LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 3: Petri Lombardi

Magistri Petri Lombardi Arch. Episc. Parisiensis	Master Peter Lombard Archbishop of Paris
Sententiarum Quatuor Libri	The Four Books of Sentences
LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM. DE DEI UNITATE ET TRINITATE	THE FIRST BOOK OF THE SENTENCES ON THE UNITY AND TRINITY OF GOD
DISTINCTIO III.	DISTINCTION 3
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 62-66. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi.	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 62-66. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
PARS. I.	PART I
Cap. I. De cognitione Creatoris per creaturas in quibus Trinitatis vestigium apparet.	Chapter I On the cognition of the Creator through the creatures, in which the vestige of the Trinity appears
Apostolus namque ait,¹ quod invisibilia Dei a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur [conspiciuntur], sempiterna quoque virtus eius et divinitas. Per creaturam mundi intelligitur homo « propter excellentiam, qua excellit inter alias creaturas, vel propter convenientiam, quam habet cum omni creatura ». Homo ergo invisibilia Dei intellectu mentis conspicere potuit vel etiam conspexit per ea quae facta sunt, id est, per creaturas visibiles vel² invisibiles. A duobus enim iuvabatur, scilicet a natura, quae rationalis erat, et ab operibus a Deo factis, ut manifestaretur homini veritas. Ideo Apostolus dixit:³ quia Deus revelavit illis, scilicet dum fecit opera, in quibus artificis aliquatenus relucet indicium.	For the Apostle also says,¹ that the invisible (things) of God by the creature of the world through those things which have been made, being understood, are perceived [conspiciuntur] (as are) also His sempiternal virtue and Divinity. By the creature of the world there is understood man « on account of the excellence, by which he excels among the other creatures, and/or on account of the encounter [convenientiam], which he has with every creature ». Therefore man could by the understanding of (his) mind perceive the invisible things of God and/or did also perceive (them) through those things which have been made, that is, through creatures visible and/or² invisible. For from the two he is helped, that is from nature, which was rational, and from the works wrought [facit] by God, to manifest truth to man. For that reason the Apostle said:³ that God revealed to them, that is while He wrought the works, in which the evidence of the Craftsman [aritificis] glittered to some extent.
Nam sicut ait Ambrosius:⁴ « Ut Deus, qui natura invisibilis est, etiam a visibilibus posset sciri, opus fecit, quod opificem visibilitate sui manifestavit, ut per certum incertum posset sciri, et ille Deus omnium esse crederetur, qui hoc fecit, quod ab homine impossibile est fieri ». Potuerunt ergo cognoscere sive cognoverunt, ultra omnem creaturam esse illum qui ea fecit, quae nulla creaturarum facere vel destruere valet.⁵ Accedat, quaecumque vis, creatura et faciat tale caelum et talem terram, et dicam, quia Deus est. Sed quia nulla creatura talia facere valet, constat, super omnem creaturam esse illum qui ea fecit; ac per hoc, illum esse Deum, humana mens cognoscere potuit.	For as (St.) Ambrose says:⁴ « So that God, who is by nature invisible, might also be able to be known by visible (things), He wrought a work, which manifested the Worker by its own visibility, that the uncertain might be known through the certain, and that He might be believed to be the God of all, He who made this, which by man is impossible to be wrought ». Therefore they could cognize or they did cognize, that beyond every creature is He who made those (things), which none of the creatures has the strength [valet] to do and/or destroy.⁵ Let the creature, howsoever strong [quaecumque vis], approach and let it make such a heaven and such an earth, and I will say, that it is God. But because no creature has the strength [valet] to make such (things), it is established, that He who made them is above every creature; and through this (line of reasoning) the human mind could cognize, that He is God.
Alio etiam modo Dei veritatem ductu rationis cognoscere potuerunt vel etiam cognoverunt. Ut enim Augustinus ait in Libro de Civitate Dei:⁶ « Viderunt summi philosophi nullum corpus esse Deum, et ideo cuncta corpora trascenderunt, quaerentes Deum; viderunt etiam, quidquid mutabile est non esse summum Deum omniumque principium, et ideo omnem animam mutabilesque spiritus transcenderunt; deinde viderunt, omne, quod mutabile est, non posse esse nisi ab illo, qui incommutabiliter et simpliciter est. Intellexerunt ergo, eum et omnia ista fecisse et a nullo fieri potuisse ».	They could also in another manner cognize and/or they did also cognize the truth of God under the leading of reason.. For as (St.) Augustine says in the Book On the City of God:⁶ « The highest philosophers saw that no body is God, and for that reason they transcended all other bodies, seeking God (as they did); they also says, that whatever is mutable is not the Most High God and principle of all (things), and for that reason they transcended every soul and the mutable spirits; then they saw, that everything, which is mutable, cannot be except by Him, who incommutably and simply is. Therefore they understood, that He both had made all these (things) and that He could come to be [fieri] from none (of them) ».
« Consideraverunt etiam, quidquid est in substantiis vel corpus esse vel spiritum, meliusque aliquid spiritum esse quam corpus, sed longe meliorem qui spiritum fecit et corpus ».	« They also considered, that whatever is in substances is a body and/or a spirit, and that any spirit is better than a body, but better by far Him who made spirit and body ».
« Intellexerunt etiam, corporis speciem esse sensibilem et spiritus speciem intelligibilem, et intelligibilem speciem sensibili praetulerunt. Sensibilia dicimus, quae visu tactuque corporis sentiri queunt, intelligibilia, quae conspectu mentis intelligi.⁷ Cum ergo in eorum conspectu et corpus et animus magis minusque speciosa essent; si autem omni specie carere possent, omnino nulla essent: viderunt esse aliquid, quo illa speciosa facta sunt, ubi est prima et incommutabilis species, ideoque incomparabilis; et illud esse rerum principium rectissime crediderunt, quod factum non esset, et ex quo cuncta facta essent ». Ecce tot modis potuit cognosci veritas Dei. Cum ergo Deus una sit et simplex essentia, quae ex nulla diversitate partium vel accidentium consistit, pluraliter tamen dicit Apostolus: invisibilia Dei, quia pluribus modis cognoscitur veritas Dei per ea quae facta sunt. Ex perpetuitate namque creaturarum intelligitur Conditor aeternus; ex magnitudine creaturarum omnipotens; ex ordine et dispositione sapiens; ex gubernatione bonus. Haec autem omnia ad unitatem Deitatis pertinent monstrandam.	« They also understood, that the appearance [species] of a body is sensible and the appearance of a spirit is intelligible, and they preferred the intelligible appearance to the sensible. We call sensibles, what can [queunt] be sensed by the sight or touch of a body, intelligibles, what (can) be understood by the sight [conspectu] of the mind.⁷ Therefore since in their sight [conspectu] both the body and the human spirit [animus] were more and less apparent [speciosa]; but if they could lack every appearance, they would be entirely nothings [nulla]: they saw that there is a Something, by which those (things) are made apparent, where there is a first and incommutable Appearance, and for that reason incomparable; and that It is the principle of things they did most rightly believe, because It had not been made, and (because) all other (things) had been made from It ». Behold in so many manners the truth of God could be cognized. Therefore though [cum] God is the one and simple essence, which consists of no diversity of parts and/or of accidents, the Apostle says, however, in the plural: the invisible (things) of God, because the truth of God is cognized in very many manners through those (things) which have been made. For from the perpetuity of creatures the eternal Founder is understood; from the magnitude of creatures the Omnipotent One; from (their) order and disposition the Wise One; from (His) governance (of them) the Good One. Moreover all these (things) tend ultimately [pertinent] to manifest the unity of the Deity.
¹ Rom. 1, 20; Vulgata: Invisibilia enim ipsius a creatura . . . Glossa ordinaria, qua Magister, paucis variatis, mox utitur, verbum a creatura sic interpretatur: Ab homine per excellentiam, quia excellit inter alias craturas, vel propter convenientiam, quam habet cum omnibus creaturis. Tum Vulgata eius virtus pro virtus eius, quod nostri mss. et edd. summo consensu exhibent. ² Codd. C D E et. ³ Respicit ad Rom. 1, 19: Quod notus est Dei, manifestum est in illis. Deus enim illis manifestavit. — Vat. cum aliis edd. ideoque contra omnes codd. et edd. 1, 8. ⁴ In Epist. ad Rom. c. 1, 19, paucis a Magistro mutatis et omissis. In fine huius textus ante impossible est Vat. sola repetit supervacanee: ait Ambrosius. ⁵ Mss. B D E potest. Tum in Vat. sola: quaecumque vis creaturae; in textu accipe vis a velle et quaecumque ut neutrum in plurali. Subinde eadem Vat. cum plerisque excusis ante terram praetermittit talem contra codd. et edd. 1, 6, 8. ⁶ Libr. VIII. c. 6, nonnullis transpositis et omissis. Etiam infra tertia et quarta ratio inde sumtae sunt. Paulo ante solus cod. D potuerunt et pro potuerunt vel etiam. ⁷ Edd. contra codd. nostros et ed. Augustini, ponendo punctum ante intelligibilia, praemittunt hic possunt.	¹ Rm 1:20; the Vulgate reads: For the invisible (things) of him by the creature . . . [Invisibilia enim ipius a creatura]. The Glossa Ordinaria, which Master (Peter), with a few words varied, now uses, interprets the word by the creature [a creatura] thus: By man through excellence, because he excells among the other creatures, and/or on account of the encounter [convenientiam] which he has with all creatures. [Trans. note: It should be noted that the Latins, neglecting to refer to the Greek original of this passage, understood a creatura [apo ktisews] as by the creature rather than the more literal, and intended, from the act of the creating, i.e. from the foundation]. Then the Vulgate has His virtue [eius virtus] in place of the virtue of Him [virtus eius], which our manuscripts and editions exhibit in complete agreement. [Trans. note: Here For ... also (namque) refers to what has just been said in d. 2, ch.5] ² Codices C D and E have and [et]. ³ A reference to Rm 1:19: What is known of God, has been made manifest unto them. For God has manifested it to them [Quod notus est Dei, manifestum est in illis. Deus enim illis manifestavit]. — The Vatican edition together with the other editions has And therefore [ideoque], against all the codices and editions 1 and 8. ⁴ In the Epistle to the Romans, ch. 1, v. 19, with a few things changed and omitted by Master (Peter). At the end of this text before it is impossible [impossibile est] the Vatican edition alone superfluously repeats: (St.) Ambrose said [ait Ambrosius]. ⁵ Manuscripts B D and E have can [potest]. Then in the Vatican edition alone there is read: the creature, whatever ones you wish [quaecumque vis creaturae], understanding vis as a form of velle and quaecumque as a neuter plural. Immediately after the same the Vatican edition prefaces earth [terram] with such [talem], having left out the other many things, against the codices and editions 1, 6 and 8. ⁶ Book VIII, ch.6, with not a few things transposed and omitted. Also, below, the third and fourth reason have been taken from there. A little before this only codex D has they could . . . and they did [potuerunt et] in place of they could . . . and they did also [potuerutn vel etiam]. ⁷ The editions against our codices and Augustine's edition, by putting a period before intelligibles, and adding can [possunt] has Intelligibles, which can [Intelligibilia quae . . . possunt].

p. 63

Nunc restat ostendere, utrum per ea quae facta sunt aliquod Trinitatis vestigium vel indicium exiguum¹ haberi potuerit. De hoc Augustinus in libro sexto de Trinitate ait: « Oportet, ut Creatorem per ea quae facta sunt intellectu conspicientes, Trinitatem intelligamus. Huius enim Trinitatis vestigium in creaturis apparet. Haec enim omnia,³ quae arte divina facta sunt, et unitatem quandam in se ostendunt et speciem et ordinem. Nam quodque horum creatorum et unum aliquid est, sicut sunt naturae corporum et animarum, et aliqua specie formatur, sicut sunt figurae vel qualitates corporum ac doctrinae vel artes animarum, et ordinem aliquem petit aut tenet, sicut sunt pondera vel collocationes corporum et amores vel delectationes animarum; et ita in creaturis praelucet vestigium Trinitatis. In illa enim Trinitate summa origo est omnium rerum et perfectissima pulcritudo et beatissima delectatio ». « Summa autem origo, ut Augustinus ostendit in libro de Vera Religione,⁴ intelligitur Deus Pater, a quo sunt omnia, a quo Filius et Spiritus sanctus. Perfectissima pulcritudo intelligitur Filius, scilicet veritas Patris, nulla ex parte ei dissimilis, quam⁵ cum ipso et in ipso Patre veneramur, quae forma est omnium, quae ab uno facta sunt et ad unum referuntur, quae tamen omnia nec fierent a Patre per Filium neque suis finibus salva essent, nisi Deus summe bonus esset, qui et nulli naturae, quae⁶ ab illo bona esset, invidit, et ut in bono ipso maneret, alia quantum vellet, alia quantum posset, dedit; quae bonitas intelligitur Spiritus sanctus, qui est donum Patris et Filii. Quare ipsum donum Dei cum Patre et Filio aeque incommutabile colere et tenere nos convenit. Per considerationem itaque creaturarum unius substantiae Trinitatem intelligimus, scilicet unum Deum Patrem, a quo sumus, et Filium, per quem sumus, et Spiritum sanctum, in quo sumus, scilicet principium, ad quod recurrimus, et formam quam sequimur, et gratiam qua reconciliamur: unum scilicet, quo auctore conditi sumus, et similitudinem eius, per quam ad unitatem reformamur, et pacem, qua Unitati adhaeremus: scilicet Deum, qui dixit:⁷ fiat; et Verbum, per quod factum est omne, quod substantialiter et naturaliter est; et Donum benignitatis eius, qua placuit quod ab eo per Verbum factum est et reconciliatum est auctori, ut non interiret ». Ecce ostensum est, qualiter in creaturis aliquatenus imago Trinitatis indicatur; non enim per creaturarum contemplationem sufficiens notitia Trinitatis potest haberi vel potuit sine doctrinae vel interioris inspirationis revelatione. Unde illi antiqui philosophi quasi per umbram et de longinquo viderunt veritatem, deficientes in contuitu Trinitatis, ut magi Pharaonis in tertio signo.⁸ Adiuvamur tamen in fide invisibilium per ea, quae facta sunt.	Now there remains to show, whether through those (things) which have been made anything could be regarded a vestige or scanty [exiguum]¹ evidence of the Trinity. On this (St.) Augustine in the sixth book On the Trinity says: « It is proper, that perceiving the Creator with (our) intellect [intellectu] through the (things) which have been made, we understand the Trinity. For the vestige of this Trinity appears [apparet] in creatures. For all these (things),³ which have been made by the Divine Art, both show a certain unity in themselves and an outward-appearance [species] and an order. For each of these creators is also some one [unum aliquid], as are the natures of bodies and of souls, and (each) is formed by some species [species], as are the figures and/or qualities of bodies and the doctrines and/or arts of souls, and (each) seeks or holds some order, as are the weights and/or positions [collocationes] of bodies and the loves [amores] and/or delectations of souls; and thus does the vestige of the Trinity shine forth in creatures. For in that Trinity there is a Most High Origin of all things [omnium rerum] and a Most Perfect Beauty [pulcritudo] and a Most Blessed Delectation ». « But the Most High Origin », as (St.) Augustine shows in the book On the True Religion,⁴ « is understood to be God the Father, from whom are all things [omnia], from whom (is) the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Most Perfect Beauty is understood (to be) the Son, that is the Truth of the Father, dissimilar to Him from no vantage point [nulla ex parte], which⁵ we venerate with and in the Father Himself [cum ipso et in ipso Patre], which is the Form of all, which has been made from the One and are referred to the One, which all, however, would neither have come to be from the Father through the Son nor would have been safe in their confines [suis finibus], unless God was the most highly Good, who both envies no nature, which⁶ is good from Him, and grants that the one as much as it wants, the other as much as it can, remain in the Good itself; which goodness is understood (to be) the Holy Spirit, who is the Gift of the Father and the Son. Wherefore it is fitting that the very Gift of God, equally incommutable with the Father and the Son, take care of us [colere] and hold us. And thus through a consideration of creatures we understand the Trinity (to be) of one substance, that is one God the Father, from whom we are, and the Son, through whom we are, and the Holy Spirit, in whom we are, that is the Principle, back to which we run, and the Form which we follow, and the Grace by which we are reconciled: that is God, who said:⁷ Let there be; and the Word, through which there is made everything, which substantially and naturally is; and the Gift of His benignity, who was pleased that what was wrought by Him through the Word and reconciled to the Author, might not perish ». Behold it has been shown, how among creatures to some extent the image of the Trinity is indicated; for through the contemplation of creatures a sufficient knowledge [notitia] of the Trinity cannot be had nor [vel] could it without the revelation of doctrine and/or of interior inspiration. Whence those ancient philosophers as if through a shadow and from afar saw the truth, deficient (as they were) in the contuition of the Trinity, like [ut] the magi of the Pharaoh at the third sign.⁸ We, however, are helped to believe invisible things [in fide invisibilium] through those (things), which have been made.
PARS. II.	PART II
Cap. II. De imagine et similitudine Trinitatis in anima humana.	Chapter II On the image and similitude of the Trinity in the human soul
Nunc vero « ad eam iam perveniamus disputationem, ubi in mente humana, quae novit Deum vel potest nosse, Trinitatis imaginem reperiamus ». Ut enim ait Augustinus in decimo quarto libro de Trinitate:⁹ « Licet humana mens non sit eius naturae, cuius Deus est, imago tamen illius, quo nihil melius est, ibi quaerenda et invenienda est, quo natura nostra nihil habet melius, id est in mente. In ipsa enim¹⁰ mente, etiam antequam sit particeps Dei, eius imago reperitur; etsi enim, amissa Dei participatione, deformis sit, imago tamen Dei permanet. Eo enim ipso imago Dei est mens, quo capax eius est eiusque particeps esse potest. Iam ergo in ea Trinitatem, quae Deus est, inquiramus. Ecce ergo¹¹ mens meminit sui, intelligit se, diligit se; hoc si cernimus, cernimus trinitatem, nondum quidem Deum, sed imaginem Dei. Hic enim quaedam apparet trinitas memoriae, intelligentiae et amoris ». Haec ergo tria potissimum tractemus, memoriam, intelligentiam, voluntatem ». « Haec igitur tria, ut Augustinus ait . . .	But now « let us come presently [iam] to that disputation, where in the human mind, which knows God and/or can know (Him), we discover the image of the Trinity ». For as (St.) Augustine says in the fourteenth book On the Trinity:⁹ « Though the human mind is not of that nature, of which God is, however the image of Him, better than whom nothing is, is to be sought and found there, better than whom our nature has nothing, that is, in the mind. For¹⁰ in the mind itself, even before it is a partaker of God, His image is discovered; for even if, having lost the participation in God, it be deformed, the image of God, however, remains throughout [permanet]. For the image of God is for this very reason a mind, because [quo] it is capable of Him and can be a partaker of Him. Therefore let us now search in it for the Trinity, which is God. Therefore¹¹ behold: the mind remembers itself, understands itself, loves [diligit] itself; if we discern [cernimus] this, we discern a trinity, not yet indeed the God, but the image of God. For here there appears a certain trinity of memory, intelligence and love [amoris] ». These three, therefore, let us treat with most of all [potissimum]: memory, intelligence, will ». « Therefore these three », as (St.) Augustine says . . .
¹ Cod. A omittit exiguum; codd.* B C D E et ed. 1, omisso vestigium et transpositis verbis, satis bene legunt Trinitatis indicium vel exiguum, accepto vel pro saltem vel pro etiam. ² Cap. 10. n.. 12, sed transposito ordine propositionum. — In initio huius textus Vat. et ed. 4 male legunt intellecta pro intellectu; ed. Augustini intellectum. ³ Omnes codd. et edd. praeter Vat. omittunt omnia, quod tamen et ed. Augustini et ipse S. Bonav. infr dub. 3 habent. — Paulo post codd. C E cum textu Augustini quidquid horum pro quodque horum. Deinde Vat. et edd. 4, 5, 6, 7 cum textu Augustini ante animarum adiiciunt ingenia, quod deest in codd. omnibus et aliis edd. ⁴ Ex cap. 55. n. 113. passim collecta. — In prima propositione huius textus post omnia solus cod. C addit particulam et. ⁵ Vat. et alia edd. contra ed. 6 et omnes codd. quem pro quam et mox contra eosdem codd. et edd. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 qui forma pro quae forma. Lectio nostra confirmatur textu Augustini, qui habet: Quare ipsam quoque veritatem nulla ex parte dissimilem, in ipso et cum ipso veneramur, quae forma est omnium, quae ab uno facta sunt. — Paulo post cod. C ab ipso et edd. 5, 6 ab initio loco ab uno. Deinde cod. D quae omnino non fierent pro quae tamen omnia nec fierent ⁶ Codd. A B C E satis bene quod, sed refragantibus edd. et textu Augustini. Immediate post codd. A B et edd. 9, 10 bono pro bona. ⁷ Gen. 1, 3. — Vat. cum edd. 4, 6, 7, 8 et codd. D E post fiat male addit lux, refragantibus ceteris edd. et codd. nec non textu Augustini. ⁸ Exod. 8:18. ⁹ Cap. 8. n. 11, unde etiam accepta sunt, quae praecedunt, ab illis verbis: Nunc vero, sed de more non paucis omissis vel additis. ¹⁰ Vat. et alia edd., exceptis 1, 8, minus bene: In ipsa etiam mente antequam. ¹¹ Vat. contra codd. et ed. 1, 6 legit enim; et paulo post edd. 2, 3, 7 ante si cernimus habent haec pro hoc.	¹ Codex A omits scanty[exiguum]; codices B C D and E and edition 1, having omitted vestige [vestigium]and transposed the words, reads well enough evidence of the Trinity even a meager one [vel exiguum], having read and/or [vel] for at least [saltem] or for even [etiam]. ² Chapter 10, n. 12, but with a transposition of the propositions. — At the beginning of this text the Vatican edition and edition 4 read badly which have been made understood [intellecta] in place of with (our) intellect [intellectu]; Augustine's edition has the Creator understood through those things [intellectum]. ³ All the codices and editions, besides the Vatican edition, omit all . . .things [omnia], which however both Augustine's edition and St. Bonaventure, below in dubium n. 3, have. — A little after this codices C and E together with the text of (St.) Augustine have whatever of these [quidquid horum] in place of each of these [quodque horum]. Then the Vatican edition and editions 4, 5, 6 and 7, together with the text of (St.) Augustine inserts the natural qualities [ingenia] before of souls [animarum], which is lacking in all the codices and other editions. ⁴ Gathered from chapter 55, n. 113 passim. — In the first proposition of this text after all (things) [omnia] only codex C adds the particle and [et]. ⁵ The Vatican edition and the other editions against edition 6 and all the codices has whom [quem] in place of which [quam] and the against the same codices and editions 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, have who [qui] in place of which [quae]. Our reading is confirmed by the text of (St.) Augustine, who has: Wherefore that truth, dissimilar in no way [nulla ex parte] we also venerate in Him and with Him, (that truth) which is the Form of all (things), which have been made by the One. — A little after this codex C has by Him [ab ipso] and editions 5 and 6 from the start [ab initio] in place of from the One. Then codex D has which would not at all [omnino] have come to be in place of which all, however, neither would have come to be [quae tamen omnia nec fierent]. ⁶ Codices A B C and E have well enough because it [quod], but disagreeing with the editions and the text of (St.) Augustine. Immediately after this codices A and B and editions 9 and 10 have from the Good itself [ab ipso bono] in place of good from Him [ab ipso bona]. ⁷ Gn. 1:3. — The Vatican edition together with editions 4, 5, 6 and 8 and codices D and E adds light [lux] badly after Let there be [fiat], by disagreeing with the rest of the editions and codices and also the text of (St.) Augustine. ⁸ Ex 8:18. ⁹ Chapter 8, n. 11, whence there are also understood, what precedes (this), from the words: But now [Nunc vero], but as is usual with not a few things omitted and/or added. ¹⁰ The Vatican edition and the other editions, except 1 and 8, have less well: Even in that mind before [In ipsa etiam mente antequam]. ¹¹ The Vatican edition against the codices and editions 1 and 6 reads for [enim]; and a little after this editions 2, 3 and 7 before if we discern [si cernimus] have these things [haec] in place of this [hoc].
* [Trans. nota: Hic perperam nota originalis legivit Codd. pro codd.]

p. 64

in libro decimo de Trinitate,¹ non sunt tres vitae, sed una vita, nec tres mentes, sed una mens, una essentia. Memoria vero dicitur ad aliquid, et intelligentia et voluntas sive dilectio similiter ad aliquid dicitur; vita vero dicitur ad se ipsam et mens et essentia. Haec igitur tria eo sunt unum, quo una vita, una mens, una essentia; et quidquid aliud ad se ipsa singula dicuntur, etiam simul, non pluraliter, sed singulariter dicuntur. Eo vero tria sunt, quo ad se invicem referuntur ».	in the tenth book On the Trinity,¹ « there are not three lives, but one life, nor three minds, but one mind, one essence. But “memory” is said regarding something, and “intelligence” and “will” or “dilection” similarly is said regarding something; but “life” and “mind” and “essence” is said regarding itself. Therefore these three for this reason are one, because (there is) one life, one mind, one essence; and whatever else those each [singula] are said (to be) regarding themselves, they are at the same time also said, not in the plural, but in the singular. But for this reason they are three, because they are referred to one another [se invicem] ».
« Aequalia etiam sunt non solum singula singulis, sed etiam singula omnibus; alioquin non se invicem caperent; se autem invicem capiunt. Capiuntur² enim et a singulis singula et a singulis omnia. Memini enim, me habere memoriam et intelligentiam et voluntatem; et intelligo, me intelligere et velle atque meminisse; et volo, me velle et meminisse et intelligere ».	« They are also equal not only each to each [singula singulis], but also each to all [singula omnibus]; otherwise they would not seize one another; but they do seize one another. For they are grasped² both each by each and all by each. For I remember, that I have a memory and intelligence and a will; and I understand, that I understand and will and remember; and I will, that I will and remember and understand ».
« Totamque meam memoriam et intelligentiam et voluntatem simul memini. Quod enim memoriae meae non memini, illud non est in memoria mea; nihil autem tam in memoria est, quam ipsa memoria: totam ergo³ memini. Item, quidquid intelligo, intelligere me scio, et scio, me velle quidquid volo; quidquid autem scio memini. Totam ergo intelligentiam totamque voluntatem meam memini ».	« And I remember at once my whole memory and intelligence and will. For what I do not remember of my memory, that is not in my memory; but nothing is so in the memory, as the memory itself: therefore³ I remember the whole. Likewise, whatever I understand, I know [scio] that I understand, and I know, that I will whatever I will; but whatever I know I remember. Therefore I remember my whole intelligence and whole will ».
« Similiter, cum haec tria intelligo, tota simul intelligo. Neque enim quidquam intelligibilium est, quod non intelligam, nisi quod ignoro. Quod autem ignoro, nec memini nec volo. Quidquid igitur⁴ intelligibilium non intelligo, consequenter etiam nec memini nec volo. Quidquid ergo intelligibilium memini et volo, consequnter intelligo ».	« Similarly, when I understand these three, I at once understand the whole. For neither is there anything belonging to intelligibles, which I do not understand, unless I am ignorant of it. But because I am ignorant, I neither remember nor will. Therefore⁴ whatever of intelligibles I do not understand, I also consequently do not remember nor will. Therefore whatever of intelligibles I remember and will, I consequently understand ».
« Voluntas etiam mea totam intelligentiam totamque memoriam meam capit, dum utor toto eo quod intelligo et memini. Cum itaque invicem a singulis et omnia et tota capiantur, aequalia sunt tota singula totis singulis et tota singula simul omnibus totis; et haec tria unum, una vita, una mens, una essentia ». « Ecce illius summae Unitatis atque Trinitatis, ubi una est essentia et tres personae, imago est humana mens, licet impar ».⁵ Mens autem hic pro animo ipso accipitur, ubi est illa imago Trinitatis; « proprie vero mens dicitur, ut ait Augustinus,⁶ non ipsa anima, sed quod in ea est excellentius », qualiter saepe accipitur. Illud etiam sciendum est, quod memoria non solum est absentium et praeteritorum, sed etiam praesentium, ut ait Augustinus in decimo quarto libro de Trinitate,⁷ alioquin non se caperet.	« The will also seizes my whole intelligence and my whole memory, while I use the whole of what [toto eo quod] I understand and remember. And so since by each [a singulis] in turn there are seized both every one and each entirely [omnia et tota], each entirely [tota singula] is equal to each entirely and each entirely at the same time (is equal) to all entirely; and these three (are) one, one life, one mind, one essence ». « Behold of that Most High Unity and Trinity, where one is the Essence and three the Persons, the human mind is the image, though not the peer [impar] ».⁵ But “mind” is here accepted for the human spirit [animo] itself, where that image of the Trinity is; « but properly the “mind” means », as (St.) Augustine says,⁶ « not the soul itself, but what in it is the more excellent », in which manner it is often accepted. That also one must know, that the memory is not only of (things) absent and (things) past, but also of (things) present, as (St.) Augustine says in the fourteenth book On the Trinity,⁷ otherwise it would not seize itself.
Hic attendendum est diligenter, ex quo sensu accipiendum sit quod supra dixit, illa tria, scilicet memoriam, intelligentiam et voluntatem esse unum, unam mentem, unam essentiam. Quod utique non videtur esse verum iuxta proprietatem sermonis. Mens enim, id est spiritus rationalis, essentia est spiritualis et incorporea. Illa vero tria naturales proprietates seu vires sunt ipsius mentis et a se invicem differunt, quia memoria non est intelligentia vel voluntas, nec intelligentia voluntas sive amor.	Here it must be attended to diligently, in [ex] which sense there must be accepted what is said above, that the three, that is the memory, intelligence and the will, are “one” [unum], (are) “one mind”, (and) “one essence”. Because, even so, it does not seem to be truth according [iuxta] to the property of speech [sermonis]. For the mind, that is the rational spirit, is an essence, spiritual and incorporeal. But those three natural properties or strengths [vires] belong to the mind itself and differ from one another [a se invicem], because memory is not intelligence and/or will, nor intelligence will or love [amor].
« Et haec tria etiam ad se ipsa referuntur », ut ait Augustinus in nono libro de Trinitate:⁸ « Mens enim amare se ipsam vel meminisse non potest, nisi etiam noverit se: nam quomodo amat vel meminit quod nescit »? Miro itaque modo tria ista inseparabilia sunt a semetipsis; et tamen eorum singulum et simul omnia una essentia est, cum et relative dicantur ad invicem.	« And these three also are referred to themselves », as (St.) Augustine says in the ninth book On the Trinity:⁸ « For the mind cannot love and/or remember itself, unless it also knows [noverit] itself: for in what manner does it love and/or remember what it does not know [nescit] »? And so in a wonderful manner those three are inseparable from their very selves [semetipsis]; and yet [tamen] each of them and all together are one essence, since they are also said in a relative manner [relative] regarding one another.
Sed iam videndum est, quo modo haec tria dicantur una subtantia; ideo scilicet, quia in ipsa anima vel mente substantialiter existunt, non sicut accidentia in subiectis, quae possunt adesse et abesse. Unde Augustinus in libro nono de Trinitate⁹ ait: « Admonemur, substantialiter, non tanquam in subiecto, ut color in corpore, quia etsi relative dicuntur¹⁰ ad invicem, singula tamen substantialiter sunt in sua subtantia ». Ecce ex quo sensu illa tria dicantur esse unum vel una substantia. « Quae tria, ut Augustinus ait in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate,¹¹ in mente naturaliter divinitus instituta quisquis vivaciter perspicit, et quam magnum sit in ea, unde potest etiam sempiterna immutabilisque natura recoli, conspici, concupisci (reminiscitur enim per memoriam, intuetur per intelligentiam, amplectitur per dilectionem), profecto reperit illius summae Trinitatis imaginem ».	But presently [iam] it must be seen, in what manner these three are said (to be) “one substance”; for that reason that is, because in the soul itself and/or in the mind they exist substantially, not as accidents in subjects, which can be present [adesse] and absent. Whence (St.) Augustine in the ninth book On the Trinity⁹ says: « We are admonished, that (they are there) substantially, not as in a subject, as color in a body, because even if they are said¹⁰ in a relative manner regarding one another, they are, however, each [singula] in their own substance ». Behold in what sense those three are said to be “one” [unum] and/or “one substance”. « Which three », as (St.) Augustine says in the fifteenth book On the Trinity,¹¹ « having been divinely instituted in the mind naturally, anyone ascertains in a lively manner [vivaciter perspicit], and how there is among them (something) great, from which even the Sempiternal and Immutable Nature can be reflected upon [recoli], plainly seen, (and) completely desired [concupisci] (for It is called to mind through memory, intuited through intelligence, embraced through dilection), (and) in a word (how) one discovers the image of that Most High Trinity ».
Cap. III. De similitudine creantis et creatae trinitatis.	Chapter III On the similitude of the creating and created trinity
« Verumtamen caveat, ne hanc imaginem ab eadem Trinitate factam ita ei comparet, ut omnino existimet similem, sed potius in qualicumque ista similitudine magna quoque dissimilitudinem cernat ».¹²	« However let one still beware, lest he compare the image made from the same Trinity so to himself, that he estimates himself entirely similar, but rather in that similitude however great let him discern [cernat] also the dissimilitude ».¹²
« Quod breviter ostendi potest. Homo unus per illa tria meminit, intelligit, diligit, qui nec memoria est nec intelligentia nec dilectio, sed haec habet. Unus ergo homo est, qui habet haec tria, non ipse est haec tria. In illius vero summa simplicitate naturae, quae Deus est, quamvis unus sit Deus, tres tamen personae / sunt . . .	« Which can briefly be shown. One man through those three remembers, understands, loves [diligit], he who is neither memory nor intelligence nor dilection, but (who) has them. Therefore one man is he, who has these three, he is not these three. But in the Most High Simplicity of that Nature, which is God, although God is one, however there are three persons, . . .
¹ Cap. 11. n. 17. 18. Ex eodem capite sumta sunt omnia, quae sequuntur usque ad: Ecce illius summae Unitatis. ² Vat. et ed. 9 corrupte Capiunt. Immediate post codd. D E etiam pro enim, sed contra textum Augustini et alios codd. et omnes edd. ³ Codd. et textus Augustini igitur. Paulo post contra contextum et originale plures codd. et edd. habent memini scio pro scio memini. ⁴ Edd. ergo; Augustinus itaque. ⁵ Libr. X de Trin. c. 12. n. 19: « cuius impar imago est humana mens, sed tamen imago »; sed prima pars propositionis est ex libr. XV. de Trin. c. 7. n. 11. — Antea Vat. omittit est post ubi una. Paulo post cod. D anima ipsa pro animo ipso. ⁶ Libr. XI. de Trin. c. 7. n. 11. — Secundum sensum. ⁷ Cap. 11. n. 14, ubi longiore discursu hanc sententiam a S. Bonaventura receptam probat (cf. hic. p. Ii. a. 1. q. 1. ad 3.). ⁸ Cap. 3. n. 3, sed de suo addidit Magister quae ad memoriam referuntur, nempe vel meminisse et vel meminit.* Verba praecedentia Et haec tria, iam supra citata, occurrunt libr. X de Trin. c. 11, ubi edd. 1, 6, 8 habent ad se invicem pro ad se ipsa. ⁹ Cap. 4. n. 5. Sed mulo fusius Augustinus. Paulo ante pro et abesse Vat. cum edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 legit vel abesse. ¹⁰ Cod. B et ed. 2 dicantur. ¹¹ Cap. 20. n. 39, ubi post reminiscitur deest enim, quod et a mss. B C D abest; ceterum, etiam omisso enim, verba reminiscitur per memoriam etc. parenthesis esse videntur. ¹² Ibid., sed cum nonnullis adiunctis.	¹ Chapter 11, nn. 17 and 18. From the same chapter are taken all those, which follow up to: Behold of that Most High Unity [Ecce illius summae Unitatis]. ² The Vatican edition and edition 9, corrupted, have they seize [Capiunt]. Immediately before this codices D and E have also [etiam] in place of for [enim], but against the text of Augustine and the other codices and all the editions. ³ The codices and the text of Augustine have therefore [igitur] instead of therefore [ergo]. A little after this against the context and the original very many codices and editions have I remember I know [memini scio] in place of I remember I know [scio memini]. ⁴ The editions have therefore [ergo] instead of therefore [igitur]. ⁵ On the Trinity, Book X, ch. 12, n. 19: « of whom the human mind is the uneven [impar] image, but nevertheless an image »; but the first part of the proposition is from Book XV, ch. 7, n. 11. — Before this the Vatican edition omits there is [est] after where. A little after this codex D has the soul itself [anima ipsa] in place of the human spirit itself [animo ipso]. ⁶ On the Trinity, Book XV, ch. 7, n. 11, according to its sense. ⁷ Chapter 11, n. 14, where in a longer discourse he proves this sentence received by St. Bonaventure (cf. here in p. II, a. 1. q. 1. at n. 3). ⁸ Chapter 3, n. 3, but as he does Master (Peter) has added those which are referred to the memory, namely and/or remember [vel meminisse] and and/or remember [vel meminit].* The preceding words And these three [Et haec tria], already cited above, occur in Book X, ch. 11, where editions 1, 6 and 8 have to one another [ad se invicem] in place of to themselves [ad se ipsa]. ⁹ Chapter 4, n. 5. But much more fully in (St.) Augustine. A little before this in place of and absent the Vatican edition together with editions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 reads and/or absent [vel abesse]. ¹⁰ Codex B and edition 2 have the subjunctive they are said [dicantur]. ¹¹ Chapter 20, n. 39, where for [enim] is lacking before It is called to mind [reminiscitur], and it is absent also from manuscripts B C and D; the rest, having also omitted it, the words It is called to mind through memory [reminiscitur per memoriam] etc. seem to be a parenthesis. ¹² Ibid., but with not a few things adjoined.
* [Trans. nota: Hic in nota editorum Quaracchiorum originaliter perperam legitur sic: vel meminisses et vel meminerit.]	* [Trans. note: Here -(s) and -(er)- have been removed, respectively, from the Latin forms of memini which are erroneously written in the Quaracchi note].

p. 65

sunt, Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus »,¹ et hae tres² unus Deus. « Aliud est itaque Trinitatis res ipsa, aliud imago Trinitatis in re alia; propter quam imaginem etiam illud in quo sunt haec tria, imago dicitur, scilicet homo. Sicut imago dicitur et tabula et pictura, quae est in ea; sed tabula nomine imaginis appellatur propter picturam, quae in ea est ».³	there are three Persons, / the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit »,¹ and these Three² (are) the One God. « And thus the one is the Thing [res] itself of the Trinity, the other the image of the Trinity in another thing [in re alia]; on account of which image even that in which these three are, is said (to be) an “image”, that is man. As the image is said (to be) both a “tablet” [tabula] and a “picture”, which is in it; but a tablet is called by the name “image” on account of the picture, which is in it ».³
« Rursus ista imago, quae est homo habens illa tria, una persona est. Illa vero Trinitatis non una persona est, sed tres personae, Pater Filii et Filius Patris et Spiritus Patris et Filii. Itaque in ista imagine Trinitatis non haec tria unus homo, sed unius hominis sunt. In illa vero summa Trinitate, cuius haec imago est, non unius Dei sunt illa tria, sed unus Deus; et tres sunt illae, non una persona ».⁴ « Illa enim tria non homo sunt, sed hominis sunt vel in homine sunt. Sed nunquid possumus dicere, Trinitatem sic esse in Deo, ut aliquid Dei sit, nec ipsa sit Deus »?⁵ Absit ut hoc credamus. Dicamus ergo, in mente nostra imaginem Trinitatis,⁶ sed exiguam et qualemcumque esse, quae summae trinitatis ita gerit similitudinem, ut ex maxima parte sit dissimilis. Sciendum vero est, quod « haec Trinitas mentis, ut ait Augustinus in decimo quarto libro de Trinitate,⁷ non propterea tantum imago Dei est, quia sui meminit mens et intelligit ac diligit se, sed quia potest etiam meminisse et intelligere et amare illum, a quo facta est ».	« Again that image of Him, which is the man having those three, is one person. But that of the Trinity is not one person, but Three Persons, the Father of the Son and the Son of the Father and the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. And thus in this his [ista] image of the Trinity, these three are not one man, but are of one man. But in that Most High Trinity, whose image this is, those Three are not of one God, but (are) the one God; and those are three, not one Person ».⁴ « For those three are not one man, but are of a man and/or or in a man. But could we ever [nunquid] say, that the Trinity is so in God, that It is something of God, or that It is God »?⁵ Far be it that we believe this. Therefore let us say, that there is in our mind an image of the Trinity,⁶ but (that it is) a scanty one and of some kind [qualemcumque], which so bears a similitude of the Most High Trinity [trinitatis], that for the most part [ex maxima parte] it is dissimilar. But it must be known, that « this Trinity of the mind », as (St.) Augustine says in the fourteenth book On the Trinity,⁷ is not on that account only an image of God, that (as) a mind remembers itself and understands and loves itself, but that it can also remember and understand and love Him, by whom it was made ».
Potest etiam alio modo aliisque nominibus distingui trinitas in anima, quae est imago illius summae et ineffabilis Trinitatis. Ut enim ait Augustinus in nono libro de Trinitate:⁸ « Mens et notitia eius et amor tria quaedam sunt. Mens enim novit se et amat se; nec amare se potest, nisi etiam noverit se. Duo quaedam sunt mens et notitia eius; item duo quaedam sunt mens et amor eius ». « Cum ergo se novit mens et amat se, manet trinitas, scilicet mens, amor et notitia ». « Mens autem hic accipitur non pro anima, sed pro eo quod in anima excellentius est ». Haec autem tria, cum sint distincta a se invicem, dicuntur tamen esse unum, quia in anima⁹ substantialiter existunt.	There can also be distinguished in another manner and by other names the trinity in (that) soul, which is the image of that Most High and Ineffable Trinity. For as (St.) Augustine says in the ninth book On the Trinity:⁸ « Mind and its knowledge [notitia] and love [amor] are a certain three. For mind knows [novit] itself and loves itself; nor can it love itelf, unless it also knows itself. A certain two are the mind and its knowledge; likewise a certain two are the mind and its love ». Therefore when the mind knows itself and loves itself, there remains a trinity, that is the mind, love and knowledge ». « But the “mind” is here accepted not for the soul, but for that which is the more excellent in the soul ». But these three, though they be distinct from one another, are, however, said “to be one”, because they exist substantially in the soul.⁹
Et est ipsa mens quasi parens, et notitia eius quasi proles eius. « Mens enim cum se cognoscit, notitiam sui gignit et est sola parens suae notitiae. Tertius est amor, qui de ipsa mente et notitia procedit, dum mens cognoscens se diligit se; non enim posset se diligere, nisi cognosceret se. Amat etiam placitam prolem, id est notitiam suam; et ita amor quidam complexus est parentis et prolis ».¹⁰	And the mind itself is a quasi parent, and its knowledge the quasi offspring of it. « For the mind when it cognizes itself, begets knowledge [notitiam] of itself and is the only parent of its own knowledge. The third is the love [amor], which proceeds from the mind itself and (its) knowledge, while the mind cognizing itself loves [diligit] itself; for it cannot love itself, unless it cognizes itself. It also loves [amat] its pleasing offspring, that is its knowledge; and thus love is indeed a certain embrace [complexus] of parent and offspring ».¹⁰
« Nec minor est proles parente, dum tantam se novit mens, quanta est; nec minor est amor parente et prole, id est mente et notitia, dum tantum se diligit mens, quantum se novit et quanta est ».¹¹	« For is the offspring less than the parent, while the mind knows itself (to be) as great [tanta], as it is; nor is love less than the parent and the offspring, that is than mind and knowledge, while the mind loves itself as much [tantum], as it knows itself and as much as it is ».¹¹
« Sunt etiam haec singula in se ipsis, quia et mens amans in amore est, et amor in amantis notitia, et notitia in mente noscente est ».¹² Ecce in his tribus qualecumque Trinitatis vestigium apparet.	« These are also each [singula] in themselves, because the mind loving is also in love, and love in knowledge of the one loving, and knowledge is in the mind knowing ».¹² Behold among these three there appears a vestige, of some kind [qualecumque], of the Trinity.
Mens itaque rationalis considerans haec tria et illam unam essentiam, in qua ista sunt, extendit se ad contemplationem Creatoris et videt unitatem in trinitate et trinitatem in unitate. Intelligit enim, unum esse Deum, unam essentiam, unum prinicipium. Intelligit enim, quia si duo essent, vel uterque insufficiens esset, vel alter superflueret; quia si aliquid deeset uni, quod haberet alter, non esset ibi summa perfectio; si vero nihil uni deesset, quod haberet alter, cum in uno essent omnia, alter superflueret. Intellexit ergo, unum esse Deum, unum¹³ omnium auctorem, et vidit, quia absque sapientia non sit, quasi res fatua; et ideo intellexit, eum habere sapientiam, quae ab ipso genita est; et quia sapientiam suam diligit, intellexit etiam, ibi esse amorem.	And thus the rational mind, considering these three and that one essence, in which these of his [ista] are, extends itself to the contemplation of the Creator and sees unity in trinity and trinity in unity. For it understands, that there is one God, one Essence, one Principle. For it understands, that if there were two, each would be insufficient, and/or one of the two would be superfluous; that if anything is lacking to the one, which the other had, there would not be a most high perfection there; but if there were lacking to the one nothing, which the other had, since in the one would be all things [omnia], the other would be superfluous. Therefore it understood, that there is one God, one¹³ Author of all, and it sees, that He is not without wisdom, as if (He were) a foolish thing [res fatua]; and for that reason it understood, that He has a wisdom, which is begotten from Himself; and because He loves [diligit] His own wisdom, it also understood, that there is a Love [amorem] there.
¹ Loc. cit. c. 22. n. 42., secundum sensum. — Pro per illa tria Vat. cum nonnullis edd. per ista tria, et infra edd. 1, 8 post non addunt tamen. Denique Vat. et plurimae edd. ante simplicitate legunt summa pro summae. ² Vat. cum multis edd. explicando addit personae sunt. ³ Ibid. n. 43. ⁴ Loc. cit. — Edd. omnes, dempta 1, in fine textus post sunt illae adiiciunt personae contra codd. et originale. Paulo ante modernae editiones Augustini, omisso non, legunt est, unius Dei sunt, sed haec lectio importat locutionem falsam nec correspondet contextui et tollit antithesim. Nam tria illa, scil. memoria, intellectus, voluntas, per appropriationem sumta pro tribus personis, stricte didi non possunt esse unius Dei, sed sunt Deus and unus Deus, quia inter personas et essentiam non datur realis distinctio. Recte itaque Augustinus negat peritatem inter imaginem creatam et increatam. Nam unius hominis sunt illa tria, cum potentiae hominis non sint homo, sed habeantur ab homine. Tres vero personae stricto sensu sunt unus Deus. Ita ipse Augustinus in sequenti textu. — Vide infra dub. 10, ubi Seraphicus Doctor negantem particulam non solum cum Magistro admittit, sed defectu ipsius propositionem fieri simpliciter falsam ostendit. ⁵ Loc. cit. c. 7. n. 11, sed multo diffusius. ⁶ Codd. B C D E et A (prima manu) et ed. 1 imaginis trinitatem, quae lectio nec in se commendatur nec cum verbis sed exiguam et qualemcumque bene cohaeret. Vat. sola immediate adiungit ita. — Haec conclusio Magistri quoad sensum invenitur in Augustino, loc. cit. c. 22. n. 43. ⁷ Cap. 12. n. 15. — Cod A B D E et ed. 1 omittunt est post Sciendum vero. Mox in ipso textu Augustini codd., excepto D, et plurimae edd. incongrue legunt meminerit pro meminit. ⁸ Cap. 4. n. 4: « Sicut autem quaedam sunt mens et amor eius, cum se amat; ita quaedam duo sunt mens et notitia eius, cum se novit. Igitur ipsa mens et amor et notitia eius tria quaedam sunt, et haec tria unum sunt, et cum perfecta sunt, aequalia sunt ». Quae sequuntur sumta sunt ex c. 5. n. 8; de ultimo textu vide supra nota 6. p. 64. ⁹ Codd. et edd. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 animo. ¹⁰ August., IX. de Trin. c. 12. n. 18, ubi autem multa adiecta et mutata leguntur. In quo textu cod. C verbo procedit praemittit eius. Mox Vat. cum paucis aliis edd. pro cognoscens se diligit habet cognoscit se et diligit. Paucis interiectis, codd. A D E pro Amat etiam legunt Amat enim, sed contra contextum, cum duplex distinguatur amor mentis, scil erga se et suam prolem. ¹¹ Loc. cit. ¹² August., libr. cit. c. 5. n. 9. ¹³ Abest in Vat. et paucis aliis edd. unam. Et paulo infra post absque sapientia Vat. contra auctoritatem codd. et edd., omissa particula non et inde variato sensu, absque sapientia sit quasi res fatua. In nostra et vera lectione supple esset post fatua. In fine capituli codd. A B D ibi etiam pro etiam ibi, quae lectio confirmat sensum nostra interpunctione insinuatum.	¹ Loc. cit., ch. 22, n. 42, according to the sense. — In place of through those three [per illa tria] the Vatican edition and not a few of the editions has through those three of his [per ista tria], and below editions 1 and 8 after not [non] add however [tamen]. Then the Vatican edition and very many of the editions read the simplicity of that Most High Nature [summae simplicitate naturae]. ² The Vatican edition together with many editions adds persons are [personae sunt] by way of explanation. ³ Ibid., n. 43. ⁴ Loc. cit.. — All the editions, except 1, at the end of the text after those are three [sunt illae] inserts persons [personae] against the codices and the original. A little before this the modern editions of (St.) Augustine, having omitted not [non], read is, are of the one God [est unius Dei sunt], but this reading conveys a false expression and it both does not corresponds to the context and removes the antithesis. For those three, that is the memory, the intellect, the will, through an appropriation taken for the three Persons, strictly cannot be said to be “of the one God”, but are God and the one God, because among the Persons and the Essence there is [datur] no real distinction. And so rightly does (St.) Augustine deny the parity of the created and uncreated image. For those three are of one man, since the powers of a man are not a man, but are had by a man. But the three Persons in the strict sense are the one God. This (St.) Augustine himself in the following text. — See below in dubium n. 10, where the Seraphic Doctor not only admits with Master (Peter) the negative particle, but shows that the proposition is simply false by its defect. ⁵ Loc. cit., ch. 7, n. 11, but much more at length. ⁶ Codices B C D E and A (by the primary hand) and edition 1 have a trinity of image [imaginis trinitatem], which reading is neither commended in itself nor well coherent with the words in the accusative but a scanty one and of whatever a kind [sed exiguam et qualemcumque]. The Vatican edition alone immediately adjoins thus [ita]. — This conclusion of Master (Peter) is found, according to its sense, in (St.) Augustine, loc. cit., ch. 22, n. 43. ⁷ Chapter 12, n. 15. — Codex A B D and E and edition 1 omit be [est] in It must . . . known [Sciendum vero]. Then in the same text of (St.) Augustine the codices, except D, and very many of the editions incongruously has the subjunctive form of remembers [meminerit] instead. ⁸ Chapter 4, n. 4: « But just as there are a certain mind and its love, when it loves itself; so a certain two are the mind and its knowledge, when it knows itself. Therefore the mind itself and the love and its knowledge are a certain three, and these three are one thing [unum], and when they have been perfected, they are equals ». Those which follow have been taken from ch. 5, n. 8; concerning the last text see above in footnote 6, on p. 64. ⁹ The codices and editions 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 have the human spirit [animo]. ¹⁰ (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity, Bk IX, ch. 12, n. 18, where there is read, moreover, many things that have been adjoined and changed. In which text codex C has its [eius] before knowledge [procedit]. Then the Vatican edition together with a few other editions has cognizes itself it also loves [cognoscit se et diligit] in place of cognizing itself loves [cognoscens se diligit]. With a few things interjected, codices A D and E read For it loves [Amat enim] in place of It also loves [Amat etiam], but against the context, since a twofold love of the mind is being distinguished, that is “toward itself” and “toward its offspring”. ¹¹ Loc. cit. ¹² (St.) Augustine, loc. cit, ch. 5, n. 9. ¹³ Absent in the Vatican edition and a few other of the editions is one [unam]. And a little below this at without wisdom [absque sapientia] the Vatican edition against the authority of the codices and editions, having omitted the particle not and hence varied the sense, has He is without wisdom like [quasi] a foolish thing. In our and the true reading understand He were [esset] before a foolish thing [fatua: which order is reversed in the Latin]. At the end of the chapter codices A B and D have it understood in this, that there is also [intellexit ibi, etiam esse], which reading confirms the sense implied in our punctuation of the text.

p. 66

Cap. IV.

De Trinitatis unitate.

Chapter IV

On the unity of the Trinity

« Quapropter iuxta istam considerationem, ut ait Augustinus in libro nono de Trinitate,¹ credamus, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum unum esse Deum, universae creaturae conditorem et rectorem; nec Patrem esse Filium, nec Spiritum sanctum vel Patrem esse vel Filium, sed Trinitatem relatarum ad invicem personarum ». Ut enim ait ipse in libro de Fide ad Petrum:² « Una est natura sive essentia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, non una persona. Si enim sic esset una persona, sicut est una substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, veraciter trinitas non diceretur. Rursus quidem trinitas esset vera, sed unus Deus Trinitas ipsa non esset, si quemadmodum Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus personarum sunt ab invicem proprietate distincti, sic fuissent naturarum quoque diversitate discreti ». « Fides autem Patriarcharum, Prophetarum atque Apostolorum num Deum praedicat esse Trinitatem ».³ « In illa igitur sancta Trinitate unus est Deus Pater, qui solus essentialiter de se ipso Filium unum genuit; et unus Filius est, qui de uno Patre solus essentialiter natus; et unus Spiritus sanctus, qui solus essentialiter a Patre Filioque procedit. Hoc autem totum non potest una persona, id est, gignere se et nasci de se et procedere de se ». Ut enim ait Augustinus in primo libro de Trinitate:⁴ « Nulla res est, quae se ipsam gignat, ut sit ».

« Wherefore in accord with this consideration », as (St.) Augustine says in the ninth book On the Trinity,¹ « let us believe, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God, the Founder and Ruler of each and every [universae] creature; that the Father is not the Son, nor that the Holy Spirit is the Father and/or the Son, but that (there is) a Trinity of Persons related to one another ». For as he himself says in the book On the Faith to Peter:² « One is the nature or essence of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, not one the person. For if there were one Person thus, as there is one substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, truly it would not be called a trinity. Again it would be a true trinity indeed, but the one God would not be the Trinity itself, if in accord with the manner the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from one another by the property of the persons, they had also been thus separated [discreti] by a diversity of natures ». « But did not the Faith of the Patriarch, Prophets and Apostles preach that God is the Trinity »?³ « Therefore in that Holy Trinity one is God the Father, who essentially alone begot from Himself one Son; and one the Son, who from the one Father (is) alone born essentially; and one the Holy Spirit, who alone essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son. But this Whole cannot be one person, that is, begetting itself and being born from itself and proceeding from itself ». For as (St.) Augustine says in the first book On the Trinity:⁴ « There is no thing, which begets itself, to be ».

¹ Cap. 1. n. 1.
² Cap. 1. n. 4. — Auctor huius libri, S. Fulgentius, multo fusius de his tractat, in quo textu codd. C D E addendo non et mutando sed in si sic legunt: Rursus quidem Trinitas non esset vera, si unus Deus Trinitas non esset: si quemadmodeum . . . Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus personarum sunt ab invicem proprietate distincti, sic fuissent naturarum quoque diversitate discreti. Sed haec lectio duplicem suppositionem et argumentationem confundit. In fine textus Vat. fuissent quoque naturae pro fuissent naturarum quoque.
³ Loc. cit.; auctoritas sequens ibid. n. 6.
⁴ Cap. 1. n. 1.

¹ Chapter 1, n. 1.
² Chapter 1, n. 4. — The author if this book. St. Fulgentius (of Ruspe), treats of this much more broadly, in which text codices C D and E by adding not and by changing but [sed] into if [si] thus read: Again the Trinity would not indeed be a true one, if the one God were not the Trinity: if in accord with the manner . . . the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from one another by the property of persons, they had also been thus separated from on another by a diversity of natures. But this reading confounds a twofold supposition and argumentation. At the end of the text the Vatican edition has they had also been . . . of nature [fuissent quoque naturae] for they had also been . . . of natures [fuissent naturarum quoque].
³ Loc. cit.; the following authority is ibid., n. 6.
⁴ Chapter 1, n. 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 that 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.

Sententiarum Quatuor Libri

The Four Books of Sentences