Sentences, Books I–II

Chapter 1 (137).

1. Whether the Father or the Son loves by the Holy Spirit, since for God loving is the same as being. Here a question arises from what was said above. For it was said above, and demonstrated by the authorities of the Saints, that the Holy Spirit is the communion of the Father and the Son, and the love by which the Father and the Son love one another. Therefore it is asked whether the Father or the Son loves by or with the Holy Spirit. — This certainly seems necessary to say according to the authorities given above, by which it is shown that the Holy Spirit is «that by which the Begotten is loved by the Begetter and loves his Begetter».

— But on the contrary: if the Father or the Son is said to love by the Holy Spirit, he seems to be through the Holy Spirit, because for God being and loving are not different but the same; for, as Augustine says in Book XV of The Trinity, «whatever seems to be said according to qualities in that simple nature must be understood according to essence», such as good, great, immortal, wise, loving, and the like. Therefore, if the Father or the Son loves through the Holy Spirit, he seems to be through the Holy Spirit; and it is not only by his own essence that he loves, but also by the Gift.

2. This question is insoluble and surpasses human understanding; the authorities seem to conflict. Since this question contains a depth of excessive profundity, we answer only what Augustine seems to indicate: namely, that the Father and the Son love one another and preserve unity not only by their own essence but also by their own Gift. Although this was stated above, it is not burdensome to repeat it, since it is useful to do so.

3. He plainly says that the Father and the Son love one another and preserve peace both by their essence and by their Gift. Thus he says in Book VI of The Trinity: «It is clear that neither of the two is that by which the two are joined, by which the Begotten is loved by the Begetter and loves his Begetter; and they preserve the unity of peace not by participation but by their own essence, and not by the gift of some superior, but by their own Gift». Here he says that they preserve unity by their own essence and by their own Gift. — Likewise in Book XV of The Trinity: «In that Trinity, who would dare to say that the Father loves neither himself nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit except through the Holy Spirit?» Here he clearly shows that the Father does not love only through the Holy Spirit; yet he does not simply say that the Father does not love through the Holy Spirit.

¹ sanctum added TV, added interlinearly N. 23 coniungitur] coniungantur MX.]

²

³

⁴

Chapter 2 (138).

1. Whether the Father is wise with the wisdom he begot, just as he loves with the love that proceeds from him. Moreover, it must be carefully investigated whether the Father is wise with the wisdom he begot, which is the Son alone. — This seems capable of being proved by a likeness: for if he loves with the love that proceeds from him, why does he not also know or understand by the wisdom or intelligence he begot? — This question seems to be urged by what Augustine says in Book VII of The Trinity, where he writes that the Apostle called Christ «the power of God and the wisdom of God»; and there it is asked «whether the Father is the father of his wisdom and power in such a way that he is wise by the wisdom he begot and powerful by the power he begot».

2. Here he determines that the Father is not wise with the wisdom he begot. «But far be it from this being so: for if in that case being is the same as being wise, the Father is not wise through the wisdom he begot; otherwise it would not be that wisdom from him, but he from it. For if the Wisdom he begot is the cause by which he is wise, it is also the cause by which he is; and this cannot happen except by begetting or making him. But no one would in any way call wisdom the mother or creator of the Father: what could be more insane? Therefore the Father himself is the wisdom by which he is wise. The Son, however, is called the wisdom and power of the Father, not because the Father is wise or powerful through him, but because the Son, wisdom and power, is from the Father, wisdom and power». From this it is clear that the Father is not wise with begotten wisdom, but by himself, unbegotten wisdom.

3. Augustine in Book 84 of the Questions. «When God is called wise, and his wisdom is named, without which it is impious to believe that he ever was or can be, he is not called wise by participation in wisdom, as a soul can be wise or not wise, but because he himself begot the wisdom by which he is called wise». — Observe, reader: he says that the Father is made wise by begotten wisdom, which conflicts with other testimonies. But Augustine corrects this in the book of the Revisions, saying: «In Book 84 of the Questions I said of the Father that he himself begot the wisdom by which he is called wise; but I treated this question better later in the book The Trinity».

4. Whether the Son is wise with begotten or unbegotten wisdom. After this some are accustomed to ask whether the Son is wise with begotten or unbegotten wisdom. For if he is not wise with begotten wisdom, he is not wise by himself either; but if begotten wisdom is wise, he does not seem to be wise with unbegotten wisdom, and so he does not seem to be wise from the Father, although he has all things from the Father. — Answer. We say that the wisdom of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, just as their essence is one, because in the simplicity of that nature wisdom is essence. And yet only the Son is begotten wisdom, while the Father is unbegotten wisdom; and begotten wisdom is from unbegotten wisdom, or by unbegotten wisdom. Since there being and being wise are the same there, it follows that begotten wisdom is wise from unbegotten wisdom. — The Son, then, is not called the wisdom of God as though he alone were understanding or wise, for himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit; because, as Augustine says in Book XV of The Trinity: «If only the Son understands there, for himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, we return to the absurdity that the Father is not wise from himself but from the Son, and that wisdom did not beget wisdom, but the Father is said to be wise by that wisdom which he begot. For where there is no understanding, neither can there be wisdom. Therefore, if the Father does not understand for himself but the Son understands for the Father, the Son certainly makes the Father wise. And if for God being is the same as being wise, and that essence is wisdom for him, it is not the Son who has essence from the Father, which is true, but rather the Father who has essence from the Son: which is utterly absurd and utterly false».

⁵ pater add. LANRVW. 10–11 et genuit] mg. CMV. 12–13 Rubrica] om. NRW. 23–26 Nota (M) in textu LMNT, mg. O²X. 23 Deus dicitur] trp. BLNX.]

⁶

⁷

⁸

⁹ transposed BCX. || sapientiam] sapientia BCLX. 6 sapientiam] sapientia BCLX. 11 esse sapiens] transposed BCL. 15 Pater] tantum added LTV.]

¹⁰

¹¹

5. The Father is wise with what he himself is, wisdom, and the Son is begotten and wise from it: the one unbegotten, the other begotten, yet one wisdom. «God the Father, then, is wise with what he himself is, his wisdom; and the Son, the wisdom of the Father, is wise from the wisdom which is the Father, from whom he is begotten. So the Father is intelligent with what he himself is, his intelligence; for he would not be wise who was not intelligent; but the Son, the intelligence of the Father, is begotten from the intelligence which is the Father, from whom he is. Therefore the Father is wisdom, and the Son is wisdom, and the wisdom of both; but the Father alone is unbegotten wisdom, and the Son alone begotten wisdom. Yet the Father is not one wisdom and the Son another, but one and the same. Just as the Father is unbegotten God and the Son is begotten God, yet they are not two gods but one God, each of them; not ‘one’ unbegotten, but not ‘another God’, rather one and the same. So begotten wisdom is not a wisdom other than unbegotten wisdom, but is other as begotten; yet it is not another wisdom, but one and the same wisdom».

Chapter 3 (139).

1. Whether the Son is wise by himself or through himself. From what was said above it is clear that the Son is not wise from himself or of himself, but from the Father and of the Father. But it is customary to ask whether the Son is wise by himself or through himself.

2. A solution according to some. Some say that a distinction must be understood here: so that when you say that the Son is wise by himself, the understanding is true; but if you understand it as ‘from himself’, it is false.

3. The determination of others. Others, however, simply and without qualification grant such expressions as these: ‘The Son is wise through himself, but not from himself’, and ‘The Son is God through himself and is through himself, but not from himself or of himself’. They confirm this by the words of Hilary, who says in Book IX of The Trinity that the Son acts not from himself but through himself: «This unity, heretic, belongs to the nature you oppose: the Son acts through himself in such a way that he does not act from himself, and he does not act from himself in such a way that he acts through himself. Understand the Son acting, and the Father acting through him. He does not act from himself, since the Father is shown to remain in him; he acts through himself, since, according to the Son’s begetting, he himself does what is pleasing. Let him be weak in not acting from himself, if he himself acts so greatly; but let him not be in the unity of nature if he does not act through himself in the things he does and in which he is pleasing». Therefore, just as the Son acts through himself but not from himself, so the Son should be called wise through himself but not from himself. Thus, they say, he is or should be called God through himself, but not from himself or of himself.

Chapter 4 (140).

1. Whether there is only one wisdom of the Father. After this some customarily ask whether there is only one wisdom of the Father.

2. How some try to prove that there is not only one wisdom of the Father. They try to prove that there is not only one in this way: they say that the Son is the begotten wisdom of the Father, by which the Father is not wise; therefore there is some wisdom of the Father by which he is not wise. There is also the unbegotten wisdom of the Father, and by it the Father is wise; therefore there is a certain wisdom of the Father by which he is wise. This is not that wisdom of the Father by which the Father is not wise; therefore there is not only one wisdom of the Father. Again, unbegotten wisdom is the wisdom of the Father, and begotten wisdom is the wisdom of the Father; but unbegotten wisdom is not begotten wisdom; therefore there is not only one wisdom of the Father.

3. That these and similar arguments are unworthy of an answer. We cast aside these and similar arguments as sophistical and manifestly far from the truth to all learned in theology, judging them unworthy of an answer; but we add this: there is only one wisdom of the Father, although it is not said in only one way. For the wisdom of the Father is called that which he begot, and the wisdom of the Father is called that by which he is wise. The reason for the expression is therefore different. The former is called the Father’s because he begot it, and the latter is called the Father’s because he is wise by it. Yet the wisdom of the Father is one, because begotten wisdom is the same wisdom as that by which he is wise, whether the person of the Father or the essence of the Father is understood as being wise by it; for the person of the Father understood when ‘unbegotten wisdom’ is said, and the person of the Son signified when ‘begotten wisdom’ is said, are one and the same wisdom, which is understood as the divine essence common to the three persons.

¹² om. NRW. 5 haec genita] om. BCX. 24 Rubrica] om. BCMRWX. 24 esse] sit BCX. 28 esse] om. BCX.]

¹³

¹⁴ non LMOP. 5 adeo] CMNP, a deo others. || sit²] fit CRTW. 8 est¹] esse BCNOPW. 13–14 Rubrica] omitted NRW. || est] sit BCX. 22 Rubrica] omitted NRW.]

¹⁵

Chapter 5 (141).

Just as in the Trinity there is a love which is the Trinity, and yet the Holy Spirit is a love which is not the Trinity, so that there are not therefore two loves: so also with wisdom. And just as in the Trinity there is a love which is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is the very essence of the Godhead, and yet the Holy Spirit is a love which is not the Father or the Son, so that there are not therefore two loves in the Trinity—for the love which properly is the Holy Spirit is the love which is the Trinity, although it is not itself the Trinity, just as the Holy Spirit is the essence which is the Trinity, although he himself is not the Trinity—so in the Trinity there is a wisdom which is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is the divine essence, and yet the Son is a wisdom which is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. There are not therefore two wisdoms there, because the wisdom which properly is the Son is the wisdom which is the Trinity, although it itself is not the Trinity; just as the Son is the essence which is the Trinity, although he himself is not the Trinity.

Chapter 6 (142).

By what reasoning the Father is not said to be wise with the wisdom he begot, by the same reasoning it seems that the Father should not be said to love, nor the Son to love, with the love which proceeds from both. Moreover, it must be carefully noted that, by the reasoning according to which the Father is not said to be wise with the wisdom he begot, it seems that one should say that the Father does not love the Son, nor the Son the Father, with the love which proceeds from both, namely, which properly is the Holy Spirit. For just as for God knowing is the same as being, so for him loving is the same as being. Therefore, just as the Father is denied to be wise with the wisdom he begot because, if he were said to be wise by it, he would be understood to exist not from it but it from him, so it seems one should not grant that the Father or the Son loves with the love which is only the Holy Spirit, because if the Father or the Son loves by it, it seems that not the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, but the Father and the Son from the Holy Spirit, since there loving is the same as being. — Augustine in Book VI of The Trinity *. But above², and on the authority of St. Augustine³, it was said that in the Trinity «there are three: one loving him who is from him, one loving him from whom he is, and love itself»; and «neither of the two is that by which the Begotten is loved by the Begetter and loves his Begetter».

By these words it is clearly signified that the Father loves the Son and the Son the Father even with that love which is neither of them but only the Holy Spirit. Since, then, loving is the same as being there, how is it said that the Father or the Son is not that love by which each loves the other, when the reason the Father is denied to be wise with the wisdom he begot is precisely to prevent him from being understood as that wisdom?

2. That this question too is inexplicable, since it surpasses human weakness. I confess that it is difficult for me to solve this question, especially since it arises from statements that seem to have a similar meaning. My weakness of understanding is troubled when it attends to what has been said, and I desire rather to report what has been said by the Saints than to contribute anything myself. — Hilary in Book I of The Trinity¹. «For, as Hilary says in Book I of The Trinity, the best reader is one who awaits the understanding of statements from the statements themselves rather than imposing it, and who reports rather than contributes, not forcing the words to seem to contain what he had presumed before reading that they should mean. Since, then, our speech concerns the things of God, let us grant to God the knowledge of himself and serve his words with devout reverence». Let the devout reader therefore investigate carefully the reason of these statements, if perhaps he can find some reason in them by which the question proposed above may be explained to some extent.

3. Yet he says something. I do not resolve the question, but exclude error, and affirm that the statement ‘the Father loves the Son, or the Son the Father, with the love which proceeds from both, which is neither of them but only the Holy Spirit’ was not made as though the Father or the Son were that love. Rather, the Father loves the Son and the Son the Father by that love in such a way that the Father also loves through himself by the love which he himself is, and likewise the Son; not in such a way that the Father and the Son do not love through themselves, but only through that love. «Who would dare to think or affirm this in that Trinity?» Augustine asks². We leave this question, however, to the more complete judgment and resolution of our readers, since we are not sufficient for it.

¹⁶ et add. NRVWX. 9 Ipse] ipsa BCL. 12 quia] quoniam NRW. 28 quia] quod BCMP, quod corr. C.]

¹⁷