nor less than he, and this on account of the unity of essence. So too he is called like, because he is neither different, alien, nor unlike in anything, and this on account of the simplicity of essence. Therefore, insofar as the Son is begotten by the Father, he is neither equal nor unequal to the Father, neither like nor unlike; but he is equal and like according to substance.

Chapter 2 (132).

1. On the statement of St. Hilary by which he shows what is proper to the persons in the Trinity. Here we must not pass over the fact that the illustrious Hilary, assigning what is proper to the persons, says that eternity is in the Father, form in the Image, and use in the Gift.

2. Augustine on Hilary, who says: Eternity is in the Father, form in the Image, use in the Gift. Here Augustine teaches in what sense Hilary’s words are to be understood, and first why eternity is attributed to the Father. These words are so difficult that Augustine labored intensely over their understanding and explanation, as he himself shows in Book VI of The Trinity, saying: «Someone, wishing to indicate as briefly as possible what is proper to the individual persons in the Trinity, said: Eternity is in the Father, Patre, species in Imagine, usus in Munere. And because he was a man of no ordinary authority in the treatment of Scripture and the assertion of the faith—for Hilary set this forth in his books—I have searched as far as I can into the hidden meaning of these words, namely, of the Father, the Image, and the Gift, and of eternity, form, and use. I do not think that he followed him in the word ‘eternity’ except insofar as the Father has no father from whom he is, whereas the Son is from the Father in order to be and to be coeternal with him». — Here, why form is in the Image. «For if an image perfectly fulfills that of which it is the image, it is made equal to it, not that to its image. In this image, I believe, he named ‘form’ on account of beauty: where there is such complete congruence, the first equality and the first likeness, differing in nothing and in no way unequal and in no respect unlike, but answering point for point to that of which it is the image. There is the first and highest life, for which living and being are not different but the same; and the first and highest intellect, for which living and understanding are not different but the same—that is, one—like a perfect Word lacking nothing, and a certain art of the omnipotent and wise God, full of all the unchangeable living reasons; and all things are one in it, just as it is one from the One with whom it is one. There God knows all the things he made through it».

⁶ om. MRW; supple «tribuatur» (p. 255, 17). 12 identidem] identitatem BC, corr. in identitatem TX, quod add. mg. V. 19 geniti] geniti CLPRV, quod corr. PV. 25 a] ad LPR. 30 modo] om. BCX.]

⁷ trinitatem MO, tritum L. 12 praetereundum] praetermittendum BCLN. 15–17 Rubrica om. MRW.]

⁸

^{9 10}

— Here, concerning the Holy Spirit, why he is called use. «There is, however, an ineffable bond of the Father and the Image, which is not without enjoyment, charity, or joy. That love, therefore, delight, happiness, or blessedness—if it can be worthily named by any human word—was briefly called ‘use’ by him; and in the Trinity it is the Holy Spirit, not begotten, but the sweetness of the Begetter and the Begotten, pouring over all creatures with immense generosity and abundance according to their capacity. Thus those three seem both to be determined in relation to one another and to be infinite in themselves. Whoever sees this, whether in part or through a mirror and in an enigma, should rejoice in knowing God and give thanks; whoever does not see it should strive through piety to see, not through blindness to attack, because God is one, yet is Trinity».

3. That not only Hilary’s words but also Augustine’s explanation of them is exceedingly obscure. You now have how the preceding words of Hilary are to be understood, although they are so profound that even with the explanation supplied by Augustine the human mind can scarcely understand them to any degree, since the explanation itself, which Augustine gives here, contains much difficulty and ambiguity.

4. That according to this explanation the three properties of the persons are not properly distinguished there. For according to the preceding explanation the three properties assigned above are not distinguished here; rather, the hypostases themselves are shown to be distinct from one another. — That by the name of eternity the notion signified by ‘unbegotten’ is indicated. Nevertheless, by the name of eternity the same property seems to be designated which is signified by the name ‘unbegotten’.

5. In what sense he said: The Image, if it perfectly fulfills, etc. But let us see what he means when he says: «If an image perfectly fulfills that of which it is the image, it is made equal to it, not that to its image». For he seems to say that the Son, who is the image of the Father, is made equal to the Father, not the Father to the Son, although Scripture says both that the Son is equal to the Father and that the Father is equal to the Son; but the Son has from the Father that he is equal to him, whereas the Father does not have this from the Son. And yet the Son is fully and perfectly equal to the Father, that is, the image is equal to him whose image it is.

6. Hilary, in The Synod: «An image is an undifferentiated form of the one to whom it is imaged. For no one is an image of himself, but an image must show the one whose image it is. An image, therefore, is an undivided likeness imagined to make one thing equal to another. Thus there is a Father, and there is also a Son, because the Son is the image of the Father; and because he is an image, in order that he may be the image of a thing, he must have in himself the form, nature, and essence of the author, insofar as he is an image».

7. Why Hilary is said to have assigned what is proper to the persons in the preceding words, although the properties are not expressed there. Hilary is therefore said to have assigned what is proper to the persons in the preceding words because he used relative names of the persons, namely Father, Image, and Gift, which are said relatively of the persons and signify the properties by which the persons are distinguished. Thus the Holy Spirit is called ‘gift’ relatively, just as ‘donation’. Nevertheless, according to Augustine’s preceding explanation, he did not signify the properties themselves by three other names, except by the single name ‘eternity’: by which he intended not paternity itself, but the notion by which he is called ‘unbegotten’.

¹¹ om. LMRW. 7–8 Rubrica] om. MRW; supply ‘tribuatur’. 12 identidem] identitatem BC, corrected to identitatem TX. 19 geniti] genitique CLPRV. 25 a] ad LPR. 30 modo] om. BCX.]

¹²

¹³ synodis LNRTWX. || quem] quam BCRWX.]

¹⁴

8. Hilary in The Synod. «If anyone calls the Son unborn and without beginning, as though saying that there are two without beginning, two unborn and two unbegotten, and thus makes two gods, let him be anathema. For the head which is the beginning of all things is the Son; but the head which is the beginning of Christ is God. Thus we refer all things through the Son to the one who has a beginning, the beginning of all; therefore it is most impious to confess the Son unborn. For then there will no longer be one God, since the one nature of the one unborn God requires that one God be preached. Since, therefore, there is one God, there cannot be two unborn ones: for the reason there is one God is that unbegottenness belongs to one alone; but the Son is God because he exists as born from the unbegotten essence. For the Son is the head of all things, but God is the head of the Son; and all things are referred to the one God by this order and confession, since all things take their beginning from him, while he himself is the beginning».

— The same author in the same work: «The will of God gave substance to all creatures, but he gave nature to the Son: from an impassible and unbegotten substance a perfect begetting. For all created things were made such as God willed them to be; but the Son, born from God, subsists as God is. Nature did not produce a nature unlike itself, but, begotten from the substance of God, he brought to nature according to origin not the essence of creatures but the essence of will».

9. That Augustine indicates the same distinction of the persons in other words, without explaining the three properties. It should also be known that, wishing to show the distinction of the same three persons without expressing the three properties mentioned above, Augustine says in Book I of On Christian Doctrine: «In the Father there is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the concord of unity and equality; and these three are all one because of the Father, all equal because of the Son, all joined because of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each one of them individually, is God, and all together are one God; each one individually is full substance, and all together 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, the Son only Son, and the Holy Spirit only Holy Spirit. The same eternity, the same immutability, the same majesty, and the same power belong to all three». In these words the distinction of the three persons is clearly indicated.

¹⁵ synodis LTWX. 4 initiabilem] manuscripts (corrected by T²), ininitiabilem Hilary. 6 Deum unum] transposed BCX. 7 Deus unus] transposed BCLNRWX. 11 eo] ea BCX. 19 expositione] expressione BCW. 25 ac] et LRWX.]

¹⁶

¹⁷

Chapter 3 (133).

Why unity is attributed to the Father and equality to the Son. But many are troubled that unity is attributed to the Father and equality to the Son. Since unity is spoken of according to substance, it is not only in the Father but also in the Son and the Holy Spirit; and equality is one equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Why, then, is unity attributed to the Father and equality to the Son? — Perhaps unity is attributed to the Father for the same reason that eternity was earlier attributed to him according to Hilary: namely, because the Father is in such a way that he is not from another, and because he begot the Son, one God with himself, and the Spirit proceeds from him, one God with him. Unity is therefore said to be in the Father because there is neither anything else from which he is nor, from eternity, anything or anyone from whom something one with him is. For the Son and the Holy Spirit are one with the Father; hence Truth says: I and the Father are one.

Chapter 4 (134).

1. Why the Father and the Son are said to be one or one God, but not one person: things of the same nature can rightly be called one simply and with an addition, whereas things of different natures cannot be called one unless what one is is stated. Here it must be said that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit rightly are said to be one and one God, but not one. For two or more things can rightly be said to be one if they are of one essence and their nature is one; but one cannot be said of different things unless what one is is added. Once this is added, it can rightly be said of things both of one and of different substance. — Hence Augustine says in Book VI of The Trinity: «I do not know whether in Scripture one finds it said, ‘they are one’, of things whose nature is different. But if several things are also of the same nature and have different opinions, they are not one insofar as they have different opinions. When, therefore, ‘one’ is said without adding what one, and several things are called one, the same nature and essence, neither dissenting nor disagreeing, is signified».

¹⁸ attribuatur NRVX.]

¹⁹

²⁰

²¹

— He gives an example. «Hence Paul and Apollo, who were both human beings 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 what one is is added, something made one from several things may be signified, although they are different in nature; for example, soul and body certainly cannot be called one—for what is so different?—unless what one is is added or understood, namely, one human being. Hence the Apostle says: He who adheres to the Lord is one spirit; he did not say ‘one’ or ‘they are one’, but added ‘spirit’. For the spirit of a human being and the Spirit of God are different in nature, but by adhering the human spirit becomes one spirit with God, because it becomes a participant in his truth and blessedness. If, therefore, of things that are different in substance it is rightly said that they are one spirit, much more rightly are those who are of one substance called one God».

— That they are one, certainly according to unity of substance. On the heresy of Arius. Here the Arian heresy is condemned, for it «does not wish, as Augustine says in On Heresies, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be of one and the same substance and nature—or, more precisely, essence, which in Greek is called ‘ousia’—but makes the Son a creature». — On the heresy of Sabellius. Likewise the Sabellian heresy, which, as Augustine says in the same book, said «that Christ himself was both the Father and the Holy Spirit», so that there would be a trinity of names without the substance of persons. — «Truth, as Augustine says On John, destroys both plagues by saying: I and the Father are one. Hear and observe both ‘one’ and ‘are’; you will be freed from Charybdis and Scylla. For in saying ‘one’ he frees you from Arius; in saying ‘are’ he frees you from Sabellius. If ‘one’, then not different; if ‘are’, then both Father and Son—for he would not say ‘are’ of one, nor ‘one’ of different things. Let the Sabellians, then, blush, who say that the one who is the Son is the same as the Father, confusing the persons; they are also called Patripassians because they say that the Father suffered. The Arians, however, say that the Father is one thing and the Son another, not one substance but two: the Father greater, the Son lesser. Do not say this, Catholic. Sail, then, between them; avoid both dangerous sides, and say: the Father is Father and the Son is Son; the Father is another, the Son another, but not another thing—rather, the very same, because there is one God». — Thus it has been shown why unity is said to be in the Father, although the three are one.

3. Hilary in The Synod. «Perhaps the faith seems to have spoken less explicitly of the undifferentiated likeness of the Father and the Son, when of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it understood the proper substance, order, and glory of each of those named to be signified in their names, so that they are three in substance but one in harmony. Therefore, when the holy Synod wished to destroy the impiety that would evade the truth of the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the number of the names, so that, without a subsisting cause for each name, a threefold naming might obtain unity under the falsity of names, and the one Father alone might possess both the name of the Holy Spirit and of the Son, they said that there are three substances, teaching that the subsisting persons are shown through the substances, without separating the substance of the Father and the Son by the diversity of an unlike essence. But what is said, ‘so that they are three in substance but one in harmony’, is not open to calumny, because, with the Spirit—namely, the Paraclete—named together, unity is more suitably preached as belonging to harmony than to essence, through the likeness of substance». — The same author in the same work: «When we confess God the Father and proclaim Christ the Son of God, and an irreligious confession of two gods lies between them, those whose name of essence is permitted to be only one cannot, according to the undifferentiated nature, fail to be one in the genus of essence. For the religious unity of the name, constituted from the essence of an undifferentiated nature, has not taken away the person of the begotten from the essence, so that the one and singular substance of God is understood through unity of name, since the one name of essence—that is, one God—is proclaimed on account of the undivided substance of the same nature in both».

²² transposed LMVX. 11 Exemplum ponit] omitted CPRVW. 20 veritatis] et added L, added interlinearly PTV. 23 substantiae] essentiae LM. 25 Rubrica] omitted CPRVW. 30 Aug. ait] transposed LNVX. 32 substantia] subsistentia BCL, corrected in subsistentia T.]

²³

²⁴ omitted LMX. 15–31 (35) Glossa volatilis (T) in the text of M (at the end of Chapter 3), N (at the end of Chapter 6), T (here); in the margin of LX; in the third column of BCW; omitted OPRV. 15 synodo] synodis LTWX. 19 eam] illam TW, vero CX. 26 connominato] cognominato BNW. 31–35 Non enim… praedicetur in the text of N, in the margin of C, at the foot of the page in W, va-cat T, omitted BLMX.]

²⁵

Chapter 5 (135).

Why equality is said to be in the Son, although there is one equality of the three. Let us now see why equality is said to be in the Son, although the equality of the three is one and supreme. — Perhaps this is said because the Son is begotten by the Father, equal to the Begetter and to the Gift proceeding from both; and therefore the three are said to be equal on account of the Son. For the Son has from the Father that he is equal to the Father and to the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit has from both that he is equal to each. We say this without the arrogance of assertion and without prejudging a fuller understanding, preferring, in opening these obscure expressions, to hear those more expert than ourselves rather than to impose anything on others.

Chapter 6 (136).

Why the concord or bond of both is said to be in the Holy Spirit. As for the statement that the concord of both is in the Holy Spirit and that all things are joined through him, it is easier to understand if we recall what was said above. For earlier, according to the authorities of the Saints, it was said that the Holy Spirit is the love by which the Father loves the Son and the Son the Father. Therefore the Holy Spirit is rightly called the bond or concord of the Father and the Son, and all things are joined through him. — Hence Augustine in Book XV of The Trinity: «The Spirit of both is a certain consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son». Likewise in Book VII: «The Holy Spirit is the highest charity joining the two and joining us to them».