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. II.

PART II

ARTICULUS II.

 

Quaestio III.

ARTICLE II

 

Question 3

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 92-93.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 92-93.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO III.

Utrum trinitas imaginis, quae consistit in mente, notitia et amore, necessario ducat in cognitionem trium divinarum personarum.

  QUESTION 3

 

Whether the trinity of the image, which consists in mind, knowledge and love, necessarily leads unto the cognition of the Three Divine Persons.

TERTIO ET ULTIMO quaeritur, utrum haec trinitas imaginis, scilicet mentis, notitiae et amoris, ducat necessario in cognitionem Trinitatis quantum ad personas.  Et videtur quod sic:

THIRD AND LAST there is asked, whether this trinity of image, that is of mind, of knowledge and of love, leads necessarily unto cognition of the Trinity as much as regards the Persons.  And it seems that (this is) so:

1. Quia in hac trinitate imaginis est relatio; sed in Deo non est relatio nisi quoad personas:  ergo etc.

1. Because in this trinity of the image there is a relation; but in God there is not a relation except in regard to the Persons:  ergo etc..

2. Item, in hac trinitate est distinctio, quia notitia non est amor; sed in Deo non est distinctio nisi personarum:  ergo etc.

2. Likewise, in this trinity there is a distinction, because knowledge is not love; but in God there is not a distinction except of the Persons:  ergo etc.


p. 93

 

3. Item, in hac trinitate est origo nascentis unius1 ab uno et tertii ab utroque: ergo cum ista sint propria personarum, patet etc.

3. Likewise, in this trinity there is an origin of one being born1 from one and a third from both: therefore since that is proper to the Persons, it is clear etc.

4. Item, in hac trinitate est2 amor tertio, qui est proprium Spiritus sancti et qui est ad alterum: ergo videtur, quod necessario ducat in Trinitatem personarum.

4. Likewise, in this trinity love is2 third, which (love) is proper to the Holy Spirit and which (love) is for the other: therefore it seems, that it does necessarily lead unto the Trinity of Persons.

CONTRA: 1. Haec trinitas intelligitur in creatura sine distinctione personali:  ergo potest intelligi et in Deo; sed hoc est falsum:  ergo etc.

ON THE CONTRARY: 1. This trinity is understood in the creature without personal distinction:  therefore it can be understood even in God; but this is false:  ergo etc..

2. Item, notitia et amor sunt in qualibet personarum; sed per ea quae sunt in omnibus, non venitur in cognitionem distinctionis personalis:  ergo etc.

2. Likewise, knowledge and love are in any of the Persons; but through those which are in all, one does not come [non venitur] to the cognition of personal distinction:  ergo etc..

3. Item, intellecto quod una tantum esset persona, adhuc nosceret et amaret se:  ergo etc.

3. Likewise, having understood that there would only be one Person, it would still know and love itself:  ergo etc..

4. Item, philosophi istam trinitatem cognoverunt, et tamen non cognoverunt Trinitatem personarum: ergo haec non necessario3 ducit in illam.

4. Likewise, the philosophers cognized that trinity, and they did not, however, cognize the Trinity of Persons: therefore this does not necessarily3 lead unto that.

 CONCLUSIO.

 Ratio sola ab hac trinitate mentis, notitiae et amoris non ascendit ad cognitionem Trinitatis.

CONCLUSION

 

The reckoning alone from this trinity of mind, of knowledge and of love, does not ascend to the cognition of the Trinity.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod per hanc trinitatem contingit cognoscere Trinitatem in Deo, et hoc est attribuendo ea quae in hac trinitate sunt illi summae Trinitati. Sed hoc potest esse dupliciter.  Aut enim ista tria possunt Deo attribui secundum substantiam, ut per mentem4 intelligamus mentem in Deo, et per notitiam in anima notitiam in Deo, et sic de tertio; et sic non ducit in cognitionem Trinitatis nisi quantum ad appropriata; et sic intellexerunt philosophi.

I RESPOND: It must be said, that through this trinity one happens to cognize the Trinity in God, and this is by attributing those which are in this trinity to that Most High Trinity.  But this can be in a twofold manner. For either those three can be attributed to God according to substance, as through the mind4 we understand the mind in God, and through knowledge [notitiam] in the soul, the knowledge in God, and thus concerning the third; and so it does not lead unto cognition of the Trinity except as much as regards (things) appropriated; and thus did the philosophers understand (it).

Possunt etiam ista5 trahi ad Deum ratione proprietatum, quae sunt ordo et origo, distinctio et relatio; et sic ducunt in cognitionem Trinitatis quoad propria.

Those5 can also be drawn to God by reason of (their) properties, which are order and origin, distinction and relation; and thus do they lead unto the cognition of the Trinity in regard to what is proper [propria] (to each).

Sed ista ponere vel intelligere in Deo potest fides, sed6 non ratio; et ita perfecta cognitio imaginis non habetur nisi a fide.  Unde bene concedendum est, quod imago, perfecte cognita ut imago, ducit in cognitionem Trinitatis, non autem simpliciter.  Et per hoc patet utraque pars.

But faith can posit and/or understand those in God, but6 not reason; and thus a perfect cognition of the image is not had except by faith.  Whence it must be well conceded, that the image, perfectly cognized as image, leads unto the cognition of the Trinity, but not simply (speaking).  And by this each part is clear.

1. 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de amore, dicendum, quod amor potest dicere complacentiam, et sic est commune; vel potest dicere connexionem sive communionem vel donum, et sic habet rationem personae.

1. 2. To that which is objected concerning love, it must be said, that “love” can mean “complacency”, and thus it is common; and/or it can mean “a connection” or “a communion” and/or “a gift”, and thus it has the reckoning of a person.

SCHOLION. 

SCHOLIUM

I. Hanc quaestionem alii antiquiores Scholastici praeter Aegid. (hic 3. princ. q. 2. a. 4.) ex professo non tractant.  Solutio eius pendet ab iisdem principiis, quae supra p. I. q. 4. posita sunt.  De proprietatibus divinarum personarum, et quatenus important ordinem et originem, relationem et distinctionem cfr. infra dd. 26. et 33. — S. Doctor primum et ultimum obiectum non solvit explicite, quia solutionis principia continentur clare in corp. questionis; secundum et tertium breviter solvit, loquendo expresse tantum de amore essentiali et personali, quod ad notitiam facile applicare potest.

I. This question the other more ancient Scholastics besides Giles (here in the 3rd principle of q. 2, a. 4) do not treat ex professo.  Its solution depends on the same principles, which have been posited above in p. I, q. 4.  Concerning the properties of the Divine Persons, and to what extent they imply [important] order and origin, relation and distinction cf. below in dd. 26 and 33. — The Seraphic Doctor does not explicitly solve the first and last objection, because the principles of the solution are contained clearly in the body of the question; the second and the third he briefly solves, by speaking expressing only of the essential and personal love, because (the same argument) can be applied easily to knowledge.

1  Plurimi codd. omittunt unius; Vat. vero omittit nascentis pro quo tamen omnes codd. possunt alligari, licet propter abbreviationem in tantum sint dubiae lectionis, in quantum legi potest vel nascentis vel nativitatis vel cum ed. 1 nascibilitatis. Iuxta regulam illam palaeographicam, secundum quam in similibus casibus, nisi sensus obstet, brevius vocabulum sit eligendum, posuimus nascentis, retinentes insuper cum codd. H I T et ed. 1 verbum unius.  Cfr. infra d. 13. q. 3.
2  Vat. praeter fidem mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 legit sic: tertio reperitur amor. Cod. X explicative post tertio addit loco. Ed. 1 tertius pro tertio. Cod. N post trinitate habet est notitia, quae appropriatur Filio, et amor, qui est.
3  Ope mss. et ed. 1 restituimus indebite omissum necessario.
4  Cod. I Y hic addunt bene et cum subnexis cohaerenter in anima.
5  Codd. M aa bb non inepte adiiciunt tria.
6  Vat. et, sed obstant plurimi codd. cum ed. 1.

1  Very many codices omit of one [unius]; but the Vatican edition omits being born [nascentis], for which, however, all the codices can be alleged, though on account of the abbreviation it is as much a doubtful reading, as one can read either being born [nascentis] or nativity [nativitatis] or with edition 1 nascibility [nascibilitatis]. In accord with that rule of paleography, according to which in similar cases, unless the sense withstands it, the shorter word is to be chosen, we have read being born [nascentis], retaining moreover with codices H I T and edition 1 the word of one [unius].  Cf. below d. 13, q. 3.
2  The Vatican edition not trusting in the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3 and 6 reads thus: there is discovered a love for a third (one) [tertio reperitur amor]. Codex X explicitly after a third adds place [loco]. Edition 1 has a third love [tertius . . . amor] instead. Codex N after trinity [trinitate] has there is a knowledge, which is appropriated to the Son, and a love, which is [est notitia, quae appropriatur Filio, et amor, qui est].
3  With the help of the manuscripts and edition 1 we have restored the unduly omitted necessarily [necessario].
4  Codex I and Y here add well, and coherently with what is subjoined, in the soul [in anima].
5  Codices M aa and bb do not ineptly insert three [tria].
6  The Vatican edition has and [et], but this withstands very many codices together with edition 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.