LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 5: 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 V.	DISTINCTION 5
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 107-110. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi.	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 107-110. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
Cap. I. Utrum divina essentia genuerit Filium, vel genita sit a Patre, vel de ipsa natus sit Filius, vel Spiritus sanctus processerit.	Chapter I Whether the Divine Essence begot the Son, and/or has been begotten by the Father, and/or (whether) the Son has been born from It, and/or the Holy Spirit has proceeded (from It).
Post haec quaeritur, utrum concedendum sit, quod Pater genuit¹ divinam essentiam, vel quod divina essentia genuit Filium, vel essentia genuit essentiam, an omnino non genuit nec genita est divina essentia.	After this there is asked, whether it must be conceded, that the Father begot¹ the Divine Essence, and/or that the Divine Essence begot the Son, and/or the Essence begot the Essence, or whether the Divine Essence entirely did not beget nor has been begotten.
Ad quod catholicis tractatoribus consentientes dicimus, quod nec Pater genuit, nec divina essentia genuit² essentiam. Hic autem nomine essentiae intelligimus divinam naturam, quae communis est tribus personis et tota in singulis. Ideo non est dicendum, quod Pater genuit divinam essentiam; quia si Pater diceretur genuisse divinam essentiam, essentia divina relative diceretur ad Patrem vel pro relativo poneretur. Si autem relative diceretur vel pro relativo poneretur, non indicaret essentiam. Ut enim ait Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate:³ « Quod relative dicitur, non indicat substantiam ».	To which consenting with catholic authors [tractatoribus] we say, that neither did the Father beget, nor did the Divine Essence beget the² Essence. Moreover here by the name of “Essence” we understand the Divine Nature, which is common to the Three Persons and is whole in each of them [in singulis]. For that reason there must not be said, that the Father begot the Divine Essence; because if the Father were said “to have begotten” the Divine Essence, the Divine Essence would be said in a manner relative to [relative ad] the Father and/or would be put in place of a relative. Moreover if it would be said in a manner relative (to) and/or (if) it would be put in place of a relative, it would not indicate the Essence. For as (St.) Augustine says in the fifth book On the Trinity:³ « What is said in a relative manner, does not indicate a substance ».
Item, cum Deus Pater sit divina essentia, si eius esset genitor, esset utique genitor eius rei, quae ipse est; et ita eadem res se ipsam genuisset, quod Augustinus negat, ut supra⁴ ostendimus.	Likewise, since God the Father is the Divine Essence, if He was Its begetter, He would certainly [utique] be the begetter of that Thing, which He is; and thus the same Thing would have begotten Its very self, which (St.) Augustine denies, as we have shown above.⁴
Item, si Pater est genitor essentiae divinae, cum ipse essentia divina sit et Deus sit, eo ergo⁵ quod generat, et est et Deus est. Ita ergo non illud quod generatur, est a Patre Deus, sed Pater eo quod generat, et est et Deus est. Et si ita est, non genito gignens, sed gignenti genitus⁶ causa est, ut et sit et Deus sit. Simili ratione probat Augustinus in libro septimo de Trinitate,⁷ « quod Pater non est sapiens sapientia, quam genuit, quia si ea sapiens est, ea est; hoc enim est ibi esse quod sapere. Quodsi hoc est ibi esse quod sapere, non per illam sapientiam, quam genuit, sapiens Pater est. Quid enim aliud dicimus, cum dicimus: hoc illi est esse quod sapere, nisi, eo est quo sapiens est? Ergo quae causa illi est, ut sapiens sit, etiam ipsa illi causa est, ut sit. Si ergo sapientia, quam genuit, illi causa est, ut sapiens sit, et causa illi est, ut sit. Sed causam Patri, qua sit, a Patre genitam, nullo modo quisquam dixerit sapientiam; quid enim est insanius? Ita ergo, si Pater genuit essentiam, qua est, essentia, quam genuit, causa est illi, ut sit ». Non ergo ipsam, qua⁸ est, essentiam genuit. « Nam in illa simplicitate, inquit Augustinus,⁹ quia non est aliud sapere quam esse, eadem est ibi sapientia quae essentia »; ideoque quod de sapientia, hoc de essentia dicimus. Sicut ergo non genuit sapientiam, qua sapiens est, ita nec essentiam, qua est. Ut enim sapientia sapiens est et potentia potens, ita et essentia ipse est, eademque est sapientia et potentia, quae essentia. Patet itaque ex praedictis, quia¹⁰ Pater essentiam divinam non genuit.	Likewise, if the Father is the begetter of the Divine Essence, since He by the Divine Essence is and is God, therefore⁵ by that which He generates, He both is and is God. Thus, therefore, not that which is generated, is God by [a] the Father, but the Father by that which He generates, both is and is God. And if He is thus, the one begetting (is) not (the cause) for the begotten, but rather the begotten⁶ is the cause for the one begetting, to both be and be God. By a similar reason (St.) Augustine proves (this) in the seventh book On the Trinity,⁷ « that the Father is not wise by the Wisdom, which He has begotten, because if He is wise by That, He is by That; for There there is a ‘to be’ for the reason that there is a ‘to know’ [eo . . . quod sapere]. Whereas if There there is a ‘to be’ for the reason that there is a ‘to know’, (then) not through that Wisdom, which He has begotten, is the Father wise. For what other do we say, when we say: in That [illi] there is a ‘to be’ for the reason that there is a ‘to know’, except, He is by that by which He is wise? Therefore the cause which is for That [illi], to be wise, is also the cause itself for That, to be. If, therefore, the Wisdom, which He has begotten, is the cause for That, to be wise, It is also the cause of That, to be. But in no manner has anyone said that the cause for the Father, by which He is, (is) the Wisdom begotten by the Father; for what is more insane? Thus, therefore, if the Father has begotten the Essence, by which He is, the Essence, which He has begotten, is the cause of That, to be ». Therefore He did not beget the Essence itself, by which⁸ He is. « For in that Simplicity », says (St.) Augustine,⁹ « because ‘to know’ is not other than ‘to be’, There Wisdom is the same which Essence (is) »; and for that reason what is of [de] Wisdom, this we say of the Essence. Therefore just as He did not beget the Wisdom, by which He is wise, so neither the Essence, by which He is. For just as Wisdom is wise and the Power powerful [potentia potens], so also the Essence itself, and Wisdom and the Power is the same which Essence (is). And so it is clear from the aforesaid, that¹⁰ the Father did not beget the Divine Essence.
Huic autem videtur contrarium quod Augustinus ait in libro unico de Fide et symbolo, capitulo tertio:¹¹ « Deus, cum Verbum genuit, id quod ipse est genuit, nec de nihilo nec de aliqua iam facta conditaque materia, sed de se ipso id quod est ipse ». Item:¹² « Deus Pater, qui verissime se indicare animis cognituris et voluit et potuit, hoc ad se ipsum indicandum genuit, quod est ipse qui genuit ». Ecce aperte dicit his verbis, Deum Patrem genuisse illud quod ipse est. Illud autem quod ipse est, non est nisi essentia divina: videtur ergo divinam essentiam genuisse. Ad quod respondemus, illa verba sic intelligenda esse dicentes: Pater de se ipso genuit illud quod ipse est, id est Filium, qui est illud quod Pater est. Nam quod Pater est, et Filius hoc est, sed non qui Pater est, et Filius hic est.	But to this there seems contrary what (St.) Augustine says in his one book On the Faith and the Creed, in the third chapter:¹¹ « God, when He begot the Word, begot That which He is, neither from nothing nor from any already made or founded matter, but from His very self That which He is ». Likewise:¹² « God the Father, who has willed and has been able to indicate Himself in a most true manner to the souls (who) are to know (Him), to indicate His very self begot This, which He who begot is ». Behold he openly says by these words, that God the Father has begotten That which He is. But that which He is, is naught but the Divine Essence: therefore it seems that He did beget the Divine Essence. To which we respond, saying that those words are to be thus understood: The Father from His very self begot That which He is, that is the Son, who is That which the Father is. For what the Father is, the Son is also this (Thing), but who the Father is, the Son is not also this (One).
Ita etiam non est dicendum, quod divina essentia genuit Filium, quia cum Filius sit divina essentia, iam esset Filius res, a qua generatur: et ita eadem res se ipsam generaret. Ita etiam dicimus, quod essentia divina non genuit essentiam. Cum enim una et summa quaedam res sit divina essentia, si divina essentia essentiam genuit, eadem res se ipsam genuit, quod omnino esse non potest; sed Pater solus genuit Filum, et a Patre et Filio procedit Spiritus sanctus.¹³	Thus there also must not be said, that the Divine Essence begot the Son, because since the Son is the Divine Essence, the Son would already be the thing, by which He is generated: and thus the same thing would generate its very self. Thus we also say, that the Divine Essence did not beget the Essence. For since a one and a most high, certain thing is the Divine Essence, if the Divine Essence has begotten the Essence, the same thing has begotten its very self, which entirely cannot be; but rather the Father alone has begotten the Son, and from the Father and the Son the Holy Spirit proceeds.¹³
Praedictis autem videtur contrarium esse quod dicit Augustinus in libro septimo de Trinitate:¹⁴ « Hoc, inquit, est Deo esse quod sapere; unde Pater et Filius simul sunt sapientia, quia una essentia: et singillatim sapientia de sapientia, sicut essentia de essentia ». Ecce his verbis aperte dicit Augustinus, sapientiam de sapientia et essentiam de essentia, ubi videtur significare, quod sapientia sapientiam et essentia es- / -sentiam genuerit.	But to the aforesaid there seems contrary what (St.) Augustine says in the seventh book On the Trinity:¹⁴ « For this reason », he says, « it belongs to God to be because (it belongs to Him) to know; whence the Father and the Son are simultaneously Wisdom, because (They are) one Essence ». Behold by these words (St.) Augustine openly says, that Wisdom (is) from Wisdom and Essence from Essence, where it seems that he signifies, that Wisdom has begotten Wisdom and Essence Es- /- sence.
¹ Solus cod. A ter habet genuerit pro genuit. ² Vat. et edd. 4, 9 superflue addunt divinam. ³ Cap. 7. n. 8, ubi: Quod autem relative pronuntiatur etc. Paulo supra edd. 1, 8 post indicaret addunt divinam. ⁴ Dist. IV. c. 1. ⁵ Vat. et ed. 4 non bene omittunt ergo; paulo ante codd. A B C E et ed. 1 addendo et legunt: essentia divina et sit et Deus sit; cod. vero D etiam pro et. ⁶ Cod. D et edd. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 minus bene genitum; in principio huius propositionis cod. C Quodsi pro Et si. ⁷ Cap. 1. n. 2; in quo textu Vat. et edd. 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 bis pro ibi legit sibi; ed. 5 bis illi; codd. bis ibi, exceptis D E, qui primo loco habet ei; ed. Augustini modo ibi, modo illi. ⁸ Sola Vat. perperam quae. ⁹ Loc. cit. — Vat. et edd. 4, 5, 6, 9 addunt ut ante inquit. ¹⁰ Cod. D cum edd. 1, 8 elegantius quod. ¹¹ Num. 4. — Omnes codd. et edd. exceptis Vat. et edd. 4, 9, falso sic: in libro de Fide ad Petram. ¹² Loc. cit., in quo textu codd. B D E se pro se ipsum; post indicandum genuit ed. 8 adiicit id est; edd. 1, 3 omittunt quod est ipse, qui genuit. ¹³ Haec doctrina Magistri oppugnata est ab abbate Ioachim, sed approbata a Concilio Lateranensi IV; cfr. infra Bonav. ad hanc dist. a. 1. a. 1. et dub. 4. ¹⁴ Ex. cap. 1. n. 2. et c. 2. n. 3. passim excerptum. — Vat. omittit in libro septimo de Trinitate.	¹ Only codex A has three times the subjunctive has begotten [genuerit] in place of the indicative has begotten [genuit]. ² The Vatican text and editions 4 and 9 superfluously adds Divine [divinam]. ³ Chapter 7, n. 8, where it has: What, moreover, is pronounced in a relative manner etc.. A little above this editions 1, and 8 after would not indicate the add Divine. ⁴ Distinction IV, ch. 1. ⁵ The Vatican text and edition 4 omit therefore [ergo] not so well; a little before this codices A B C E and edition 1 by adding both [et] read: by the Divine Essence both is and is God; but codex D has also in place of this both [et]. ⁶ Codex D and edition 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9 have less well the (thing) begotten [genitum]; at the beginning of this proposition codex C has Whereas if in place of And if. ⁷ Chapter 1, n. 2; in which text the Vatican text and editions 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9 twice reads His [sibi] in place of There [ibi]; edition 5 twice has in That [illi]; the codices twice have There [ibi], except for D and E, which have in the first position Its [ei]; the edition of (St.) Augustine has sometimes There [ibi], sometimes in That [illi]. ⁸ Only the Vatican has the faulty which [quae]. ⁹ Loc. cit.. — The Vatican text and editions 4, 5, 6, and 9 add as before (St.) Augustine says. ¹⁰ Codex D together with editions 1 and 8 has the more elegant that [quod]. ¹¹ Number 4. — All the codices and editions, except the Vatican text and editions 4 and 9, read falsely in this manner: in the book On the Faith to Peter. ¹² Loc. cit., in which text codices B D and E has Himself [se] in place of His very self [se ipsum]; after begot This, edition 8 adds that is, [id est]; editions 1 and 3 omit which He who begot is. ¹³ This doctrine of Master (Peter) was opposed by Abbot Joachim (of Fiore), but approved by the Fourth Lateran Council; cf. below (what St.) Bonaventure (says) in regard to this distinction in a. 1, q. 1 and doubt 4. ¹⁴ From chapter 1, n. 2, and ch. 2, n. 3, excerpted passim. — The Vatican text omits in the seventh book On the Trinity.

p. 108

es- / -sentiam genuerit. Idem in libro de Fide ad Petrum¹ ait: « Sic Christum Dei Filium, id est unam ex Trinitate personam, Deum verum crede, ut divinitatem eius de natura Patris natam esse non dubites ». Hic videtur dicere, quod natura Filii sit nata de natura Patris. Idem etiam in libro decimo quinto de Trinitate² ait: « Dicitur Filius consilium de consilio et voluntas de voluntate, sicut substantia de substantia, sapientia de sapientia ». Et hic videtur dicere, quod substantia sit genita de substanti et sapientia de sapientia. Sed hoc³ ita determinanamus: « sapientia de sapientia, et substantia de substantia est », id est Filius, qui est sapientia, qui est substantia, est de Patre, qui est eadem substantia et sapientia; et Filius, qui est divinitas, natus est de Patre, qui est natura divina. Et ut expressius dicamus, dicimus, Filium sapientiam esse de Patre sapientia, et dicimus, Filium substantiam esse genitum de Patre et a Patre substantia. Quod autem ita intelligi debeat Augustinus, ostendit in libro septimo de Trinitate⁴ dicens: « Pater ipse sapientia est; et dicitur Filius sapientia Patris, quomodo dicitur lumen Patris, id est, sicut lumen de lumine et uterque unum lumen, sic intelligatur sapientia de sapientia; et uterque una sapientia et una essentia ». Item:⁵ « Ideo Christus dicitur virtus et sapientia Dei, quia de Patre, virtute et sapientia, etiam ipse virtus et sapientia est, sicut ipse lumen de Patre lumine est, et ipse fons vitae est apud Deum Patrem, fontem vitae. Filius ergo sapientia de Patre sapientia est, sicut Filius lumen de Patre lumine, et Deus Filius de Deo Patre, ut et singulus sit lumen et singulis Deus et singulus sapientia, et simul unum lumen, unus Deus, una sapientia ». Ecce his verbis manifeste aperit Augustinus, ex quo sensu accipienda sint praedicta verba et his similia, scilicet cum dicitur: substantia de substantia, vel substantia genuit substantiam.	Es- / -sence. He says the same in the book On the Faith to Peter:¹ « So believe Christ the Son of God (to be) the true God, that is that (He is) A [unam] Person of the Trinity, that you may not doubt His Divinity to have been born from the Nature of the Father ». Here he seems to say, that the Nature of the son has been born from the Nature of the Father. He also says the same in the fifteenth book On the Trinity:² « The Son is said (to be) “Counsel from Counsel” and “Will from Will”, just as (He is) “Substance from Substance”, “Wisdom from Wisdom” ». And here he seems to say, that Substance has been begotten from Substance and Wisdom from Wisdom. But we determine this (text)³ thus: « He is Wisdom from Wisdom, and Substance from Substance », that is the Son, who is the Wisdom, who is the Substance, is from the Father, who is the Divine Nature. And that we may speak more expressly, we say, that the Son (as) Wisdom is from the Father (as) Wisdom, and we say, that the Son (as) Substance has been begotten from the Father and by the Father (as) Substance. Moreover that (St.) Augustine ought thus to be understood, he shows in the seventh book On the Trinity⁴ saying: « The Father Himself is Wisdom; and the Son is said (to be) “the Wisdom of the Father”, in that manner He is said (to be) “the Light of the Father”, that is, just as Light (is) from Light and each of the two [uterque] the one Light, so He is understood (to be) Wisdom from Wisdom; and each of the Two the one Wisdom and the one Essence ». Likewise:⁵ « For that reason Christ is said (to be) “the Virtue and Wisdom of God”, because from the Father, the Virtue and Wisdom, He Himself is also the Virtue and Wisdom, just as He Himself is the Light from the Father, the Light, and He Himself is the Fount of Life with [apud] God the Father, the Fount of Life. The Son, therefore, is the Wisdom from the Father, the Wisdom, just as the Son (is) the Light from the Father, the Light, and the Son of God (is) from God the Father, as each One [singulus] is both the Light and each One the God and each One the Wisdom, and simultaneously the one Light, the one God, the one Wisdom ». Behold by these words (St.) Augustine manifestly reveals [aperit], in [ex] what sense there are to be accepted the aforesaid words and those similar, that is when there is said: “Substance from Substance”, and/or “the Substance begot the Substance”.
Huic vero etiam id contrarium videtur, quod Hilarius ait in quarto libro de Trinitate:⁶ « Nihil, inquit, nisi natum habet Filius; et geniti honoris admiratio in honore generantis est ». cum ergo Filius essentiam habeat — tota enim in eo est divina essentia — videtur quod ipsa divina essentia nata sit. Item in quinto libro⁷ ait: « Nativitas Dei non potest eam ex qua profecta est non tenere naturam, nec enim aliud quam Deus subsistet, quod non aliunde quam de Deo subsistit ». Ecce hic dicit nativitatem Dei profectam ex natura, et ita videtur ex his verbis atque praedictis natura Dei et genita et genuisse. Quod apertius dicit in libro non de Trinitate:⁸ « Nos, inquit, unigentium Deum, in forma Dei manentem, in natura hominis mansisse profitemur, nec unitatem formae servilis in naturam divinae unitatis refundimus, nec rursus corporali insinuatione Patrem in Filio praedicamus, sed ex eo eiusdem generis genitam naturam naturaliter in se gignentem habuisse naturam, quae in forma naturae se gignentis manens, formam naturae et infirmitatis corporalis accepit. Non enim defecerat Dei natura, ne esset; sed in se humilitatem terrenae nativiatis manens sibi Dei natura susceperat, generis sui potestatem in habitu assumtae humilitatis exercens ». Ecce hic aperte dicit, et naturam genuisse, et naturam genitam, et naturam assumsisse naturam; quod a plerisque negatur. Item in eodem:⁹ « Nunquid unigenito Deo contumelia est, Patrem sibi innascibilem Deum esse, cum ex innascibili Deo nativitas unigenita in naturam unigenitam subsistat »? Ecce et hic dicit unigenitam naturam.	However to this there also seem contrary that, which (St.) Hilary (of Poitiers) says in the fourth book On the Trinity:⁶ « Nothing », he says, « except the Son has been born; and admiration for the honor of the one Begotten belongs in honor to the one Generating ». Since, therefore, the Son has the Essence — for the whole Divine Essence is in Him — it seems that Divine Essence Itself has been born. Likewise in the fifth book⁷ he says: « The Nativity of God cannot not hold [tenere] that Nature from which it has arisen [profecta est], for no other [non aliud] than God subsists, because from no one other [non aliunde] than from God does (this Nativity) subsist ». Behold here he says that the Nativity of God (has) arisen from the Nature, and thus it seems from these words and also from the aforesaid that the Nature of God has both begotten and been begotten. Which he says more openly in the ninth book On the Trinity:⁸ « We », he says, « profess that the Only-Begotten God, remaining [manentem] in the form of God, remained in the form of man, nor do we pour back [refundimus] the unity of the servile form into the nature of the Divine Unity, nor again do we preach that the Father (is) in the Son by a corporal insinuation, but rather from this [ex eo] that in begetting Itself the Nature has begotten naturally a Nature of the same genus, which remaining in the form of the Nature Begetting It, has accepted a form of nature and of corporal infirmity. For the Nature of God had not failed to be; but rather remaining in Itself the Nature of God, It had undertaken [susceperat] for Itself the humility of an earthly [terrenae] nativity, exercising the power of Its own genus [generis sui] in the habit of the assumed humility ». Behold here he openly says, both that the Nature has begotten, and the Nature (has been) begotten, and that the Nature has assumed a nature; which by very many is denied. Likewise in the same (book he says):⁹ « Is it contumely to the Only-Begotten God, that His own Father is the innascible God [innascibilem Deum], since from the innascible God there subsists an unbegotten nativity for [in] the Unbegotten Nature »? Behold here he also says (that there is) an “Unbegotten Nature”.
Sed quia haec verba sane vult intelligi, ipse idem dicit in quarto libro:¹⁰ « Intelligentia dictorum ex causis est assumenda dicendi, quia non sermoni res, sed rei est sermo subiectus ». Haec ergo verba ita intelligi possunt: nihil habet Filius nisi natum, id est, nihil habet secundum quod Deus est, nisi quod nascendo accepit, et ipse nascendo Patris in se subsistentem habuit naturam. Unde idem Hilarius addit in quinto libro:¹¹ « Eandem naturam habet genitus, quam ille qui genuit, ita tamen, ut natus non sit ille qui genuit (nam quomodo erit Pater ipse, cum genitus sit?), sed in his ipsis subsistat ille qui genitus est, in quibus totus est ipse qui genuit; quia non est aliunde qui genitus est. Et ideo non refertur ad aliud quod in uno subsistit ex uno. Ac sic in generatione Filii et naturam suam, ut ita dicam, sequitur indemutabilis Deus indemutabilem gignens Deum, nec naturam suam deserit ex indemutabili Deo indemutabilis Dei perfecta nativitas. Subsistentem ergo in eo Dei naturam intelligamus, cum in Deo Deus insit; nec praeter eum qui Deus est, quisquam Deus alius sit, quia ipse Deus, / et in eo Deus ».	But because he wants these words to be sanely understood, he himself says the same in the fourth book:¹⁰ « The understanding of the things said is to be assumed from the causes for speaking [ex causis dicendi], because a thing is not subjected to discourse [sermoni], but discourse to a thing ». Therefore these words can be thus understood: “nothing has the Son except that He has been born [nisi natum]”, that is, He has nothing according to which He is God, except what by being born He has accepted, and He Himself by being born had the Nature of the Father subsisting in Himself. Whence (St.) Hilary adds the same in the fifth book:¹¹ « The Begotten has the same Nature, which He who begot (has), however thus, that the One Born is not He who begot (for in what manner shall He be the Father Himself, since He has been begotten?), but among These Themselves there subsists He who has been begotten, among which the Whole is He who has begot; because from no other [non aliunde] is He who has been begotten. And for that reason there is not referred to an other what in One subsists out of One. And so in the generation of the Son even His own Nature, as thus I call (it), does the unalterable [indemutabilis] God begetting the unalterable God follow [sequitur], nor His own Nature does the perfect Nativity of the unalterable God out of the unalterable God forsake [deserit]. Therefore let us understand that the Nature of God (is) subsisting in Him, since God is in God [in Deo Deus insit]; nor is there besides Him who is God, any other God, because He Himself (is) God, / and God (is) in Him ».
¹ Cap. 2. n. 15. ² Cap. 19. n. 37. — Immediate ante Vat. cum aliis edd., exceptis 1, 8, omittit etiam. ³ Omnes codd. contra edd. bene haec. ⁴ Cap. 1. n. 2; ubi post sapientia de sapientia edd. 1, 8 addunt et essentia de essentia. ⁵ Cap. 3. n. 4. — Circa finem huius textus codd. bis adendo sit legunt: singulus sit Deus et singulus sit sap., quibus secundo loco accedunt edd. 1, 5, 6, 8. Pro singulis et simul edd. 2, 3, 7 quater legut male singulis; in fine edd. 1, 8 addunt et post unus Deus. ⁶ Num. 20. ⁷ Num. 37, in quo textu et paulo post Vat. et edd. 4, 7, 9 bis legunt porvecta pro profecta, sed mendose. ⁸ Num. 51, in quo textu codd. A B C et edd. 5, 9 legunt: in forma servi manentem in natura Dei mansisse. Editores Maurini vero habent: in forma Dei manentem in natura Dei mansisse. Iidem lectionem nostram, quam praeter codd. D E et ceteras Magistri edd. etiam antiquae Hilarii edd. exhibent, depravatam esse censent, cum Hilarius formae nomine aliud a natura ipsa intellexerit, scil. habitum, quem prae se tulit Christus. Iuxta ipsos sensus est, Christum secundum formam Dei semper mansisse in natura, unitate et gloria Dei, etsi secundum formam servi non statim ab ipsa hominis assumtione naturae divinae assecutus sit gloriam, sed tantum per resurrectionem. Cfr. ibid. n. 38. Licet textus Maurinorum multo probabilior esse videatur, ipsum tamen contra codd. et edd. Magistro non obtrudendum esse censuimus. — In eodem textu cum Hilario codd. A C acceperit pro accepit et in fine pro humilitatis Vat. et plures edd. humanitatis. ⁹ Loc. cit. n. 53. ¹⁰ Num. 14; cod. A et ed. 4 addunt de Trinitate. ¹¹ Num. 37, sed multis a Magistro mutatis et omissis. — Vat. et ed. 4 omittunt idem ante Hilarius. In ipsa auctoritate a codd., et ed. 1 et textu Hilarii omittitur Pater post quomodo erit. Mox contra originale, codd. A B C E et ed. 1 Vat. cum ceteris edd., mutata constructione et reiectis signis parentheseos, legit subsistit pro subsistat. Denique eadem Vat. et edd. 4, 5, 6, 9 addendo et habent subsistit et ex uno.	¹ Chapter 2, n. 15. ² Chapter 19, n. 37. — Immediately before this the Vatican text together with the other codices, except 1 and 8, omits also [etiam]. ³ All the codices, contrary to the editions, have the just as good these (words) [quae]. ⁴ Chapter 1, n. 2; where after Wisdom from Wisdom editions 1 and 8 add and Essence from Essence. ⁵ Chapter 3, n. 4. — Near the end of this text the codices twice by adding is [sit] read each is the God and each is the Wisdom, to which in the second place there accedes editions 1, 5, 6, and 8. In place of each [singulus] and simultaneously [simul] editions 2, 3 and 7 four times read badly each of them [singulis]; at the end (of the passage) editions 1 and 8 add and [et] after the one God. ⁶ Number 10. ⁷ Number 37, in which text and a little after this the Vatican text and editions 4, 7 and 9, twice read advanced [provecta] in place of arisen [profecta], but faultily. ⁸ Number 51, in which text codices A B C and editions 5 and 9 read: remaining in the form of a slave, remained in the nature of God. However the Maurini Editors have: remaining in the form of God, remained in the nature of God. These (scholars) consider our reading, which besides codices D E and the rest of the editions of Master (Peter), even the ancient editions of (St.) Hilary, exhibit, distorted, since (St.) Hilary by the noun of form understood something other than nature itself, namely the “habit”, which Christ bore before Him. According to them the sense is, that Christ according to the form of God always remained in the nature, unity and glory of God, even if according to the form of a slave from the assumption itself of man He did not immediately arrive at [assecutus est] the glory of the Divine Nature, but only through (His) resurrection. Cf. ibid., n. 38. Though the text of the Maurinists seems to be more probable, we however do judge that that which is contrary to the codices and editions of Master (Peter) is not to be accepted [obtrudendum]. — In the same text together with (St.) Hilary codices A and C have the subjunctive accepted [acceperit] in place of the indicative accepted [accepit] and at the end in place of humility [humilitatis] the Vatican text and very many editions have humanity [humanitatis]. ⁹ Loc. cit., n. 53. ¹⁰ Number 14; codex A and edition 4 add On the Trinity. ¹¹ Number 37, but with many things changed and omitted by Master (Peter). — The Vatican text and edition 4 omit the same [idem] after add. In the quote itself there is omitted by the codices, edition 1 and the text of (St.) Hilary, the Father after in what manner shall He be [quomodo erit]. Then contrary to the original, to codices A B C E and to edition 1, the Vatican text together with the rest of the editions, having changed the construction and rejected the parentheses, reads the indicative subsists [subsistit] in place of the indicative subsists [subsistat]. Then in the same (quote) the Vatican text and editions 4, 5, 6 and 9, by adding et has (the ambiguous) in uno subsistit et ex uno [Trans. note: in One subsists also out of One or subsists in One and out of One].

p. 109

et in eo Deus ». Naturae ergo Dei Patris veritas in Deo Filio esse docetur, cum in eo Deus intelligatur¹ esse, qui Deus est. Est enim unus in uno et unus ab uno.	and God (is) in Him ». Therefore the truth of the Nature of God the Father is taught to be in God the Son, since “the God in Him” is understood¹ to be, “He who is God”. For One is in One and One (is) by One.
Dicitur quoque et frequenter in Sciptura sacra legitur, Patrem de sua substantia genuisse Filium. Unde Augustinus in libro de Fide ad Petrum² ait: « Pater Deus, de nullo genitus Deo, semel de sua natura sine initio genuit Filium Deum sibi aequalem et eadem qua ipse naturaliter aeternus est divinitate coaeternum ». Ecce hic dicit Augustinus, Filium genitum de natura Patris. Est autem una natura Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. Si ergo de natura Patris genitus est Filius, genitus est de natura Filii et Spiritus sancti, immo de natura trium peronsarum. Idem quoque Augustinus in libro decimo quinto de Trinitate³ dicit, Christum esse Filium substantiae Patris et de substantia Patris genitum, tractans illud verbum Apostoli loquentis de Deo Patre sic: Qui eruit nos de potestate tenebrarum et transtulit in regnum Filii caritatis suae. « Quod dictum est, inquit, Filii caritatis suae, nihil aliud intelligatur⁴ quam Filii sui dilecti, quam Filli substantiae suae. Caritas quippe Patris, quae in natura eius est ineffabiliter simplici, nihil est aliud quam ipsa natura atque substantia, ut saepae diximus et saepe iterare non piget, ac per hoc Filius caritatis eius nullus est alius, quam qui de substantia eius est genitus ». Ecce aperte hic dicit Augustinus in libro secundo contra Maximinum haereticum,⁵ substantiam Dei genuisse Filiu, et Filium genitum de substantia Patris asserit dicens: « Carnalibus cogitationibus pleni, substantiam Dei de se ipsa gignere Filium non putatis, nisi hoc patiatur, quod substantia carnis patitur, quando gignit. Erratis nescientes Scripturas neque virtutem Dei.⁶ Nullo enim modo verum Dei Filium cogitatis, si eum natum esse de substantia Patris negatis. Non enim iam erat hominis Filius et Deo donante factus est Dei Filius, ex Deo natus gratia, non natura. An forte, etsi non homninis filius erat, tamen aliqua iam erat qualiscumque creatura et in Dei Filium, affirmastis,⁷ non vos dicere de nihilo esse Dei Filium. De aliqua ergo substantia est; et si non de substantia Patris, de qua sit, dicite; sed non invenietis. Iam igitur unigenitum Dei Filium, Iesum Christum, de Patris esse substantia, no vos nobiscum pigeat confiteri ». Idem in eodem:⁸ « Utrique legimus, ut simus in vero Filio eius, Iesus Christo. Dicite ergo nobis, utrum iste verus Dei Filius ab eis qui gratia filii sunt, quadam proprietate discretus de mulla substantia sit, an de aliqua? Non dico, in quis, de nulla, nec dicam de nihilo: ergo de aliqua substantia est. Quaero, de qua? Si non de Patris substantia est, aliam quaere. Si aliam non invenis, Patris agnosce substantiam, et Filium eum Patre homoousion confitere ». Item in eodem:⁹ « Confiteor, Deum Patrem omnino incorruptibiliter genuisse, sed quod est ipse genuisse. Item dico quod saepae dicendum est: aut de aliqua substantia natus est Dei Filius, aut de nulla; si de nulla: ergo de nihilo; quod vos iam non dicitis; si vero de aliqua, nec tamen de Patris substantia, non est verus Filius; si vero de Patris substantia, unius eiusdemque substantiae sunt Pater et Filius. Vos autem nec Filium¹⁰ de substantia Patris genitum vultis; et tamen eum nec ex nihilo nec ex aliqua materia, sed ex Patre esse conceditis; nec videtis, quam necesse sit, ut qui non est ex nihilo nec ex aliqua alia re, sed ex Deo, nisi ex Dei substantia esse non possit, et hoc esse quod Deus est, de quo est, id est Deus de Deo naturs; quia non alius prius fuit, sed natura coaeterna de Deo est ».	It is also said and frequently in Sacred Scripture it is read, that the Father from His own Substance has begotten the Son. Whence (St.) Augustine in the book On the Faith to Peter² says: « God the Father, begotten from no God, from His own Nature without a beginning [initio], did once begot God the Son equal and coeternal to Himself by the same Divinity by which He Himself is naturally eternal ». Behold here (St.) Augustine says, that the Son (has been) begotten from the Nature of the Father. Moreover there is one Nature of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, He has been begotten from the Nature of the Father, He has been begotten from the Nature of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, nay rather from the Nature of the Three Persons. Likewise (St.) Augustine in the fifteenth book On the Trinity also says, that Christ is the Son of the Substance of the Father and (has) been begotten from the Substance of the Father, thus treating that word of the Apostle speaking of God the Father: Who has snatched us from the power of darkness and has transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of His charity. « Because there has been said », he says, « of the Son of His Charity, let nothing other be understood⁴ than “of His Beloved Son”, than “of the Son of His Substance”. Indeed [quippe] the Charity of the Father, which is in an ineffable manner in His simple Nature, is nothing other than the Nature Itself and [atque] the Substance, as we have often said and it is not an annoyance [piget] to reiterate it [iterare], and by this [per hoc] the Son of His Charity is no one other, than He who has been begotten from His Substance ». Behold here (St.) Augustine openly says, that the Son has been begotten from the Substance of the Father and that the Son (is) of the Substance of the Father. (St.) Augustine also says the same in the second book Against Maximinus the Heretic,⁵ that the Substance of God has begotten the Son, and he asserts that the Son (has been) begotten from the Substance of the Father saying: « Full of carnal thoughts, you do not think that the Substance of God begets the Son from Its very self, unless by this It suffers, what a substance of flesh suffers, when it begets. You err not knowing the Scriptures nor the Virtue of God.⁶ For in no manner do you think (that there is) a true Son of God, if you deny that He has been born from the Substance of the Father. For there was not already a Son of man and by God granting He became Son of God, born out of God by grace, not by nature. Or, even if there was not a son of man, nevertheless [tamen] was there by chance some whatever-kind-of creature and, with God changing (it), it was converted into the Son of God? But neither of these exists [nihilo horum est]: therefore either from nothing, or from some substance has He been born. But lest we would believe, that you think that the Son of God is from nothing, you have affirmed,⁷ that you do not say that the Son of God is from nothing. Therefore He is from some substance; and if not from the Substance of the Father, say, which He is from; but you shall not find (one). Therefore it is already an annoyance that you do not confess with us that the Only-Begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, is from the Substance of the Father ». Likewise in the same (chapter):⁸ « We both read, that we may be in His true Son, Jesus Christ. Therefore tell us, whether that true Son of God, different [discretus] in a certain property from those who are sons by grace, is from no substance, or whether (He is) from some (substance)? I do not say, you say, “from no (substance)”, nor do I say “from nothing”: therefore He is from some substance. I ask, “From which?” If He is not from the Substance of the Father, I seek an other. If you do not find an other, acknowledge the Substance of the Father, and confess that the Son is consubstantial [homoousion] with the Father ». Likewise in the same (chapter):⁹ « I confess, that God the Father in an entirely incorruptible manner has begotten, but that He has begotten what He Himself is. Likewise I say that there must be often said: “the Son of God either has been born from some substance, or from none”; if from none: therefore from nothing; which you do not now [iam] say; however if (He is) from some (substance), and not, however, from the Substance of the Father, He is not the true Son; however if from the Substance of the Father, of one and the same Substance are the Father and the Son. Moreover neither do you want a Son¹⁰ begotten from the Substance of the Father; and nevertheless [tamen] you concede that He is neither out of nothing nor out of some matter, but rather out of the Father; nor do you see, how necessary it is, that He who is not out of nothing nor out of some other thing, but out of God, cannot be except from the Substance of the Father, and that This is what God is, from What He is, that is God born from God; because there was no Other prior, but He is the coeternal Nature from God ».
His verbis praemissis innui videtur, quod divina substantia¹¹ Filium genuerit, et quod Filius sit genitus de substantia Patris, et quod de Deo est natura coaeterna, et quod Pater id quod ipse est genuit. Id autem quod ipse est, essentia divina est; et ita putari potest, divinam essentiam genuisse. Vehementer movent nos haec verba, quae quomodo intelligenda sint, mallem ab aliis audire quam tradere.¹² Ut tamen since praeiudicio atque temeritate loquar, ex hoc sensu dicta possunt accipi: natura coaeterna de Deo est, id est, Filius coaeternus Patri de Patre est, it quod est eadem cum eo natura vel eiusdem naturae. Quem sensum confirmat Augustinus, ibidem¹² subiiciens et quod dixerat quasi explanans. Dicto enim: « Natura coaeterna de Deo est », addidit: « Non est aliud Filius quam illud de quo est, id est, unius eiusdemque substantiae est ». Deinde apertius talem intellectum ex praedictis verbis fore habendum aperit in eodem libro contra Maximinum dicens: « Trinitas haec unius eiusdemque substantiae est, quia non de aliqua materia vel de nihilo est Filius, sed de quo est genitus. Itemque Spiritus santus non de aliqua materia vel de nihilo est, sed inde est, unde procedit ». His utique verbis aperte ostendit, ea ratione dici Filium esse de substantia Patris, quia est de Patre genitus, ita quod est eiusdem substantiae cum eo: et¹⁴ Spiritum sanctum esse de substantia Patris et Filii, quia ab utroque procedit, ita quod est eiusdem substantiae.	By these aforesaid words there seems to be hinted, that the Divine Substance¹¹ begot the Son, and that the Son has been begotten from the Substance of the Father, and that He is the coeternal Nature from God, and that the Father begot that which He Himself is. Moreover That which He Himself is, is the Divine Essence; and thus it can be thought, that the Divine Essence has begotten. Vehemently do these words, which are to be understood in this manner, move us, I would prefer to hear (them) from others than to betray (them).¹² However that I may speak without prejudice and [atque] temerity, from this sense there can be accepted the sayings [dicta]: “He is the coeternal Nature from God”, that is, the Son coeternal to the Father is from the Father, in such a manner [ita] that He is the same Nature with Him and/or of the same Nature. Which sense (St.) Augustine confirms, subjecting (himself) to the same (opinion)¹³ and as if explaining what he had said. For to the saying: « He is the coeternal Nature from God », he added: « The Son is not an other (thing) [aliud] than That from whom He is, that is, He is of one and same Substance ». Then more openly reveals that such an understanding of [ex] the aforesaid words shall be held, saying in the same book Against Maximinus: « This Trinity is of one and the same Substance, because not from some matter and/or from nothing is the Son, but from Whom He has been begotten. And likewise the Holy Spirit is not from some matter and/or from nothing, but is from That [inde], whence He proceeds ». Certainly [utique] by these words he openly shows, that for this reason the Son is said to be from the Substance of the Father, because He has been begotten from the Father, in such a manner [ita] that He is of the same Substance with Him: and¹⁴ that the Holy Spirit is from the Substance of the Father and the Son, because He proceeds from both, in such a manner that He is of the same Substance.
¹ Ita codd. A B E; ceteri codd. et edd. intelligitur. ² Cap. 2. n. 10. — Paulo ante post Scriptura Vat. cum paucis edd. omittit sacra. ³ Cap. 19. n. 37. — Locus Apostoli est Col. 1, 13, in quo textu Vulgata habet filii dilectionis. ⁴ Vat. et edd. 4, 9 intelligitur. ⁵ Cap. 14. n. 2. ⁶ Matth. 22, 29, ubi Vulgata: erratis nescientes, cui concordant nostri codd. et edd. 1, 8; Vat. cum aliis edd. non scienties. ⁷ Vat. cum edd. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 affirmatis; Augustinus: affirmasti. ⁸ Loc. cit. n. 3. — Pro utrique codd. A B D et edd. 3, 7, 8 utique, sed contra originale. — Respicitur locus sacrae Scripturae I. Ioan. 5, 20. ⁹ Loc. cit. n. 4. et 12. — Immediate ante Vat. idem loco item contra codd. et edd. 1, 8. ¹⁰ Vat. cum cod. A et paucis edd. hic adiicit Dei. ¹¹ Codd. C D addunt vel essentia et mox post genuerit codd. D E vel pro et. ¹² Vat. cum edd. 4, 6, 8 praemittit ipse. ¹³ Libr. II. c. Maxim. c. 14. n. 2; quae sequuntur ibidem inveniuntur. — Paulo post Vat. addit pro addidit. ¹⁴ Sola Vat. omittit et; in principio huius propositionis loco utique cod. D itaque.	¹ Thus codices A B and E; the rest of the codices and editions have when . . . is understood [cum . . . intelligitur]. ² Chapter 2, n. 10. — A little before this at Scripture the Vatican text together with a few of the editions omits Sacred [sacra]. ³ Chapter 19, n. 37. — The quote from the Apostle is Col 1:13, in which text the Vulgate has of the Son of His delight [filii dilectionis]. ⁴ The Vatican text and editions 4 and 9 have is understood [intelligitur]. ⁵ Chapter 14, n. 2. ⁶ Mt 22:29, where the Vulgate reads: you err not knowing [erratis nescientes], to which our codices and edition 1 and 8 agree; the Vatican text together with the other editions has not knowing [non scientes]. ⁷ The Vatican text together with editions 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 has you affirm [affirmatis]; (St.) Augustine wrote: you have affirmed [affirmasti]. ⁸ Loc. cit., n. 3. — In place of both [utrique] codices A B D and editions 3, 7 and 8 have certainly [utique], but contrary to the original. — The verse of Sacred Scripture alluded to is 1 Jn. 5:20. ⁹ Loc. cit., n. 4 and 2. — Immediately before this the Vatican text has (He says) the same (thing) [idem], contrary to the codices and editions 1 and 8. ¹⁰ The Vatican text together with codex A and a few of the editions here adds of God [Dei]. ¹¹ Codices C and D add and/or Essence [vel essentia] and then after begot [genuerit] codices D and E have and/or [vel] in place of and [et]. ¹² The Vatican text together with editions 4, 6, and 8 puts myself [ipse] before the verb. ¹³ Against Maximinus, Bk. II, ch. 14, n. 2; those things which follow are found in the same place. — A little after this the Vatican text has he adds [addit] in place of he added [addidit]. ¹⁴ Only the Vatican text omits and; at the beginning of this proposition in place of certainly [utique] codex D has and thus [itaque].

p. 110

Cap. II. Quod Filius non est de nihilo, sed de aliquo, non tamen de materia, sicut et Spiritus sanctus.	Chapter II That the Son is not from nothing, but from some one or thing,^ not however from matter, just as (is) also the Holy Spirit.*
Ostenditur quoque ex illis verbis, Filium et Spiritum sanctum non esse de nihilo, sed de aliquo, nec tamen de aliqua materia. Unde etiam Hilarius in duodecimo libro de Triniate¹ ait: « Unigenitus Deus, cum natus sit, Patrem testatur auctorem; cum ex manente natus est, non est natus ex nihilo; et cum ante tempus natus est, omnem sensum praevenit nascendo ». Hic aperte dicitur, quod Filius non est natus ex nihilo. Similiter et Spiritus sanctus non est dicendus esse vel procedere ex nihilo, « quia Filius de substantia Patris natus est »,² id est, a Patre est, cum quo est eiudem substantiae et eadem substantia. Ex quo sensu etiam accipiendum est illud: « Pater genuit id quod est ipse », id est, Filium, qui est hoc quod Pater. Et hoc ita debere intelligi Augustinus aperit, dicens in primo libro contra Maximinum:³ « Hoc genuit Pater quod est; alioquin non est verus Filius, si quod est Pater non est Filius ». Item: « substantia Dei genuit Filium », id est, Pater substantia genuit Filium, qui est eadem substantia et eiusdem substantiae. Quod sic esse intelligendum Augustinus ostendit, dicens ad Maximinum:⁴ « Sicut dicis, spiritus spiritum genuit; ita dic: spiritus eiusdem naturae vel subtantiae spiritum genuit. Item, sicut dicis: Deus Deum genuit, ita dic, Deus eiusdem naturae vel substantiae Deum genuit. Hoc si credideris et dixeris, nihil de hac re ulterius accusaberis ». His enim verbis aperit, quomodo praedicta debeant intelligi. Similiter: « Filius natus est de substantia Patris, vel Pater genuit Filium de sua natura sive essentia », id est, de se natura et essentia genuit Filium eiusdem essentiae⁵ ac naturae, et qui est eadem essentia ac natura. Similiter expone illud: « Filius substantiae Patris », it est⁶ Filius Patris substantiae, id est, qui est substantia, cum quo et Filius eadem substantia est, quia consubstantialis est Patri Filius. Et hic sensus adiuvatur ex verbis Augustini, qui in libro septimo de Trinitate⁷ ait: « Tres personas eiudem essentiae, vel tres personas unam essentiam dicimus. Tres autem personas ex eadem essentia non dicimus, quasi aliud ibi sit quod essentia est, aliud quod persona ». His verbis ostendit, non esse dicendum, personam esse ex essentia, nisi ex sensu praedicto. Qui sensus confirmatur etiam ex eo quod in libro decimo quinto de Trinitate⁸ idem ait: « Sicut nostra scientia scientiae Dei, sic et nostrum verbum, quod nascitur de nostra scientia, dissimile est illi Verbo Dei, quod natum est de Patris essentia. Tale est autem, ac si dicerem: de Patris scientia, de Patris sapientia, vel quod est expressius, de Patre essentia, de Patre scientia, de Patre sapientia ». Ex hoc itaque intellectu Verbum Dei Patris, unigenitus Filius, per omnia Patris similis et aequalis, recte dicitur Deus de Deo, lumen de lumine, sapientia de sapientia, essentia de essentia; quia est hoc omnino quod Pater, non⁹ tamen Pater, quia iste est Filius, ille Pater.	It is also shown from those words, that the Son and Holy Spirit are not from nothing, but from some one or thing, nor, however, from some matter. Whence even (St.) Hilary in the twelfth book On the Trinity¹ says: « The Only-Begotten God, since He has been born, testifies that the Father (is His) Author; since He has been born from the One remaining [manente], He has not been born from nothing; and since He has been born before time, He has by being born come before [praevenit] every sense ». Here there is openly said, that the Son has not been born from nothing. Similarly also the Holy Spirit is not to be said to be and/or to proceed “out of nothing” [ex nihilo], « because the Son has been born from the Substance of the Father »,² that is, He is by the Father, with whom He is of the same Substance and is the same Substance. From [ex] which sense there must also be accepted this: « The Father begot That which He Himself is », that is, the Son, who is This which the Father (is). And (St.) Augustine reveals that this ought to be thus understood, saying in the first book Against Maximinum:³ « The Father begot This which He is; otherwise He is not the true Son, if what the Father is, the Son is not ». Likewise: « the Substance of God begot the Son », that is, the Father, the Substance, begot the Son, who is the same Substance and of the same Substance. Which (St.) Augustine shows must be thus understood, saying to Maximinus:⁴ « Just as you say, Spirit begot Spirit; say thus: the Spirit begot a spirit of the same nature and/or substance. Likewise, just as you say: “God begot God”, say thus, “God begot God of the same Nature and/or Substance”. If you believed and said this, you would be accused nothing further concerning this matter [re] ». For by these words he reveals, in what manner the aforesaid (words) ought to be understood. Similarly: « The Son has been born from the Substance of the Father, and/or the Father has begotten the Son from His own Nature or Essence », that is, from Himself, the Nature and Essence, He begot the Son of the same Essence⁵ and Nature, and Who is the same Essence and Nature. Similarly he expounds this: « The Son of the Substance of the Father », that is⁶ the Son of the Father's Substance, that is, He who is the Substance, with whom the Son is also the same Substance, because consubstantial to the Father is the Son. And here the sense is assisted from the words of (St.) Augustine, who in the seventh book On the Trinity⁷ says: « “That the Three Persons (are) of the same Essence”, and/or “that the Three Persons (are) the one Essence” we do say. But “that the Three Persons (are) out of the same Essence” we do not say, as if There what the Essence is were one thing [aliud], what a Person is another ». By these words he shows, that it must not be said, that a Person is out of the Essence, except in [ex] the aforesaid sense. The sense of which is confirmed also from that which the same (author) says in the fifthteenth book On the Trinity:⁸ « Just as our knowledge [scientia] is dissimilar to God's knowledge, so also our word, which is born from our knowledge, to that Word of God, which has been born from the Father's Essence. Moreover it is such, as if I would say: “from the Father's Knowledge”, “from the Father's Wisdom”, and/or what is more expressly, “from the Father, the Essence”, “from the Father, the Knowledge”, “from the Father, the Wisdom” ». And thus from this understanding the Word of God the Father, the Only-Begotten Son, in [per] all things the like and equal of the Father, is rightly called “God from God”, “Light from Light”, “Wisdom from Wisdom”, “Essence from Essence”; because He is entirely That which the Father (is), not⁹ however the Father, because This One (is) the Son, That One the Father.
Cap. III. Quare Verbum Patris dicatur Filius naturae.	Chapter III Why the Word of the Father is called the Son of (His) Nature.
Inde est, quod solus Unigenitus Dei dicitur natura Filius, quia eiusdem naturae est et eadem natura est cum Patre. Unde Hilarius in libro quinto de Trinitate¹⁰ de Christo loquens ait: « Natura Filius est, quia eandem naturam, quam ille qui genuit, habet ».	Hence it is, that the Only-Begotten of God alone is called [dicitur] the Son by nature, because He is of the same Nature and is the same Nature with the Father. Whence (St.) Hilary in the fifth book On the Trinity,¹⁰ speaking of Christ says: « By nature He is the Son, because He has the same Nature, which He who begot (Him has) ».
¹ Num. 25. ² August. de Fide et symb. c. 4. n. 6. Verba sequentia: Pater genuit id quod ipse est, ibid. c. 3. n. 4; cfr. supra c. 1. ³ Cap. 18. — Quod sequitur est ex libr. II. c. 14; vide supra c. 1 post medium. In eodem cap. 14. occurunt alii textus, ex quibus propositiones, quae hic explicantur, sumtae sunt. ⁴ Libr. II. c. 15. n. 3. — Codd. B C in principio textus: Spiritus sanctus, Spiritum sanctum; deinde cod. C prosequitur: genuit, ita est sicut dicis Deum Deus genuit, ita dic. ⁵ Vat. et edd. 4, 6 substantiae. ⁶ Edd., exceptis Vat., 1 et 8, non bene et pro id est. ⁷ Cap. 6. n. 11. — Vat. cum plurimis edd. addiicit his ante verbis August. — Paulo infra codd. et ed. 1 ostendit, et cod. C addit Augustinus. Ceterae edd. ostenditur. ⁸ Cap. 13. n. 22, in quo textu circa finem Magister adiunxit de Patre essentia. ⁹ Cod. B nec. ¹⁰ Num. 37; vide supra c. 1. circa medium.	^* [Trans. note: Here the Latin aliquo, which can be either masculine or neuter in gender, can be read as someone and/or something, the ambiguity of which is essential to the context of the discussion, and hence aliquo must be rendered into English as some one or thing, to make this opposition of not however from matter intelligible.] ¹ Number 25. ² (St.) Augustine, On the Faith and the Creed, ch. 4, n. 6. The following words: The Father begot that which He Himself is, ibid., ch. 3, n. 4; cf. above ch. 1. ³ Chapter 18. — That which follows is from Bk. II, ch. 14; see above ch. 1 in the second half. In the same chapter 14 there occurs other texts, from which the propositions, which are here explained, have been taken. ⁴ Bk. II, ch. 15, n. 3. — Codices B and C at the beginning of the text read: the Holy Spirit . . . the Holy Spirit [Spiritus sancuts, Spiritum sanctum]; then codex C continues: begot . . ., thus it is, as you say « God begot God », thus say. ⁵ The Vatican text and editions 4 and 6 has Substance [substantiae]. ⁶ The editions, excepting 1 and 8 and the Vatican text, read not well and [et] in place of that is [id est]. [Trans. note: just before this the apparently faulty reading of an imperative expone expound is read as the indicative exponit he expounds]. ⁷ Chapter 6, n. 11. — The Vatican text together with very many editions inserts these before words of (St.) Augustine. — A little below this the codices and edition 1 have he shows, and codex C specifies the subject by adding (St.) Augustine. The rest of the editions have there is shown [ostenditur]. ⁸ Chapter 13, n. 22, in which text near the end Master (Peter) adjoined “from the Father, the Essence” [de Patre essentia]. ⁹ Codex B has nor [nec]. ¹⁰ Number 37; see above ch. 1 about the middle.

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