COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. I, d. 23, a. 2, q. 2: S. BONAVENTURAE

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 XXIII.	COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXIII
ARTICULUS II. Quaestio II.	ARTICLE II Question 2
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 413-414. Cum Notitiis Originalibus	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 413-414. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
QUAESTIO II. Utrum plures essentiae in divinis numerari possint.	QUESTION 2 Whether among the divine there can be numbered many “essences”.
SECUNDO QUAERITUR de numeratione illius nominis essentia. Et quod non numeretur, ostenditur sic:¹	SECOND THERE IS ASKED concerning the numbering of that name “essence”. And that it is not numbered, is shown in this manner:¹
1. Quia in divinis est unitas absolutissima, quae non multiplicatur: ergo cum nullum nomen sit adeo absolutum, sicut nomen essentiae, ergo per illud significatur unitas non multiplicata: ergo nomen essentiae non numeratur; et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus, quod ratio repugnat.	1. Because among the divine there is a most absolute Unity, which is not multiplied: therefore since no name is absolute to such an extent, as the name for ‘essence’, therefore, through that there is signified a non-multiplied unity: therefore the name for ‘essence’ is not numbered; and this is what (St.) Augustine says, what reason resists [repugnat].
2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur a minori. Hoc enim nomen Deus est nomen essentiae in comparatione ad personam; sed secundum Scripturam in Lege, scilicet Deuteronomii sexto,³ Deus dicitur unus et non plures; et secundum Symbolum:⁴ « Non tres dii, sed unus est Deus »: ergo et hoc nomen essentia multo minus plurificatur, cum dicatur absolutius.	2. Likewise, this very (thing) seems a minori. For this name “God” is a name for the Essence in comparison to a Person, but according to Scripture, in the Law, that is, in the sixth (chapter) of Deuteronomy,³ God is said (to be) One and not many: and according to the Creed:⁴ « Not three gods, but one is God »: therefore also this name “essence” is much less plurified, since is it said more absolutely.
3. Item, natura divina non multiplicatur in tribus; sed hoc nomen essentia est nomen divinae naturae, ut hoc nomen substantia: ergo nec essentia nec substantia multiplicantur⁵ sub propriis nominibus, ut videtur.	3. Likewise, the Divine Nature is not multiplied in the Three; but this name “essence” is a name for the Divine Nature, as (is) this name “substance”: therefore neither the Essence nor the Substance are multiplied⁵ under their own names, as it seems.
CONTRA: 1. Augustinus septimo de Trinitate:⁶ « Cur haec tria non dicantur una persona », et loquitur de tribus personis; sed neutrum genus respicit essentiam: ergo cum dicantur tria, ergo tres essentiae.	ON THE CONTRARY: 1. (St.) Augustine in the seventh (book) On the Trinity (says):⁶ « Why are these Three [tria] not said (to be) one Person ? », and he is speaking of the Three Persons; but the neuter gender (of the word “Three”) respects the Essence: therefore since They are said (to be) “Three”, therefore (They are) “Three essences”.
2. Item, ratione videtur: Augustinus in eodem libro⁷ dicit, quod « Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus dicuntur tres personae, quia commune est eis hoc quod est persona »; sed hoc nomen essentia est commune: ergo potest dici tres essentiae.	2. Likewise, it seems by reason: (St.) Augustine in the same book⁷ says, that « the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are said (to be) “three persons”, because that which is a person is common to Them »; but this name “essence” is a common one: therefore “three persons” can be said.
3. Item, ibidem dicit, et habetur in littera,⁸ quod « ideo dicuntur tres personae, quia Pater est persona, et Filius persona et Spiritus sanctus persona ». Ergo similiter sunt tres essentiae, quia Pater est essentia etc.	3. Likewise, in the same place he says, and (as) is had in the text,⁸ that « for that reason They are said (to be) “three persons”, because the Father is a person, and the Son is a person, and the Holy Spirit a person ». Therefore, similarly, They are “three essences”, because the Father is an essence etc..
4. Item, Pater et Filius sunt entes plures, ergo plures habentes entitatem — sequitur enim: sunt plures dii, ergo plures deitates⁹ — similiter: Pater et Filius sunt: ergo plura esse, ergo plures essentiae.	4. Likewise, the Father and the Son are many beings [entes], therefore many having entity — for it follows: ‘there are many gods, therefore many deities’⁹ — similarly: ‘the Father and the Son are: therefore (They are) many ‘beings’ [plura esse]’, therefore many essences.
CONCLUSIO. Essentia non numeratur in divinis, quia una eademque natura non numerata est in tribus personis.	CONCLUSION “Essence” is not numbered among the divine, because in the Three Persons the One and Same Nature has not been numbered.
RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod in omni substantia, cuius est esse et operari, necessario intelligimus naturam et habentem naturam. Cum ergo hoc¹⁰ sit in Deo, intelligimus in Deo naturam et habentem naturam. Et naturam dicimus substantiam vel essentiam; habentem naturam dicimus personam. Quoniam¹¹ ergo in creatura rationi contingit, unam personam habere plures naturas, scilicet corporalem et spiritualem: sic a contrario sensu in Deo propter sum- / -mam . . .	I RESPOND: It must be said, that in every substance, of which there is a ‘being’ [esse] and an operating [operari], we necessarily understand a nature and one having a the nature. Therefore, since this¹⁰ is in God, we understand in God a Nature and One having the Nature. And we say that “the Nature” (is) “the Substance” and/or “the Essence”; we say that “the One having the Nature” (is) “a Person”. Therefore, since¹¹ in a rational creature it happens, that one person has many natures, that is, the corporal and the spiritual: so in a contrary sense, in God, on account of (His) most . . .
¹ Nonnulli codd. ut A T X Y hoc ostenditur et ed. 1 hic ostenditur pro ostenditur sic. ² Vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4. et 5. Cfr. etiam infra dub. 3. circa lit. ³ Vers. 4: Audi Israel Dominus Deus noster, Dominus unus est. ⁴ Scil. Athanasianum; in verbis ex ipso allegatis plures codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt est. Mox post ergo fide plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus et ac dein ex multis codd. ut A F H M N T Z etc. et ed. 1 multo, plures autem codd. ut K V X aa bb ponunt, eodem sensu servato, multo fortius non pro multo minus. Tandem in fine argumenti codd. sunt inter se divisi: alii enim, et quidem boni, ut A F G S T Z cum ed. 1 ponunt dicat, alii vero dicatur. ⁵ Ex pluribus codd. ut A S T V W etc. cum edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 substituimus multiplicantur pro multiplicatur. Paulo ante plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 et loco ut. ⁶ Cap. 4. n. 8: Aut quoniam propter ineffabilem coniunctionem haec tria (scil. Pater, Filius et Spiritus sanctus) simul unus Deus, cur non etiam una persona etc. — Vide etiam hic in littera Magistri, c. 4, ubi alius textus Augustinis ex eodem capite citatur, in quo recurrit verbum dicantur, pro quo et originale et plures codd. cum ed. 1 ponunt dicuntur. Respectu horum verborum Augustini magna invenitur in mss. varietas; sic plures ut B D F G H I Q T V cum ed. 1 legunt Cum pro Cur, quod in paucis ut P Z omittitur; dein aliqui codd. ut A P S T omittunt particulam non, et nonnulli ut V X bb post dicantur addunt de. Mox post personis exhibemus lectionem codd. T aa bb; ceteri codd. fere omnes pro sed neutrum genus habent ergo proprie, quae lectio corruptionem textus, vel omissionem plurium verborum sapit. Vat. cum cod. cc sed Tria in neutro genere respicit. ⁷ Cap. 4. n. 7. 8. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. ⁸ Hic. c. 3; quo in textu solummodo Vat. cum cod. cc tre recurrenti nomini persona praefigit una, multi codd. cum ed. 1 tantum semel scil. prima vice, plures tandem codd. ut G H M Y omnino omittunt, quos sequimur, utpote qui et cum originali et cum littera Magistri conveniunt. Mox fide plurium mss. ut H M P Q X Z et exigente forma argumenti adiecimus Ergo. ⁹ Ita mss. et sex primae edd. contra Vat., quae post entes omittit plures ac dein pro habentes entitatem ponit habent entitates. Paulo infra post similiter cod. O repetit sequitur. ¹⁰ Nempe: esse et operari fundatum in substantia. — Mox post intelligimus in codd. aa bb additur necessario. ¹¹ Sequimur plurimos codd. et ed. 1 substituendo Quoniam pro Quomodo, et paulo infra post sic expugnendo et.	¹ Not a few codices, such as A T X and Y, have this is shown [hoc ostenditur] and edition 1 has here it is shown [hic ostenditur] for is shown in this manner [ostenditur sic]. ² See here in the text of Master (Peter), chs. 4 and 5. Cf. also below in dubium 3, on the text. ³ Verse 4: Hear o Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One [Audi Israel Dominus Deus noster, Dominus unus est]. ⁴ Namely, the Athanasian Creed; in the words cited from it, very many codices together with edition 1 omit is [est]. Next after therefore [ergo], trusting in very many manuscripts and edition 1, we have inserted also [et] and then, from many codices, such as A F H M N T Z etc., and edition 1, we have inserted much [multo], but very many codices, such as K V X aa and bb, conserving the same sense, put much more strongly not [multo fortius non] for much less [multo minus]. Finally, at the end of the argument, the codices are divided amongst themselves: for some, and indeed good ones, such as A F G S T Z, together with edition 1, put it speaks [dicat], but others is it said [dicatur]. ⁵ From very many codices, such as A S T V W etc., together with editions 1, 2, 3, and 6, we have substituted are multiplied [multiplicantur] for is multiplied [multiplicatur]. A little before this very many codices, together with edition 1, have and . . . (is likewise) [et] for as (is) [ut]. ⁶ Chapter 4, n. 8: Or since on account of the ineffable conjunction these Three (namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) together (are) the one God, why (are They) not also one person etc.. — See also here in the text of Master (Peter), ch. 4, where another text of St. Augustine taken from the same chapter is cited, in which the verb are . . . said (to be) [dicantur] is repeated, in place of which both the original and very many codices, together with edition 1, have the indicative form are . . . said (to be) [dicuntur]. In respect to these words of (St.) Augustine there is found a great variation in the manuscripts; thus very many, such as B D F G H I Q T and V, together with edition 1, read Though/Since [Cum] for Why [Cur], which is omitted in a few, such as P and Z; then some codices, such as A P S and T, omit the particle not [non], and not a few, such as V X and bb, after said [dicantur] read of [de] for (to be). Next after Persons [personis], we exhibit the reading of codices T aa and bb; nearly all the other codices, in place of but the neuter gender (of) [sed neutrum genus], have therefore properly [ergo proprie], which reading is either reflects corruption of the text, and/or an omission of several words. ⁷ Chapter 4, nn. 7 and 8. See here the text of Master (Peter), ch. 3. ⁸ Here in c. 3; to which only in the text of the Vatican edition, together with codex X, there is prefixed to each of the three recurrences of person [persona] the word one [una], though many codices, together with edition 1, omit it only once, that is, the first time, but very many codices, such as G H M and Y omits these entirely, which reading we follow, as it convenes with both that of the original and the text of Master (Peter). Next, trusting in very many manuscripts, such as H M P Q X and Z, and as required by the form of the argument, we have inserted Therefore [Ergo]. ⁹ Thus the manuscripts and the six first editions, contrary to the Vatican edition, which omits many [plures] from many beings [entes plures] and then in place of many having entity [plura habents entitatem] reads the Many have entities [plura habent entitates]. A little below this after similarly [similiter] codex O repeats there follows [sequitur]. ¹⁰ Namely: a ‘being’ and operating founded in a substance. — Next after we . . . understand [intelligimus], in codices aa and bb there is added another necessarily [necessario]. ¹¹ We follow the very many codices and edition 1, by substituting since [Quoniam] for in that manner in which [Quomodo], and a little below this after so [sic], by expunging the also [et].

p. 414

sum- / -mam simplicitatem contingit, unam naturam haberi a pluribus, quoniam¹ contingit eam haberi alio et alio modo; et hoc non potest esse ab eodem. Quia ergo una tantum est natura habita et non numerata, ideo tantum dicitur una substantia et essentia; quia vero plures habentes, ideo plures personae, nulla omnino repugnantia existente.	high simplicity it happens, that the one Nature is had by many (Persons), since¹ it happens that It is had in one and another manner; and this cannot be by the Same. Therefore, because there is only one Nature had and (It is) not numbered, for that reason there is only said (to be) “one Substance and Essence”; however, because (there are) Many having (It), for that reason (there are) many Persons, with entirely no existing repugnance.
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de essentia per hoc quod Augustinus dicit: Haec tria; dicendum, quod minus expresse loquitur et improprie; et ideo verbum eius est expondendum.	1. To that, therefore, which is objected concerning “essence” through this which (St.) Augustine says: “these Three”; it must be said, that he speaks less expressly and improperly; and for that reason his word must be explained.
2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ideo tres personae,² quia persona est commune, et quilibet est persona etc.; dicendum, quod non dicit totam rationem, sed partem quantum ad verbum exterius; ideo oportet intelligere, quod ibi³ additur: quia est commune quod distinguitur. Unde Pater est persona et Filius est persona, non eadem, sed alia.	2. 3. To that which is objected, that therefore Three Persons,² because “person” is common, and Any is a person etc.; it must be said, that (“person”) does not mean the whole reckoning, but the part as much as regards the exterior word; for that reason one is bound to understand, that there is added there:³ ‘because what is distinguished is common’. Whence the Father is a person, and the Son is a person, not for the same (reason), but for another.
4. Ad ultimum quod obiicitur, dicendum, quod ens aliquando dicitur substantive, et sic non trahit numerum aliunde; aliquando⁴ tenetur adiective, et sic trahit numerum a supposito, et sic non numeratur forma; et hoc modo non sequitur, quod sint plures entitates, nec de hoc verbo sunt, quod plura esse.	4. To the last which is objected, it must be said, that sometimes being [ens] is said as a substantive [substantive], and thus does not draw a number from elsewhere; sometimes⁴ it is held as an adjective [adiective], and thus draws (its) number from (its) subject [supposito], and thus is not numbered in form; and in this manner it does not follow, that there are many entities, nor from this word “They are” [sunt], that (there are) many ‘beings’ [plura esse].
SCHOLION.	SCHOLIUM
I. Pro intelligentia solut. ad 3. notandum, quod communitas essentiae alio sensu accipitur quam communitas personae sive personarum. Illa est communitas unius eiusdemque rei, haec vero communitas tantum rationis (cfr. S. Thom., S. I. q. 30. a. 4; B. Albert., hic a. 5.). Unde haec dicit aliquid commune, quod est distinctum in tribus personis. Sic intelligitur, quod habetur in solut. ad 3, scil. quod ratio, quae hic ex S. Augustino affertur, tangit tantum partem causae, quare dicantur tres personae. Nam in ratione personae includitur proprietas, et ratione huius plurificantur personae.	I. For an understanding of the solution to n. 3 it must be noted, that a community of essence is accepted in a sense other than a community of person or of persons. The former is a community of one same thing, but the latter a communion only of reckoning; cf. St. Thomas, Summa, I, q. 30, a. 4; Bl. (now St. ) Albertus (Magnus), here in a. 5. Whence the latter means something common, which is distinct in the Three Persons. Thus there is understood, what is had in the solution to n. 3, namely, that the reckoning, which here is cited from St. Augustine, touches only part of the cause, whereby They are said (to be) “Three Persons”. For in the reckoning of “person” there is included “property”, and for this reason the Persons are plurified.
II. In solut. ad 4. verba: « Non trahit numerum aliunde » sic intelligenda sunt: cum ens in genere masculino iam significet suppositum, a se, non ab alio supposito, trahit numerum. Sed ens in genere neutro non significat suppositum, sed essentiam seu formam; unde si ipsi adiunguntur termini numerales sive partitivi, ut aliud, alterum, multiplicatio significatur essentiae sive formae, quod in divinis est omnino falsum.	II. In the solution to n. 4, the words: « it does not drawn a number from elsewhere » are to be understood in this manner: since ens in the masculine gender here (i.e. when there was said in n. 4, “many ‘beings’ ” [sunt entes plura]) signifies a “supposit”, it draws its number, from itself, not from another supposit. But ens in the neuter gender does not signify a supposit, but an essence or form; whence if numeral or partitive terms, such as aliud (“other”), alterum (“the other”), are adjoined to it, there is signified a multiplication of the essence or form, which among the divine is entirely false.
III.	III.
¹ Maior numerus mss. cum ed. 1 quoniam loco quia. Paulo infra post Quia ergo auctoritate antiquiorum codd. et ed. 1 posuimus cohaerenter cum praecedentibus una pro eadem. Mox post essentia codd. aa bb repetunt et non numerata, et post ideo plures cod. K additur dicuntur. ² Ex codd. K P Q aa et ed. 1 adiecimus personae, et mox ex cod. H et ed. 1 pro quaelibet substituimus quilibet, scil. Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, sicuti in tertia obiectione erxhibetur; proponit siquidem S. Doctor breviter secundum et tertium obiectionem. Quo attento, et lectio in textum recepta vera comprobatur (ex ipsis obiectionum verbis), et ratio insinuatur diversarum in mss. existentium lectionum. Nam praeter lectionem iam ex Vat. allatam ab aliquibus codd. ut A T ponitur ideo pro quilibet, ab aliis pro quilibet, est pesona, immo in codd. P Q verba et quilibet est persona simpliciter omittuntur. ³ August., VII. de Trin. c. 4-6, ubi haec propositio continetur quoad sensum in his, quae ibi dicit contra Sabellium, qui locus a Magistro habetur in cap. 4. Clarius adhuc ab August. in c. 5. et 6. explanatur, quod persona dicit aliquid commune quod distinguitur, essentia vero commune aliquid indistinctum. — In fine responsionis post alia Vat. cum cod. cc mins apte et contra antiquiores codd. cum ed. 1 addit et alia. ⁴ Plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 minus congruenter alio modo pro aliquando. In fine responsionis auctoritate codd. H P Q Z aa supplevimus sunt, quod contextus omnino exigit.	¹ A greater number of the manuscripts, together with edition 1, read since [quoniam] in place of because [quia]. A little below this after Therefore, because [Quia ergo], on the authority of the more ancient codices and edition 1, we have put one [una] for the same [eadem], to make the sense more coherent with the preceding. Next after Essence [essentia] codices aa and bb repeat and (it is) not numbered [et non numerata], and after and for that reason [ideo] codex K reads the Many are said (to be) “Persons” [plures dicantur personae]. ² From codices K P Q and aa, and edition 1, we have inserted Persons [personae], and next from codex H and edition 1, we have substituted the masculine form for Any [quilbet] for the feminine Any [quaelibet], to indicate the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, just as is exhibited in the third objection; as if the Seraphic Doctor proposes the second and third objection briefly. By which, both the reading received in the text is confirmed as true (from the very words of the objections), and the reason for the diverse readings in the manuscripts is suggested. For beside the reading of the Vatican text now cited, by some codices, such as A and T, there is put for that reason [ideo] for Any [quilibet], by others in place of the same there is had He is a person, He [est persona], but in codices P and Q the words and Any is a person [et quilibet est persona] is simply omitted. ³ (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity, Bk. VII, chs. 4-6, where this proposition is contained according to its sense among those, which he says against Sabellius, which passage is had by Master (Peter) in chapter 4. It is explained more clearly by (St.) Augustine in chapters 5 and 6, that “person” means ‘something common which is distinguished’, but “essence” ‘something common undistinguished’. — At the end of the response in place of but for another (reason) [sed alia], the Vatican edition together with codex cc, less aptly, and contrary to the more ancient codices together with edition 1, reads but for one (reason) and another [sed alia et alia]. ⁴ Very many codices, together with edition 1, have less congruently in another manner [alio modo] for sometimes [aliquando]. At the end of the response, on the authority of codices H P Q Z and aa, we have supplied “They are” [sunt], which the context entirely requires.

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.

Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum

Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIII.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXIII