S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis
S. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae
atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis

St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio
Cardinal Bishop of Alba
& Doctor of the Church

Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum

Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences

Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis

of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris

PRIMI LIBRI

BOOK ONE

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION III

PARS. I.

PART I

ARTCULUS UNICUS.

 

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI

ARTICLE SOLE

 

DOUBTS ON THE TEXT OF MASTER PETER

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 77-80.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 77-80.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

DUB. I.

DOUBT I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram de rationibus illis, quas ponit Magister quantum ad rationem probandi et vim3 inferendi, quia videntur omnes vel non valere vel dubium supponere.

In that part of his (text) there are doubts [dubitationes] about the text concerning those reasons, which Master (Peter) posits as much as regards the reason for proving and the force3 of inferring, because all seem to not be valid [non valere] and/or to suppose a doubt [dubium].

Prima namque ratio talis est.4 Qui potest quod nulla creatura potest, est supra omnem creaturam; sed qui fecit mundum istum, fecit quod nulla potest creatura: ergo non est creatura, sed super omnem creaturam. Et incipit haec ratio ibi: Nam sicut ait Ambrosius, ut Deus etc. In ista ratione videtur supponi duplex5 dubium, videlicet quod mundus iste sit factus, et quod creatura ipsum non possit facere, quorum utrumque est valde dubium.

And indeed the first reason is of such a kind.4 He who can (make) what no creature can (make), is above every creature; but the One who made this world of ours, made what no creature can (make): therefore He is not a creature, but above every creature. And this reason starts there (where he says): For as (St.) Ambrose says, that God etc. In that reason of his a twofold5 doubt seems to be supposed, namely that this world of ours has been made, and that a creature could not make it, each of which is very doubtful (valde dubium).

Secunda ratio est haec.6 Qui fecit corporalia et spiritus mutabiles, est super omnia corporalia et mutabilia: ergo est spirituale et immutabile. Hic similiter videtur supponi dubium, quod Deus fecerit spiritus. Et iterum, non sequitur ex hoc, quodsi fecit mutabilia, quod7 sit immutabilis, immo potius videtur sequi oppositum, scilicet quod sit mutabilis.

The second reason is this.6 He who made corporal things and mutable spirits, is above all corporal and mutable things: therefore He is spiritual and immutable. This similarly seems to suppose a doubt, that God made spirits. And again, it does not follow from this, that if He made mutable things, that7 He is immutable, nay rather the opposite seems to follow, that is, that He is mutable.

Tertia ratio haec est. Qui fecit bona et meliora, est optimus; sed Deus fecit corporalia, quae sunt bona, et spiritualia, quae sunt meliora: ergo Deus est optimus. Haec similiter ratio videtur nullam habere apparentiam, quia tunc similiter quilibet artifex, qui facit bona et meliora, esset8 optimus, quod falsum est.

The third reason is this. He who made good things and better things, is the best; but God made corporal things, which are good, and spiritual things, which are better: therefore God is the best. This reason similarly seems not to be apparent [nullam habere apparentiam], because then any artisan, who makes good things and better things, would8 similarly be the best, which is false.

Quarta ratio haec est. Qui fecit pulcra et pulcriora, est ipsa pulcritudo sive species, et hoc est speciosissimum; sed videmus, corporalia esse speciosa, et spiritualia esse speciosiora:9 ergo qui fecit haec, est speciosissimus. Similiter videtur, quod nec ratio praedicta valeat propter praedictam instantiam.

The fourth reason is this. He who made beautiful things [pulcra] and more beautiful things, is Beauty [pucritudo] Itself or outward Beauty [species], and this One is most outwardly-beautiful [speciosissimum]; but we see, that corporal things are outwardly-beautiful, and spiritual things are more outwardly-beautiful:9 therefore He who made these, is most outwardly-beautiful. Similarly it seems, that neither aforesaid reason is valid on account of the aforesaid example [instantia].

Item quaeritur de differentia istarum rationum, et quomodo distinguuntur. Si dicas, sicut dicunt aliqui, quod sunt quatuor penes quatuor genera causarum, hoc nihil est, quia genus causae materialis non cadit in Deo. Si dicas, quod penes modos cognoscendi; contra: non sunt nisi tres, scilicet in ratione causae, ablationis et excellentiae.10

Likewise there is asked concerning the difference of those reasons of his, and in what manner they are distinguished. If you say, as some say, that there are four from within [penes] the four genera of causes, this is nothing, because the genus of the material cause does not fall in God. If you say, that (they are) from within [penes] the manners of cognizing; on the contrary: there are not but three, that is, in the reckoning of cause, of ablation and of excellence.10

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod omnes istae rationes ad hoc,11 ut probent et inferant, supponunt aliquod certum. Prima enim ratio supponit, quod productio rei de nihilo non potest esse nisi a potentia infinita. Hoc supposito, cum certum sit, nullam creaturam habere potentiam infinitam,12 sequitur, quod / actus productionis rerum de nihilo sit eius, . . .

I RESPOND: It must be said, that all those reasons of his suppose something certain for this (purpose), to prove and infer (the conclusion). For the first reason supposes, that the production of a thing from nothing cannot be except from an infinite potency. With this supposed, since it is certain, that no creature has an infinite potency,12 it follows that / the act of production of a thing from nothing belongs to Him, . . .

3 Aliqui codd. ut X Y pro vim minus bene verum, codd. G I inde. Mox ex mss. et ed. 1 post omnes supplevimus vel.
4 Vat., contradicentibus mss. et ed. 1, omittit namque et talis est. Paulo infra post nulla bis fide textus Magistri expunximus alia, utpote distorquens sensum, lect primo loc etiam in mss. et ed. 1 inveniatur. Deinde verba Et incipit usque ad Deus desunt in Vat., sed extant in mss. et ed. 1.
5 Ex plurimis mss. et ed. 1 substituimus duplex loc dupliciter, quod Vat. minus bene habet. Cod. I supponere, supple: Magister.
6 Vat. hic et deinceps post ratio omittit est haec; item, refragantibus mss. et ed. 1, mox post mutabilia legit Deus est huiusmodi: ergo Deus est spirituale immutabile.
7 Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 quod, quia fecit mutabilia, ideo sit.
8 Vat. est, sed obstant mss. et ed. 1. Paulo ante cod. I fecit pro facit.
9 Ita codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3, sed Vat.: Sed Deus fecit pulcra sive speciosa quia corporalia, et speciosiora quia spiritualia; et paulo infra contra mss. et ed. 1 videtur ratio ista non valere.
10 Dionys., de Div. Nom. c. 7 §. 3: Via et ordine pro viribus ascendimus in ablatione et in superlatione omnium et in omnium causa. Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 48. m. 2. a. 1. — S. Thom., I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. divisio textus. — Vat. hic addit: Ad obiectiones contra quatuor rationes iam dictas respondetur, quod deest in mss. et ed. 1.
11 Restituimus ex mss. et ed. 1 verba ad hoc. Immediate post codd. E Y quod loco ut, ac paulo infra plures codd. ut I R aa bb ff tertium pro certum.
12 Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 79. (c. ult.) iuxta ed. Venet. 1489: Non ergo finiti est potentia infinita. Forte cod. X hanc propositionem intendit, licet falso alleget libr. IV. Phys.. — Mox / post nihilo cod. K legit non potest esse nisi a potentia infinita, et quod sit actus eius quod est super naturam et super onem creaturam; deinde omittit cetera usque ad In aliis.

3 Some codices as X Y in place of force [vim] have less well truth [verum], codices G and I have thence [inde]. Then from the manuscripts and edition 1 we have supplied and/or [vel] after valid.
4 The Vatican text, contradicting the manuscripts and edition 1, omits And indeed and is of such a kind. A little below this after no, we have twice expunged, trusting in the text of Master (Peter), the word other [alia], as it is able to distort the sense, though in the first place it is also found in the manuscripts and edition 1. Then the words And this reason up to as God are lacking in the Vatican text, but extant in the manuscripts and edition 1.
5 From very many manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted twofold [duplex] in place of in a twofold manner [dupliciter], which the Vatican text has less well. Codex I has (Master Peter) seems to suppose a twofold doubt [videtur supponere etc.].
6 The Vatican text here and hereafter omits is this after each reason; likewise, disagreeing with the manuscripts and edition 1, it then, after mutable things reads God is of this kind: therefore God is an immutable spiritual.
7 The Vatican text, not trusting in the manuscripts and edition 1, has that, because He made mutables, for that reason He is . . ..
8 The Vatican text has is similarly the, but the manuscripts and edition 1 oppose this. A little before this codex I has made in place of makes.
9 Thus the codices together with editions 1, 2 and 3, but the Vatican text reads: But God made beautiful things or outwardly-beautiful things because (they are) corporal, and more outwardly-beautiful things because (they are) spiritual; and a little below this, contrary to the manuscripts and edition 1, it has that reason of his does not seem to be valid.
10 Dionysius (the Areopagite), On the Divine Names, ch. 7, § 3: By a way and order (that is) in proportion to (our) strength we ascend in being-borne-away [ablatione] and in being-borne-above all [superlatione omnium] and in the cause of all. Cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. I, q. 48, m. 2, a. 1. — St. Thomas, Sent., Bk. I, d. 3, p. I. division of the text. — The Vatican text here adds: To the objections against the four reasons already stated there is responded, which is lacking in the manuscripts and edition 1.
11 We have restored from the manuscripts and edition 1 the words for this purpose [ad hoc]. Immediately after this codices E and Y have which [quod] in place of to [ut], and a little below this very many codices as I R aa bb and ff have third [tertium] in place of certain [certum].
12 Aristotle, Physics, Bk. VIII, text 79 (last chapter) according to the Venetian edition of 1489: Therefore not to the finite does the infinite potency belong. Perhaps codex X intends this proposition, though it falsely references Physics, Bk. IV. — Then / after nothing [nihilo] codex K reads cannot be except from an infinite potency, and that the act belongs to the One which is above nature and above every creature; then it omits the rest up to In the other (p. 78).

 

p. 78

 

actus productionis rerum de nihilo sit eius, qui1 est super omnem creaturam. Et ita ex hoc actu tanquam ex proprio cognoscitur Deus omnipotens, immensus. — In aliis tribus rationibus supponitur status, sicut in tota philosophia supponitur status in causis; et ideo omne mutabile reducitur ad immutabile, quia in mutabili non est status in genere efficientis nisi in movente non moto: omne enim quod movetur, ab alio movetur.2 Similiter bonum et melius reducuntur ad optimum, quia non est status in genere finis nisi in optimo. Similiter pulcrum et puchrius ad pulcherrimum, quia non est status in genere speciei et formae, nisi in eo quod est ipsa species per essentiam.

the act of the production of a thing belongs to Him, who1 is above every creature. And thus from this act as from what is proper to Him [ex proprio] there is cognized God the Omnipotent, the Immense. — In the other three reasons there is supposed a stability [status], just as in all of philosophy there is supposed a stability among causes; and for that reason every mutable is lead back [reducitur] to an immutable, because in the mutable there is not a stability in the genus of the efficient except in the non-moved mover: for everything which is moved, is moved by another.2 Similarly the good and the better are lead back to the best, because stability is not in the genus of the end except in the best. Similarly the beautiful and more beautiful to the most beautiful, because stability is not in the genus of species and form, except in the one which is itself essentially [per essentiam] species.

Ad illud quod quaeritur de distinctione rationum, ex dictis iam patet responsio. Non enim possunt distingui penes genus causarum tantum, nec penes modos cognoscendi tantum, sed penes utrumque.3 Prima enim ratio sumitur secundum rationem causae; aliae sumuntur penes rationem causae et excellentiae, quia considerant ordinem et distinguuntur secundum ordinem in triplici genere causae,4 efficientis sive moventis, finientis et exemplaris.

To that which is asked concerning the distinction of the reasons, from what has been said the response is already clear. For they cannot be distinguished from within [penes] the genus of causes only, nor from within the manners of cognizing only, but (they can) from within both.3 For the first reason is taken according the reckoning of the cause; the others are taken from within the reckoning of cause and excellence, because they consider the order and they are distinguished according to order in a threefold genus of cause,4 the efficient or motive [moventis], the final [finientis] and the exemplar.

DUB. II.

DOUBT II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod postea dicit Magister, quod ex perpetuitate intelligitur Conditor aeternus. Nihil enim valet: effectus est perpetuus,5 ergo efficiens est aeternus.

Likewise is asked concerning this which Master (Peter) says afterwards, that from the perpetuity . . . the eternal Founder is understood. For it has no value (to say): the effect is perpetual,5 therefore the efficient (cause) is eternal.

Item quaeritur similiter6 de hoc quod dicit: Ex magnitudine omnipotens. Nihil enim valet: fecit magna, ergo est omnipotens vel potest facere omnia.

Likewise it is similarly6 asked concerning this which he says: From the magnitude . . . the omnipotent. For it has no value (to say): it made great things, therefore it is omnipotent and/or it can make all things.

RESPONDEO: Ad hoc dicunt aliqui, quod tantum est quaedam persuasio per signum, non necessaria argumentatio. Dicunt enim, quod omnipotentia et aeternitas, cum sint infinitae, non possunt sufficienter probari per creaturas, quae sunt finitae.7 — Aliter tamen potest dici, quod quamvis non sequatur in quolibet efficiente, tamen necessario sequitur in efficiente sive perpetuante primo. Impossibile enim est, quod creatura habeat esse et magnum esse8 et hoc totum ab aliquo, qui non possit in totum; et qua ratione in hoc totum, et in quodlibet. Similiter, si est primum perpetuans, est omnino in actu et nihil in potentia; et si hoc, cum possit facere durare aliud in infinitum, ipsum est actu infinitum duratione: ergo aeternum.

I RESPOND: To this some say, that there is only a certain persuasion through a sign, not a necessary argumentation. For they say, that omnipotence and eternity, since they are infinite, cannot be sufficiently proven through creatures, which are finite.7 — However in another way it can be said, that although it does not follow in every efficient, however it necessarily follows in the efficient or first perpetuating. For it is impossible, that a creature have a being [esse] and a great being [magnum esse]8 and this whole from another, which cannot be in the whole; and by this reason in this whole, and in anything. Similarly, if there is a first perpetuating, it is entirely in act and none (of it is) in potency; and if this (is so), since it can make another endure unto the infinite, it is itself infinite in the duration of its act [actu duratione]: therefore eternal.

DUB. III.

DOUBT III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Omnia quae arte divina condita9 sunt, unitatem quandam in se ostendunt et speciem et ordinem. Videtur enim primo dicere falsum, quia si hoc, cum haec tria condita sint, tunc habent unitatem, speciem et ordinem, et sic de aliis: ergo si est stare, tunc aliqua condita sunt, quae haec non habent.10

Likewise is asked concerning this which he says: all . . . which have been made by the divine Art, show . . . a certain unity in themselves and an outward-beauty and order.. For he seems to say, first, (that it is) false, because if this (is so), since these three have been founded, then they have a unity, an outward-beauty [species], and an order, and thus concerning the others: therefore if it is to stand, then some have been founded, which do not have these.10

Item videtur male enumerare, quia Augustinus11 ponit ista tria: modum, species et ordinem, et haec alia: unitatem, veritatem, bonitatem. Quaeritur ergo de diversis modis enumerandi, unde veniant.

Likewise he seems to badly enumerate, because (St.) Augustine11 posits these three: measure [modum], outward-beauty and order, and these others: unity, truth, goodness. Therefore it is asked concerning the diverse manners of enumerating, whence do they come?

RESPONDEO: Ad hoc dicunt aliqui, quod hoc intelligitur de creaturis perfectis, vel si de omnibus,12 tunc illa tria non dicunt conditiones in re creata, sed in exemplari increato. — Potest tamen dici, quod in primis intentionibus et generalibus13 est reflexio et ideo status, nec est ultra procedendum.

I RESPOND: To this some say, that this is understood of perfect creatures, and/or if of all things,12 then those three are not called conditions in the created thing, but in the uncreated exemplar. — However it can be said, that in the first and general intentions13 there is reflection and for that reason stability [status], and one is not to proceed beyond (this).

Ad illud quod quaeritur de enumeratione illorum trium, quod non videtur conveniens; dicendum quod res creata habet tripliciter considerari: aut in / se, aut in comparatione ad alias creaturas . . .

To that which is asked concerning the enumeration of the other three, that it does not seem to be fitting [conveniens]; it must be said that a created thing has to be considered in a threefold manner: either in / itself, or in comparison to other creatures . . .

1 Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 quae. Paulo infra ed. 1 primo pro proprio.
2 Aristot., VII. Phys. text. 4. et 3. — Mox cod. R post quia addit in bono et paulo infra cod. Y post pulcrius adiungut reducuntur.
3 Fide mss. et ed. 1 substituimus utrumque loco utraque et immediate post loco autem posuimus enim.
4 Vat. hic addit ut, sed obstant mss. cum edd. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. — Plura de his argumentis vide infra d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. et Hexaλm. Serm. 5. et 10.
5 Hoc est, qui licet habeat initium, non tamen habet finem. — Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 omittendo verba Nihil enim valet, obiectionem ita proponit: Effectus non est perpetuus: ergo neque efficiens est aeternus; sed minus ad rem, ut liquet ex responsione S. Doctoris ad obiectionem.
6 Restituimus ex mss. et ed. 1 verbum similiter.
7 Hanc sententiam defendit Scot., I. Sent. d. 2. q. 3. n. 6. et d. 42. q. unic. et Quodlib. q. 7.
8 Depravatam lectionem Vat. habeat ita magnum esse et ita dispositum, et hoc emendavimus ex mss. et ed. 1.
9 Plures codd. omittunt divina, omnes autem habent condita contra Vat., quae ponit facta.
10 Perturbata lectio Vat. falsum, quod quae condita sunt sive facta, habeant ista tria, scilicet unitatem, speciem et ordinem: quia aliqua condita sunt quae haec non habent, sicut diabolus et reprobi castigatur ope codd. et ed. 1, qui quoad substantiam lectionis in textum receptae consentiunt, licet quoad addicentalia devergantur; sic cod. A qui similiter loco quia si hoc, cod. O post condita sunt satis bene addit haec; codd. I K ergo pro tunc, cod. M tunc haberent loco tunc habent.
11 Libr. de Natura boni, c. 3: Haec ergo tria: modus, species, ordo tanquam generalia bona sunt in rebus a Deo factis sive in spiritu, sive in corpore. Similia habet V. de Cov. Dei, c. 11. De unitate, veritate et bonitate vide libr. de Vera Relig. c. 11, 35. et 55. — Ope mss. et ed. 1 substituimus ponit pro enumerat ac paulo infra post veritatem supplevimus et.
12 Codd. V W hic addunt et.
13 Hoc est, in transcendentalibus rationibus unitatis, veritatis et bonitatis unaquaeque potest de se et aliis praedicari, v. g. veritas est vera, una et bona; in aliis autem rationibus seu formis haec reflexio proprie non admittitur; sic improprie dicitur albedo est alba. Cfr. infra d. 17. p. I. q. 2. ad ult. — Difficultas a Seraphico hic proposita tangitur et infra d. 33. q. 4. ad 1. et 2. Cfr. et Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 18. m. 1. ad 1. et p. III. q. 7. m. 2. ad 6. — Bl. Albert., hic a. 15. — Richard. a Med., hic circa lit. et d. 33. a. 3. q. 2.

1 The Vatican text contrary to the manuscripts and to edition 1 reads that (power), which [eius, quae]. A little below this edition 1 has the first in place of its own.
2 Aristotle, Physics, Bk. VII, text 1 & 3. — Then codex R after because adds in the good [in bono] and a little below this codex Y after more beautiful inserts are lead back [reducuntur].
3 Trusting in the manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted the neuter form of from both [utrumque] for the feminine form. and immediately after this we have put for [enim] in place of but [autem].
4 The Vatican text here adds (such) as [ut], but the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 oppose this. — For more on these arguments see below in d. 8, p. I, a. 1, q. 2 and Hexaλmeron, Sermon 5 & 10.
5 This is that, which though it has a start, does not have an end. — The Vatican text without the authority of the manuscripts and edition 1, by omitting the words For it has no value (to say), proposes the objection thus: The effect is not perpetual: therefore neither is the efficient (cause) eternal; but this is less effective in clarifying the response of the Seraphic Doctor to the objection.
6 We have restored from the manuscripts and edition 1 the word similarly [similariter].
7 (Bl. John Duns) Scotus defends this opinion in Sent., Bk. I, d. 2, q. 3, n. 6 and in d. 42, q. sole and in Quodlibetals, q. 7.
8 The distorted reading of the Vatican text, have so great a being and be so disposed, and this . . ., we have emended from the manuscripts and edition 1.
9 Many codices omit divine, but all have founded contrary to the Vatican text, which has made.
10 The confused reading of the Vatican text: false, because those things which have been founded or made, have those three, that is unity, outward beauty [species] and order: because some have been founded which do not have these, such as the devil and the reprobate, is corrected with the help of the codices and edition 1, which in regard to the substance of the reading agree in the text of the (passage) received, though in regard to accidentals diverge; thus codex A has because similarly in place of because if this (is so), codex O into some have been founded inserts well enough (of) these [haec]; codices I and K have therefore [ergo] in place of then, codex M has would not have [non haberent] in place of do not have [non habent].
11 Book on the Nature of the Good, ch. 3: Therefore these three: manner, species, order as general goods are in things made by God, either in spirit, or in body. Similar (words) has The City of God, Bk. V, ch. 11. On unity, truth and goodness see the book On the True Religion, ch. 11, nn. 36 and 55. — With the help of the manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted posits [ponit] in place of enumerates [enumerat] and a little below this we have supplied and [et] after truth.
12 Codices V and W here add and [et].
13 That is, among the transcendental reasons of unity, of truth, and of goodness each one can be predicated of itself and of the others, e. g. the truth is true, one and good; but among the other reasons or forms this reflection is properly not admitted; thus improperly is whiteness said to be white. Cf. below in d. 17, p. I, q. 2 at the end. — The difficulty proposed here by the Seraphic (Doctor) is touched upon also below in d. 33, q. 4, at nn. 1 and 2. Cf. also Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. I, q. 18, m. 1 at n. 1 and p. II, q. 7, m. 2 at n. 6. — Bl. (now St.) Albert (the Great), here in a. 15. — Richard of Middleton, here on the text (of Master Peter) and in d. 33, a. 3, q. 2.

 

p. 79

 

aut in / se, aut in comparatione ad alias creaturas, aut in comparatione ad causam primam. Et secundum hos omnes modos contingit reperire trinitatem dupliciter.

either in / itself, or in comparison to other creatures, or in comparison to the first cause. And according to all these manners it happens that one finds a twofold trinity.

Si enim consideretur quantum in se vel quantum ad se, hoc est, aut quantum ad substantiam principiorum; et sic est illa trinitas; materia, forma, compositio, quae ponitur in libro de Regula fidei;1 aut quantum ad habitudines; et sic est illa, Sapientiae undecimo:2 Omnia in numero, pondere et mensura disposuisti. In numero enim intelligitur principiorum distinctio, in pondere propria ipsorum inclinatio, in mensura eorum3 ad invicem proportio.

For if it is considered as much as (it is) in itself and/or as much as (it is) for itself, that this, either as much as regards the substance of its principles; and thus there is that trinity: matter, form, composition, which is posited in (that) book on the Rule of faith;1 or as much as regards (its) habitudes; and thus it is that (trinity spoken of), in the eleventh (chapter) of Wisdom:2 Thou has disposed all thing in number, weight and measure. For in number there is understood a distinction of principles, in weight their proper inclination, in measure their3 proportion to one another.

Item, si consideretur una creatura in comparatione ad alias creaturas, hoc potest esse4 aut in quantum agit actione naturali; et sic sumitur illa trinitas Dionysii,5 substantia, virtus et operatio; aut in quantum agit actione spirituali; et sic illa Augustini, de octoginta tribus Quaestionibus,6 « quo constat, quo congruit, quo discernitur », et ultimum refertur ad animam.

Likewise, if one creature is considered in comparison to other creatures, this can be4 either inasmuch as it acts by natural action; and thus is taken that trinity of Dionysius (the Areopagite),5 substance, virtue and operation; or inasmuch as it acts by spiritual action; and thus that (trinity) of (St.) Augustine, On the Eighty-three Questions,6 « that whereby it is established, that to which it is suitable, that whereby it is distinguished », and the last is referred to the soul.

Si autem considerentur7 in comparatione ad Deum, hoc potest esse duplicitur: aut in quantum referuntur tantum; et sic est illa, modus, species et ordo; aut in quantum referuntur et assimiliantur; et sic est illa, unitas, veritas et8 bonitas.

But if (creatures) are considered7 in comparison to God, this can be in a twofold manner: either inasmuch as they are referred only; and thus is there is that (trinity of), manner, species and order; or inasmuch as they are referred and assimilated; and thus there is that (trinity of), unity, truth and8 goodness.

Quoniam ergo vestigium attenditur in comparatione ad Deum proprie, ideo in his ultimis conditionibus proprie accipitur vestigium. Et quia magna est inter istas comparationes convenientia, ideo Magister miscet haec ad invicem propter multam convenientiam et correspondentiam;9 quia unitas respondet modo, qui respicit Deum ut causam efficientem; veritas speciei, quae respicit ipsum ut exemplar; bonitas ordini, qui10 respicit Deum ut finem.

Therefore since the vestige is attained in comparison to God properly (speaking), for this reason in this last conditions the vestige is accepted properly. And because there is a great fittingness among those comparisons of his, for that reason Master (Peter) mingles these together [ad invicem] on account of much fittingness and correspondence;9 because unity responds to the manner, which looks back to God as efficient cause; truth to the species, which looks back to Him as exemplar; goodness to the order, which looks back to God as end.

DUB. IV.

DOUBT IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod appropriat veritatem Filio dicens: Perfectissima pulcritudo intelligitur Filius, scilicet veritas Patris. Sed contra Augustinus in Soliloquio:11 « Veritas est id quod est »; sed ens nulli personae appropriatur: ergo nec veritas.

Likewise is asked concerning that saying which appropriates the truth to the Son: The most perfect beauty is understood (to be) the Son, that is the Truth of the Father. But against (this speaks St.) Augustine in the Soliloquies:11 « The truth is that which is »; but being is appropriated to no Person: therefore neither truth.

Item videtur male appropriare ordinem Spiritui sancto, quia in praecedenti capitulo dicit, quod ex ordine intelligitur sapiens;12 sed sapientia appropriatur Filio: ergo et ordo.

Likewise it seems that order is badly appropriated to the Holy Spirit, because in the preceding chapter he says, that from order the wise is understood;12 but wisdom is appropriated to the Son: therefore also order.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod veritas potest dupliciter considerari, sicut et13 color. Nam uno modo color consideratur secundum id in quo est; et sic definitur in libro de Sensu et sensato:14 « Color est extremitas perspicui in corpore terminato ». Alio modo in comparatione ad visum, quem movet; et sic definitur in libro de Anima:15 « Color est motivum visus secundum actum lucidi ».

I RESPOND: It must be said, that truth can be considered in a twofold manner, just as also13 color. For in one manner color is considered according to that in which it is; and thus it is defined in the book On Sensing and the sensed:14 « Color is the extremity of the evident in a bounded body ». In another manner in comparison to the seeing, which it moves; and thus is it defined in the book On the Soul:15 « Color is a motive of seeing according to the act of the lucid thing ».

Similiter veritas potest considerari in compartione ad id in quo est; et sic verum est16 id quod est; alio modo per comparationem ad intellectum, quem movet; et sic veritas, ut dicit Philosophus in secundo Metaphysicae,17 « est finis intelligentiae speculativae ». Secundum primum modum dicit Anselmus:18 « Veritas Patris est essentia Patris ». Quantum ad secundum modum dicit Hilarius,19 quod « veritas est delcarativum esse ». Et quoniam Filius20 procedit ut Verbum, cui appropriatur ratio decla- / -randi, . . .

Similarly truth can be considered in comparison to that in which it is; and thus the truth is16 that which is; in another manner through a comparison to the intellect, which it moves; and thus truth, as the Philosopher says in the second (Book) of Metaphysics,17 « is the end of speculative intelligence ». According to the first manner (St.) Anselm says:18 « The truth of the Father is the essence of the Father ». As much as regard the second manner (St.) Hilary says,19 that « truth is declarative being [esse] ». And since the Son20 proceeds as the Word, to whom is appropriated the reckoning of the one decla - / -ring, . . .

1 Alanus ab Insulis, de Arte seu Articulis catholicae fidei, a. 24: Materia et forma earumque compago tria prorsus diversa sunt. — Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 minus convenienter ponuntur. Cod V compositum loco compositio.
2 Vers. 21. — Paulo ante post habitudines Vat., contradicentibus mss. et ed. 1, omittit et.
3 Cod. W. propria eorum.
4 Cod. X adiungit dupliciter.
5 De Caelest. Hierarch. c. 11: In tria dividuntur secundum se supermundana ratione omnes divini intellectus: in essentiam et virtutem et operationem.
6 Quaest. 18: Aliud est quo constat, aliud quo discernitur, aliud quo congruit. — In quo textu multi mss. cum sex primis edd. loco quo habent quod, sed inepte. Cod. X glossando: quod constat ex suis principiis, quod congruit in ordine cum creaturis aliis, quod discernitur ab aliis creaturis per rationem imaginis.
7 Supple: creaturae.
8 Ex codd. suplevimus et.
9 Vat. praeter fidem mss. respondentiam.
10 Mendum Vat. quae correximus ex mss. — Quamvis in propositione principali, quod scil. in omni creatura sit vestigium Trinitatis, omnes scholastici conveniant, tamen in enumeratione et explicatione partium huius vestigii est aliqua inter ipsos differentia, ut videre licet apud Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4. Cfr. et B. Albert., S. I. tract. 3. q. 15. m. 2 et hic a. 13. seqq.; ac S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3; et S. I. q. 45. a. 7. ac q. 93. a. 6.
11 Libr. II. c. 5: Verum mihi videtur esse id quod est.
12 Cod. V X cum edd. 2, 3 sapientia, sed contra textum Magistri.
13 Restituimus ex mss. cum ed. 1 indebite omissam particulam et.
14 Cap. 3: Quare color utique erit perspicui extremitas in determinato corpore (ed. Venet. 1489).
15 Libr. II. de Anima, text. 67. (c. 7): Omnis enim color movens est eius quod secundum actum diaphani (ed. Venet. 1489).
16 Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 hic minus apte addit: quod dicit Augustinus: Veritas est id.
17 Text. 3, secundum ed. Venet. 1489: Finis enim scientiae speculativae est veritas.
18 Verba citata videntur esse desumta ex Monolog. c. 46, ubi ostendit, quod Filius sit veritas et ipsa essentia paternae substantiae.
19 Colligitur ex V. de Trin. n. 3. seq., ubi exponit, quod « veritas ex natura et ex virtute est », sive ut paulo infra habetur, quod « naturae virtus praestat veritatem ».
20 Fide plurimorum codd. et ed. 1 expunximus est qui, quod Vat. hic addit.

1 Alan of Lille, On the Art or Articles of the Catholic Faith, a. 24: Matter and form and their joining-together are three utterly diverse (things). — The Vatican text against the manuscripts and edition 1 has less conveniently are posited. Codex V has composite in place of composition.
2 Verse 21. — A little before this after habitudes the Vatican text, contradicting the manuscripts and edition 1, omits and.
3 Codex W has their own their [propria eorum]. 4 Codex X inserts in a twofold manner (,) [dupliciter].
5 On the Celestial Hierarchies, ch. 11: All divine intellects are divided into three (categories) according to themselves: into essence and virtue and operation.
6 Question 18: One is that whereby it is established, another that whereby it is distinguished, another that for which it is suitable. — In which text many manuscripts together with the six first editions have what [quod] in place of whereby / for which [quo], but ineptly. Codex X by glossing (reads): that which is established from its own principles, that which is suitable in an order with other creatures, that which is discerned by other creatures through a reckoning of image.
7 Supply: creatures.
8 From the codices we have supplied and.
9 The Vatican text not trusting the manuscripts has resemblance [respondentiam].
10 The faulty reading of the Vatican text, which (goodness), we have corrected from the manuscripts. — Although in the principal proposition, that namely in every creature there is a vestige of the Trinity, all the Scholastics agree, however in the enumeration and explanation of the parts of this vestige there is some different among them, as on may see with (Bl.) Denis the Carthusian, here in q. 4. Cf. also Bl. (now St.) Albert (the Great), Summa., I, tract 3, q. 15, m. 2 and here at a. 13 ff.; and St. Thomas, here at q. 2, a. 3; and in the Summa., I, q. 45, a. 7, and at q. 93, a. 6.
11 Book II, ch. 5: The true seem to me to be that which is.
12 Codex V and X together with editions 2 and 3 read wisdom [sapientia], but contrary to the text of Master (Peter).
13 We have restored from the manuscripts together with edition 1 the undue omission of the particle also [et].
14 Chapter 3: Wherefore color as it is [utique] will be the extremity of the evident [perspicui] in a determinate body (Venetian edition of 1498).
15 On the Soul, Book II, text 67 (ch. 7): For its every color is something moving according to the act of the diaphanous (Venetian edition of 1489).
16 The Vatican text not trusting in the manuscripts and edition 1 here adds less aptly: which (St.) Augustine says: The truth is that.
17 Text 4, according to the Venetian edition of 1489: For the end of speculative science is truth.
18 The words cited seem to be taken from the Monologion, ch. 46, where he shows, that the Son is the Truth and the essence itself of the paternal substance.
19 This is gathered from On the Trinity, Bk. V, n. 3 ff., where he expounds, that « truth is from nature and from virtue », or as is had a little below this, that « the virtue of nature stands before truth ».
20 On the faith of many codices and edition 1 we have expunged is He who, which the Vatican text here adds.

 

p. 80

 

ratio decla - / -randi, ideo ei appropriatur ratio exemplaris et per consequens ratio veritatis, quantum ad secundum modum veritatis; ipse autem accipit primo modo.1

reckoning of the one decla- / -ring, for that reason there is appropriated to Him the reckoning of the exemplar and consequently the reckoning of the truth, as much as it regards the second manner of truth; but He accepts it in the first manner.

Ad illud quod obiicitur de ordine, dicendum, quod est ordo rerum in universo; et hic appropriatur sapientiae; et est ordo rerum in finem; et hic appropriatur bonitati; et sic patet, quod non est contrarietas.

To that which is objected concerning order, it must be said, that there is an order of things in the universe; and this is appropriated to wisdom; and there is an order of things to the end; and this is appropriated to goodness; and thus it is clear, that there is no contrariety.

1 De veritate plura vide infra d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 1.

1 Concerning truth, see the many things (said) below at d. 8, p. I, a. 1, q. 1.

The English translation here has been released to the public domain by its author. The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation than that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator. Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.