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

SECUNDI LIBRI

BOOK TWO

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVI.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVI

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

DOUBTS ON THE TEXT OF MASTER PETER

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 406-408.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 406-408.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

DUB. I.

DOUBT I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de ratione, quam reddit Magister, cum ait:  In eo quod dicit:  Faciamus, una operatio trium personarum ostenditur.  Cum enim indivisa sint opera Trinitatis,3 et tres personae ita operatae sint simul omnia alia, sicut fecerunt hominem; quemadmodum in productione hominis dicitur:  Faciamus, ita deberet dici in productione aliorum.  —  Item, quaeritur, quare in productione hominis utitur legislator verbo primae personae, scilicet faciamus, in productione aliorum verbo tertiae personae, scilicet dixit et fecit?  —  Iuxta hoc etiam est quaestio, quare distinguit inter productionem hominis et bestiarum, cum eodem die4 producta sint ad ornatum eiusdem elementi?

In this part are the doubts on the text (of Master Peter), and first there is asked concerning the reckoning, which Master (Peter) makes [reddit], when he says:  In this that He says: “Let us make”, there is shown the one operation of the three Persons.  For since the works of the Trinity are undivided,3 and the three Persons so worked together all others (things), just as they made man; according to which manner there is said in the production of man:  Let us make, so ought it be said in the production of the others.  —  Likewise, there is asked, why the Lawgiver uses a verb of the first person, that is “let Us make”, in the production of man, (and) a verb of the third person, that is “He said” and “He made” in the production of the other (beings)?  —  In accord with this there is also the question, why He distinguishes between the production of man and the beasts, since they were produced on the same day4 for the ornament of the same element?

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod in productione hominis non tantum erat manifestatio Trinitatis in vestigio, sed etiam secundum imaginem; ideo tribus personis pluraliter attribuitur productio hominis ut ostendatur, quod in homine Trinitas repraesentatur expresse, in aliis vero insinuatur Trinitas quoquo modo, licet non ita explicite.  —  Et quia ratio imaginis non convenit nisi personae, quae potest loqui per se;5 ideo in productione eius utitur verbo primae personae.  —  Et iterum, quia haec creatura praecellit alias in gradu et dignitate, ideo productionem hominis distinguit a productione bestiarum, licet propter convenientiam in ornando terram in opus unius diei conveniant.6  Et sic patet responsio ad quaesita.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that in the production of man there was not only a manifestation of the Trinity in the vestige, but also according to the image; for that reason the production of man is attributed to the three Persons in the plural to show, that in man the Trinity is represented expressly, but in the other (creatures) the Trinity is hinted at in some manner, though not so explicitly.  —  And because the reckoning of the image does not convene but with a person, which can speak through himself;5 for that reason in his production there is used a verb of the first person.  —  And again, because this creature pre-excels the others in grade and dignity, for that reason He distinguishes the production of man from the production of the beasts, though on account of (their) convening in ornamenting the earth they convene6 in the work of one day.  And thus the response to the questions is clear.

DUB. II.

DOUBT II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit:  Dei et Angelorum non est una et eadem imago.  Contra hoc est:  quia, cum Angelus sit imago Dei, quod conformatur Angelo, per consequens conformatur Deo:  ergo quod est imago Angeli est imago Dei.  —  . . .

Likewise there is asked concerning this which (Master Peter) says:  Of God and the Angels there is not one and the same image.  Against this is: because, since the Angel is an image of God, what is conformed to the Angel, per consequens is conformed to God:  therefore what the image of the Angel is, the image of God is.  —   . . .

3  August., II. de Trin. c. 10. n. 18:  Trinitas quippe inseparabiliter operatur. Cfr. ibid. I. c. 4. n. 7. et c. 6. n. 12.

4  Scilicet sexto.  Cfr. Gen. 1, 24. seqq. et supra d. 15. a. 2. q. 2.

5  Alluditur ad etymologiam nominis persona, a Boethio, de Una persona et duabus naturis Christi, c. 3, datam:  Persona vero dicta est a personando etc.  Cfr. I. Sent. d. 23. a. 1. q. 1.  —  Vat. perperam ulli personae pro nisi personae.

6  Cfr. supra d. 15. a. 2. q. 2.  —  Vat. unius Dei pro unius diei.  —  Idem dubium resolvit Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 55. m. 2; B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 11. q. 64; Petr. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

3  (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity, Bk. II, ch. 10, n. 18:  The Trinity, indeed, works inseparably.  Cf. ibid., Bk. I, ch. 4, n. 7, and ch. 6, n. 12.

4  Namely the sixth (day).  Cf. Gen 1:24 ff. and above d. 15, a. 2, q. 2.

5  An allusion to the etymology of the name persona, given by (St. Severinus) Beothius, On the One Person and Two Natures of Christ, ch. 3:  But “person” [persona] is said from “sounding through” [personando] etc..  Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 23, a. 1, q. 1.  —  The Vatican edition has faultily with any person [ulli personae] for but with a person [nisi personae].

6  Cf. above d. 15, a. 2, q. 2.  —  The Vatican edition has of the One God [unius Dei] for of one day [unius diei].  —  Resolving the same doubt are Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 55, m. 2; Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), Summa, p. II, tr. 11, q. 64; (Bl.) Peter (of Tarentaise) and Richard of Middleton, here on the text.

p. 407

Item, unum opus potest esse Dei et Angeli:1  ergo pari ratione videtur, quod eadem imago.

Likewise, one work can belong to God and to the Angel:1  therefore it seems for an equal reason, that the same image (can belong to them).

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod quia imago dicit ordinem ad illud cuius est imago, tanquam in finem et ordinem immediatum; cum impossibile sit, Deum et Angelum eiusdem esse finem immediatum et ultimum:  impossibile est, eandem imaginem esse Angeli et Dei.  —  Quia vero Deus cooperatur Angelo, et omne quod est ab Angelo et a Deo; ideo possibile est, unum opus simul esse et Angeli et Dei.  —  Nec valet illud quod obiicit, quod si aliquis repraesentat Angelum, per consequens repraesentat Deum.  Quamvis enim inferri valeat, quod creatura, quae repraesentat Angelum, repraesentat Deum mediate, non tamen potest inferri, quod repraesentat immediate.2

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that because “image” mean an order to that of which it is the image, as unto an immediate end and order; since it is impossible, that God and an Angel be the immediate and ultimate end of the same (thing):  it is impossible, that the same image belong to an Angel and to God.  —  However, because God cooperates with the Angel, and everything which is from the Angel (is) also from God; for that reason it is possible, that one work belong at once to an Angel and to God.  —  Nor is that which it objects valid, that if some (image) represents an Angel, per consequens it represents God.  For even though it is valid to infer [inferri], that the creature, which represents the Angle, represents God mediately, yet it cannot be inferred, that it represents (Him) immediately.2

DUB. III.

DOUBT III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit:  Fuerunt nonnulli, qui ita distinxerunt, ut in hoc loco imaginem intelligerent Filium, quos etiam consequenter reprehendit. Videtur enim, quod convenienter dixerint, per illud quod dicitur ad Romanos octavo:3  Quos praedestinavit, conformes fieri imaginis Filii sui.  —  Item, quod ita oporteat intelligi, videtur.  Aut enim imago stat ibi pro re creata, aut pro re increata.  Si pro creata:  ergo idem est dicere:  Faciamus hominem ad imaginem,4 quod :  faciamus hominem ad se ipsum.  Si pro increata; sed illa non est nisi Filius:  ergo videtur, quod expositio illa sit recta.  —  Propter hoc quaeritur, quae istarum expositionum, quas Magister assignat in littera,5 sit tenenda.

Likewise is asked concerning this which (Master Peter) says:  There were not a few, who thus distinguished, so that they understood the “image” in this passage as the Son, whom he also consequently reprehends.  For it seems, that they spoke in a fitting manner [convenienter], through that (verse) which is said in the eighth (chapter of St. Paul’s Letter) to the Romans:3  Whom He predestined, to be made conform to the image of His Son.  —  Likewise, it seems, that it must [oporteat] be understood thus.  For either “image” stands there for a created thing, or for an uncreated thing.  If for a created (thing):  therefore it is the same to say:  Let us make man to (Our) image,4 as:  “let us make man to himself”.  If for an uncreated (thing); but that is not but the Son:  therefore it seems, that that exposition is the right one.  —  On this account there is asked, “Which of these expositions, which Master (Peter) assigns in (his) text,5 is to be held?”

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod duplex est modus exponendi istam auctoritatem:  Faciamus hominem etc.:  unus intelligendo de imagine increata, alter vero intelligendo de imagine creata —  Primus modus triplicatur.  Unus est, ut imago et similitudo referantur ad idem, scilicet ad essentiam in tribus personis.  Secundus modus est, ut imago et similitudo referantur ad idem, scilicet ad personam Filii.  Tertius modus exponendi est, ut imago referatur ad Filium, et similitudo ad Spiritum sanctum.  Ita hos omnes modos ponit Magister, quos tamen non approbat, licet sustineri possint.  Primum enim arguit de improprietate, quia divina essentia non est proprie imago.  Secundum de falsitate, quia Filius non est imago nostra; et de hoc etiam, quod dicit, quod homo non est imago, sed ad imaginem.  Tertium arguit de incertitudine, quia auctoritatem ex Scriptura non habet.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that there is a twofold manner of expounding this quote [auctoritatem]:  Let Us make man etc.:  one by understanding (it) of the uncreated Image, but the other by understanding (it) of the created image.  —  The first manner is threefold [triplicatur].  One is, that “image” and “similitude” are referred to the same, that is to the Essence among the three Persons.  The second manner is, that “image” and “similitude” are referred to the same, that is to the Person of the Son.  The third manner of expounding is, that “image” is referred to the Son, and “similitude” to the Holy Spirit.  Thus Master (Peter) posits all these manners, which, however, he does not approve, though they can be sustained.  For the first he accuses [arguit] of impropriety, because the Divine Essence is properly not an image.  The second (he accuses) of falsity, because the Son is not our image; and also of that, which he says, that man is not an image, but (made) to an image.  The third he accuses of incertitude, because it does not have (its) authority from Scripture.

Alius modus exponendi est de imagine creata, et iste triplex est.  —  Unus, qui sic exponit, ut imago praecedat similitudinem; et dicit, quod imago est in naturalibus, et similitudo in gratuitis.  Secundus, qui sic exponit, ut similitudo concomitetur imaginem; et iste est, quod imago sit in potentia cognoscendi, similitudo in potentia diligendi.  Tertius modus, qui sic exponit, ut imago sequatur similitudinem secundum rem; et iste dicit, quod similitudo est in natura, et imago in forma.6

The other manner of expounding (this passage) concerns the created image, and this (manner) is threefold [triplex est].  —  One which expounds (the passage) thus, so that “image” precedes “similitude”; and it says, that the “image” (of God) is in natural (things), and the “similitude” (is) in gratuitous (gifts).  The second, which expounds (it) thus, that “similitude” accompanies “image”; and this one is, that the “image” (of God) is in the power of cognizing, the “similitude” in the power of loving [diligendi].  The third manner, which expounds (it) thus, that “image” follows “similitude” according to the thing; and this one says, that the “similitude” (of God) is in the nature, and the “image” in the form.6

Omnes hos modos approbat Magister et sustinet; et satis videtur probabile, quod Scriptura de imagine creata intelligat, quamvis etiam possit intelligi de increata.  Verum est enim, quod homo praedestinatus est, ut conformetur imagini Filii Dei; nec ideo Magister illam positionem redarguit, quod hoc non est verum, sed quia illa imago non potest proprie dici nostra; vel etiam, quia non solummodo Filius est imago, sed etiam homo, cuius contrarium dicebatur in illo modo exponendi.

All these manners Master (Peter) approves and sustains; and it seems sufficiently probable, that Scripture understands (it) of the created image, even though it can also be understood of the uncreated (Image).  For it is true, that man has been predestined, to be conformed to the image of the Son of God; and for that reason Master (Peter) does not argue against that position, that it is not true, but because that image cannot properly be said to be “Ours”; and/or also, because not only the Son is not the image, but also man, the contrary of which was said in that manner of expounding.

Ad illud vero, quod obiicitur, quod imago non potest stare pro creata imagine; dicendum, quod immo, quia imago accipitur in abstractione; et sic potest dici homo fieri ad imaginem, quando sibi imprimitur imago Herculis.  Hinc est, quod homo non tantum est imago, sed etiam ad imaginem, quia non secundum omne quod est,7 est imago, immo differt ab imagine; Filius vero secundum omne quod est, est imago Patris, et ideo solum est imago, non ad imaginem.

To that, however, which is objected, that “image” cannot stand (there) for a created image; it must be said, that nay, because “image” is accepted in abstraction; and thus a man can be said to be made to the image, when the image of Hercules is impressed upon him.  Hence it is, that man is not only an image, but also (made) to the image, because he is not an image according to everything which he is,7 nay he differs from the image; the Son, however, according to everything which He is, is the Image of the Father, and for that reason He is only an image, not (made) to the image.

DUB. IV.

DOUBT IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit:  Non omnino aequalis fiebat illa imago, tanquam non ab illo nata, sed ab eo creata.  Quod enim creatur non est per naturam, sed per artem; sed quod est per artem non univocatur cum eo, quod est per naturam, immo aequivocatur:8  ergo aequivoce dicitur imago de Filio Dei et de homine.

Likewise there is asked concerning this which (St. Augustine) says:  That image did not come to be entirely equal, as one not born from Him, but created by Him.  For what is created is not through nature, but through art; but what is through art is not univocated [univocatur] with that, which is through nature, nay it is equivocated [aequivocatur]:8  therefore “image” is said equivocally of the Son of God and of man.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum est, quod imago de Filio Dei et homine nec dicitur aequivoce, nec dicitur univoce, sed analogice secundum prius et posterius.  —  Quod ergo obiicitur, quod illud, quod creatur, est ab arte; dicendum quod quaedam est ars, cuius operatio consequitur naturam; et opus istius artis sic est artificiale, quod non est naturale; et . . .

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that “image” is neither said equivocally of the Son of God and man, nor is it said univocally, but analogically according to a ‘before and after’.  —  Therefore what is objected, that that, which is created, is by art; it must be said, that there is a certain art, the operation of which is consequent to nature; and a work of this art is thus artificial, that it is not natural; and . . .

1  Vide supra d. 10. a. 3. q. 2.

2  Hoc dubium proponitur etiam a Petro a Tar., hic circa lit.

3  Vers. 29:  Nam quos praescivit et praedestinavit etc.

4  Gen. 1, 26.

5  Hic c. 3.

6  Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 3.  —  Vat. secundum esse pro secundum rem.

7  In pluribus codd. et in Vat. desideratur est.  —  De hoc dubio vide Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 55. m. 3. et q. 62. m. 5. a. 1. et 3; B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 11. q. 64; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 7. seq.

8  Boeth., I. de Praedicam. sive in Categorias Aristotelis, c. de Aequivocis:  Alia vero, quae nomine quidem congruunt, definitionibus discrepant:  ut est homo vivens et homo pictus . . . et haec vocantur aequivoca.

1  See above d. 10, a. 3, q. 2.

2  This doubt is also proposed by (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

3  Verse 29:  For those whom He foreknew, He has also predestined etc. [Nam quos praescivit et praedestinavit etc.].

4  Gen. 1:26.

5  Here in ch. 3.

6  Cf. above a. 2, q. 3.  —  The Vatican edition has according to ‘being’ [secundum esse] for according to the thing [secundum rem].

7  In several codices and the Vatican edition there is read every which [omne quod] for everything which he is [omne quod est].  —  On this doubt see Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 55, m. 3, and q. 62, m. 5, aa. 1 and 3; Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), Summa., p. II, tr. 11, q. 64; St. Thomas, here on the text; Giles the Roman, here in the 7th doubt on the text f..

8  (St. Severinus) Boethius, On the Predicaments or On the Categories of Aristotle, Bk. I, ch. “On the Equivocal”:  But others, who are indeed congruent in name, discord in definition: such as is “a living man” and “a depicted man” . . . and these are called “equivocals”.

p. 408

ideo opus artis cum opere naturae in eodem nomine faciunt aequivocationem, sicut homo pictus et homo verus.  Quaedam est ars, quae est fundamentum naturae, et opus istius artis bene est naturale, quia fabricat ipsam naturam, et talis est ars, cuius opus est creare;1 et ideo non oportebit esse aequivocationem.  —  Vel dicendum, quod ideo est aequivocatio, quando dicitur homo pictus et homo verus, quia hoc nomen homo primo et principaliter imponitur homini vero; et ideo, cum dicitur de homine picto, alia est acceptio et alia significatio.  Non sic imago primo et principaliter imponitur Dei Filio, sed omni ei, quod expresse repraesentat alterum.2

for that reason a “work” of art with a “work” of nature causes an equivocation in the same name, just as a depicted “man” [homo pictus] and a true “man”.  There is a certain art, which is the fundament of the nature, and a work of this art is rightly [bene] natural, because it fabricates the nature itself, and such is the art, the work of which is to create;1 and for that reason it will not be necessary [non oportebit] that there be an equivocation.  —  And/or it must be said, that there is an equivocation for this reason, when a “depicted man and a true man” is said, because this noun “man” is imposed upon man first and principally in a true manner; and for that reason when it is said of a depicted man, the acceptation is one (thing) and the signification (is) another.  Not so is “image” imposed upon the Son of God first and principally; but (it is imposed) upon every that, which expressly represents the other.2

1  Sub hoc respectu August., VI. de Trin. c. 10. n. 11, de Filio Dei ait, quod sit « ars quaedam omnipotentis atque sapientis Dei, plena omnium rationum viventium incommutabilium ».  —  Vat. fabricat ipsum natura pro fabricat ipsam naturam.

2  Hoc dubium solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 61. m. 3. a. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic a. 7.

1  Under this respect (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity, Bk. VI, ch. 10, n. 11, says of the Son of God, that He is « a certain Art of the Omnipotent and Wise God, full of all the incommutable reasons of living (things) ».  —  The Vatican edition has nature fabricates it [fabricat ipsum natura] for it (i. e. the art) fabricates the nature itself [fabricat ipsam naturam].

2  This doubt is also solved by Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. I, q. 61, m. 3 a. 1; (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in a. 7.

This English Translation and the digitization of the Latin and English texts, the HTML markup,  all emendations and corrections of the Latin text, and all notes by the Translator, are © 2007, 2008 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo.  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.