LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 18: 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 XVIII.	DISTINCTION 18
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 319-321. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 319-321. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
Cap. I. Utrum concedendum sit, per donum dari dona.	Chapter I. Whether it must be conceded, that gifts are given through a gift.
Hic quaeritur, cum Spiritus sanctus, per quem dividuntur dona, ipse sit donum, utrum concedendum sit, quod per donum dividantur ac dentur¹ dona. Ad quod dicimus, quia per donum, quod est Spiritus sanctus, singulis propria dividuntur, et ipsum communiter omnes boni habent. Unde Augustinus in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate² ait: « Per donum, quod est Spiritus sanctus, in commune omnibus membris Christi multa dona, quae sunt quibusque propria, dividuntur. Non enim singuli quique habent omnia, sed hi illa, alii alia, quamvis ipsum donum, a quo cuique propria dividuntur, omnes habeant id est Spiritum sanctum ». Ecce aperte dicit, per donum dona donari.	Here there is asked, since the Holy Spirit, through whom gifts are divided (among the faithful), is Himself a gift, whether it must be conceded, that through a gift gifts are divided and given.¹ To which we say, that through a gift, which is the Holy Spirit, (gifts) proper to each are divided, and all the good commonly have that (gift). Whence (St.) Augusti ne in the fifteenth book On the Trinity² says: « Through the gift, which is the Holy Spirit, the many gifts, which are proper to them, are divided in common to all the members of Christ. For no single one has them all, but these those, and those others, although the gift itself, by which (the gifts) proper to each are divided, all have, that is, the Holy Spirit ». Behold he openly says, that through a gift gifts are granted.
Cap. II. Utrum Spiritus sanctus eadem ratione dicatur donum, qua datum sive donatum.	Chapter II. Whether the Holy Spirit is said (to be) a “gift” for the same reason, that (He is said to be) “ given” or “granted”.
Praeterea diligenter considerandum est, cum Spiritus sanctus dicatur donum et datum, utrum³ eadem ratione utrumque nomen ei conveniat; quod utique videri potest. Cum enim idem sit Spiritum sanctum dari et Spiritum sanctum donari, ex eadem ratione videtur Spiritus sanctus dici datum et donum. Hoc etiam videtur Augustinus significare in libro decimo quinto de Trinitate,⁴ cum ait: « Spiritus sanctus in tantum donum Dei est, in quantum datur eis quibus datur, apud se autem Deus est, etsi nemini detur ». Ecce aperte dicit, Spiritum sanctum donum appellari, quia datur. Si autem ex eo tantum appellatur donum, quia datur, non ab aeterno fuit donum, quia non datur nisi ex tempore.	Besides it must be diligently considered, since the Holy Spirit is said (to be) a “gift” and a “given”, whether³ for the same reason each noun befits Him, as indeed it can seem (to be). For since it is that the Holy Spirit is given and that the Holy Spirit is granted, the Holy Spirit seems from the same reason to be said (to be) “given” and a “gift”. This (St.) Augustine also seems to signify in the fifteenth book On the Trinity,⁴ when he says: « The Holy Spirit inasmuch as He is the Gift of God, insomuch is He given to those to whom He is given, but in Himself [apud se] He is God, even if He is given to no one ». Behold he openly says, that the Holy Spirit is named “gift”, because He is given. Moreover if form this only He is named “gift”, because He is given, He was not from eternity a “gift”, because He is not given, except in time.
Ad quod dicimus, quia Spiritus sanctus et donum dicitur et datum sive donatum, sed datum sive donatum ex eo tantum dicitur, quia datur vel donatur, quod habet tantum ex tempore.	To which we say, that the Holy Spirit is both said (to be) “a gift” and “a given” or “a granted”, but is said (to be) “a given” or “a granted” for this only, that He is given and/or granted, which He has only in time.
Donum vero dicitur non ex eo tantum, quod donetur, sed ex proprietate, quam habuit ab aeterno; unde et ab aeterno fuit donum. Sempiterne enim donum fuit, non quia daretur, sed quia processit a Patre et Filio. Unde Augustinus in quarto libro de Trinitate⁵ ait: « Sicut natum esse est Filio a Patre esse, ita Spiritui sancto donum Dei esse est a Patre procedere et a Filio ». Hic aperte ostenditur, quod Spiritus sanctus eo donum est, quod procedit a Patre et a⁶ Filio, sicut Filius eo est a Patre, quod natus est ab eo. Non est enim idem Filio esse a Patre et Spiritui sancto, id est, non ea proprietate Filius dicitur esse a Patre, qua Spiritus sanctus. Nam Filius dicitur esse a Patre, quia genitus est ab eo; Spiritus sanctus vero dicitur esse a Patre et a Filio, quia Spiritus sanctus est donum Patris et Filii, id est, quia procedit ab utroque. Eo enim⁷ dicitur Spiritus sanctus, quo donum; et eo donum, quo procedens. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate⁸ ait: « Spiritus sanctus, qui non Trinitas, sed in Trinitate intelligitur, in eo quod proprie dicitur Spiritus sanctus, relative dicitur, cum et ad Patrem et ad Filium refertur, quia Spiritus sanctus et Patris et Filiis Spiritus est. Sed ipsa relatio non apparet in hoc nomine, apparet autem, cum dicitur donum Dei: donum enim est Patris et Filii, quia et a Patre procedit et a Filio ». Ecce his verbis aperte ostenditur, eadem relatione dici Spiritum sanctum et donum; donum autem, quia procedit a Patre et Filio. Proprietas ergo, qua dici- / -tur	On the other hand, He is said (to be) “a gift” not from this only, that He is granted, but from the property, which He had from eternity; wherefore He was also from eternity a gift. For sempiternally He was a gift, not because He was given, but because He proceeded from the Father and the Son. Wherefore, (St.) Augustine in the fourth book On the Trinity⁵ says: « Just as for the Son ‘to have been born’ is ‘to be from the Father’, so for the Holy Spirit ‘to be the Gift of God’ is ‘to proceed from the Father and from the Son’ ». Here there is openly shown, that the Holy Spirit is a gift for this, that He proceeds from the Father and from⁶ the Son, just as the Son is from the Father for this, that He has been born from Him. For it is not the same for the Son and the Holy Spirit to be from the Father, that is, the Son is not said to be from the Father by that property, by which the Holy Spirit (is). For the Son is said to be “from the Father”, because He has been begotten from Him; but the Holy Spirit is said to be “from the Father and from the Son”, because the Holy Spirit is the Gift of the Father and of the Son, that this, because He proceeds from Each. For⁷ He is said (to be) “the Holy Spirit” for this, that (He is) the Gift; and “the Gift” for this, that (He is) proceeding. Wherefore (St.) Augustine in the fifth book On the Trinity⁸ says: « The Holy Spirit, who (is) not the Trinity, but (rather) is understood (to be) in the Trinity, in this that He is properly said (to be) “the Holy Spirit”, is said (to be such) in a relative manner, when He is referred both to the Father and to the Son, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son. But that relation does not appear in this name, but it does appear, when He is said (to be) “the Gift of God”: for He is the Gift of the Father and of the Son, because He proceeds from the Father and from the Son ». Behold with these words there is openly shown, that the Holy Spirit is for the same reason also said (to be) “a gift”; but “a gift”, because He proceeds from the Father and the Son. Therefore the property, whereby He is / said . . .
¹ Ed. 8 dividuntur aut dantur: particulam aut pro ac habet etiam ed. 1. ² Cap. 19. n. 34. — In fine textus ante id est sola Vat. habent pro habeant, et ed. 4 peius habeantur. Subinde edd. 1, 2, 3, 7 omittunt Ecce, et pro ultimo vero donari edd. 1, 8 legunt dari. ³ Ed. 4, 5, 6, 9 adiiciunt et. ⁴ Cap. 19. n. 36. — In fine loci Vat. et aliae edd. contra originale, codd. et edd. 1, 8 datur loco detur. ⁵ Cap. 20. n. 29. ⁶ Codd., excepto A, et edd. 1, 8 omittunt a. ⁷ Codd. omittunt enim. ⁸ Cap. 11. n. 12. — In hoc textu contra codd., ed. 1 et originale, Vat. cum aliis edd. addit est ante Trinitas. Eadem Vat. cum pluribus edd. ante Filium omittit ad. — Ultima verba textus: et a Filio, ab Augustino exprimuntur sic: Et quod Apostolus ait: qui Spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius (Rom. 8, 9.) de ipso utique sancto Spiritu ait.	¹ Edition 8 has these two verbs in the indicative: edition 1 also has the particle or [aut] for and [ac]. ² Chapter 19, n. 34. — At the end of this text before that is [id est] only the Vatican edition has the indicative form of have [habent], and edition 4 the worse are had [habeantur]. Then editions 1, 2, 3 and 7 omit Behold [Ecce], and for very last word are granted [donari] editions 1 and 8 have are given [dari]. ³ Editions 4, 5, 6 and 9 insert also [et]. ⁴ Chapter 19, n. 36. — At the end of the quote, the Vatican edition and the other editions, contrary to the original, to the codices and to editions 1 and 8, have the indicative is given [datur]. ⁵ Chapter 20, n. 29. ⁶ The codices, except A, and editions 1 and 8, omit from [a]. ⁷ The codices omit For [enim]. ⁸ Chapter 11, n. 12. — In this text, contrary to the codices, edition 1 and the original, and the Vatican edition, together with the other editions, add is [est] before the first Trinity [Trinitas]. The same Vatican edition, together with very many editions, before the Son [Filium] omits to [ad]. The last words of the text: and from the Son [et a Filio], are expressed by (St.) Augustine in this manner: And that which the Apostle says: he who does not have the Spirit of Christ, does not belong to Him (Rom. 8:9), indeed speaks of the Holy Spirit Himself.

p. 320

dici- /-tur Spiritus sanctus vel donum, processio ipsa est, de qua post plenius agemus cum aliis.¹ Cum ergo ab aeterno processerit ab utroque, et ab aeterno donum fuit. Non ergo Spiritus sanctus eo tantum dicitur donum, quia donatur; nam et ante fuit donum, quam donaretur. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate:² « Semper procedit Spiritus sanctus, et non ex tempore, sed ab eternitate procedit; sed quia sic procedebat, ut esset donabile, iam donum erat, antequam esset cui daretur. Aliter enim intelligitur, cum dicitur donum, aliter cum dicitur donatum: nam donum potest esse etiam, antequam detur; donatum autem, nisi datum fuerit, nullo modo dici potest ». « Sempiterne ergo Spiritus sanctus est donum, temporaliter autem donatum ». His verbis aperte ostenditur, quod sicut Spiritus sanctus ab aeterno procedit, ita ab aeterno donum est; non quia donaretur a Patre Filio, vel a Filio Patri, sed quia ab aeterno processit donabilis.	said (to be) “the Holy Spirit” and/or “a gift”, is the procession itself, with which we will deal more fully afterwards together with the other (properties).¹Therefore since He proceeded from eternity from Each, He was also from eternity a gift. Therefore the Holy Spirit is not said (to be) “a gift” for this only, that He is granted; for He was also a gift before He was granted. Whence (St.) Augustine in the fifth book On the Trinity (says):² « The Holy Spirit always proceeds, and He proceeds not in time, but from eternity; but because He was thus proceeding, to be grantable, He already was a gift, before there was that to which He would be given. For it is understood in one manner, when there is said “a gift”, in another when there is said “a granted”: for “a given” can also be, before it is given; but “a granted”, unless it will have been given, in no manner can be said ». « Therefore the Holy Spirit is sempiternally a gift, but temporally a granted ». With these words there is openly shown, that just as the Holy Spirit proceeds from eternity, so is He a gift from eternity, not because He was given by the Father to the Son, and/or by the Son to the Father, but because from eternity He has proceeded as “a grantable”.
Sed quaeritur, cui donabilis: utrum Patri et Filio, an tantum nobis, qui nondum eramus? Si autem non erat donabilis Patri et Filio, sed tantum nobis, et ex eo donum erat, quia sic donabilis procedebat, videtur quod Filius eadem ratione semper donum fuerit; quia ab aeterno processit a Patre donabilis nobis in tempore. Nam et de Filio legitur,³ quod datus est nobis. Ad quod dicimus, quia Spiritus sanctus nobis tantum, non Patri vel Filio, donabilis processit, sicut et nobis tantum datus est. Et Filius vere datus est nobis et ab aeterno processit a Patre, non ut donabilis tantum, sed ut genitus, qui et donari posset. Processit ergo ut genitus et donabilis; sed Spiritus sanctus non procedit ut genitus, sed tantum ut donum. Donum autem semper fuit, non solum quia donabilis, sed quia ab utroque processit, et quia⁴ donabilis fuit. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate⁵ ait: « Eo ipso, quod daturus erat eum Deus, iam donum erat, etiam antequam daretur », et ideo donabilis⁶; sed aliter donabilis quam Filius; nam et aliter datus et aliter processit quam Filius. Filii enim processio genitura est vel nativitas, Spiritus sancti vero processio nativitas non est; utraque vero ineffabilis est.	But there is asked, “a grantable” to whom: whether to the Father and to the Son, or whether only to us, who were not yet? But if He was not grantable to the Father and to the Son, but only to us, and was a gift from this, that He was proceeding in this manner as a grantable, it seems that the Son for the same reason always was a gift; because from eternity He proceeded from the Father as grantable to us in time. For it is also read of the Son,³ that He is given to us. To which we say, that the Holy Spirit proceeded as a grantable only to us, not to the Father and/or to the Son, just as also He has only been given to us. And the Son has been truly given to us and has from eternity proceeded from the Father, not only as a grantable; but as One begotten, who also could be granted. Therefore, He proceeded as One begotten and grantable; but the Holy Spirit does not proceed as One begotten, but only as the Gift. Moreover He always was a gift, not only because (His is) grantable, but because He proceeded from Each, and because⁴ He was grantable. Wherefore (St.) Augustine in the fifth book On the Trinity⁵ says: « By the very fact, that God was going to give Him, He was already a gift, even before He was given », and for that reason (He was)⁶ grantable; but grantable in a manner other than the Son; for He (has been) both given and has proceeded in a manner other than the Son. For the procession of the Son is a begetting [genitura] and/or nativity, but the procession of the Holy Spirit is not a nativity; however each is ineffable.
Cap. III. Quod sicut Filius nascendo accepit non tantum, ut esset Filius, sed etiam essentia, ita Spiritus sanctus procedendo accepit non tantum, ut esset donum, sed ut esset essentia.	Chapter III That just as the Son by being born accepted not only, ‘to be the Son’, but also ‘(to be) the Essence’, so the Holy Spirit by proceeding accepted not only, ‘to be a gift’, but ‘to be the Essence’.
Et notandum, quod sicut Filius nascendo accepit non tantum, ut Filius sit, sed omnino ut sit et ut ipsa substantia sit, ita et Spiritus sanctus a Patre et Filio procedendo accepit non tantum, ut Spiritus sanctus sit vel donum, sed etiam, ut omnino sit et ut substantia sit; quod utique non accepit eo quo⁷ datur. Nam cum non detur nisi ex tempore, si hoc haberet eo quo detur, accepisset ergo ex tempore, ut esset. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate⁸ ait: « Filius non hoc tantum habet nascendo, ut Filius sit, sed omnino ut sit. Quaeritur ergo, utrum Spiritus sanctus eo quo datur habeat non tantum, ut donum sit, sed omnino ut sit. Quod si non est, nisi quia datur, id est, si non habet esse, nisi eo quo datur, sicut Filius nascendo habet non tantum, ut sit Filius, quod relative dicitur, sed omnino ut sit ipsa substantia, quomodo iam Spiritus sanctus erat ipsa substantia, cum non prius daretur, quam esset cui daretur »? Non ergo eo quo datur, sed procedendo habet, ut sit donum, et ut sit essentia; sicut Filius non eo quod datus est, sed nascendo accepit non tantum, ut sit Filius, sed ut sit essentia. Unde Augustinus in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate⁹ ait: « Sicut Filio praestat essentiam sine initio temporis, sine ulla mutabilitate naturae de Patre generatio, ita Spiritui sancto praestat essentiam sine ullo initio temporis, sine ulla mutabilitate naturae de utroque processio ».	And it must be noted, that just as the Son by being born accepted [accepit] not only, ‘to be the Son’, but ‘entirely to be’ and ‘to be the Substance Itself’, so also the Holy Spirit by proceeding from the Father and the Son accepted not only, ‘to be the Holy Spirit and/or a gift’, but also, ‘to entirely be’ and ‘to be the Substance’; which indeed He did not accept for the reason that⁷ He is given. For since He is not given but in time, if He would have this for the reason that He is given, He would have accepted, therefore, in time, to be. Wherefore (St.) Augustine in the fifth book On the Trinity⁸ says: « The Son by being born not only has this, that He is the Son, but entirely that He is. Therefore, there is asked, whether the Holy Spirit for this, that He is given, has not only, that He is a gift, but entirely that He is. Which if He is not, unless because He is given, that is, if He does not have “being” [esse], unless for this, that He is given, just as the Son by being born has not only, that He is the Son, which is said in a relative manner, but entirely to be the Substance Itself, in what manner was the Holy Spirit the Substance Itself, since He was not given before there was that to which He was given »? Therefore, not for this, that He is given, but by proceeding does He have, that He is a gift, and that He is the Essence; just as the Son not for this, that He has been given, but by being born accepts not only, ‘to be the Son’, but ‘to be the Essence’. Wherefore (St.) Augustine in the fifteenth book On the Trinity⁹ says: « Just as the generation presents [praestat] the Essence to the Son without the beginning [initio] of time, without any changeability in the Nature of the Father [mutabilitate naturae de Patre], so the procession presents the Essence to the Holy Spirit without any beginning of time, without any changeability of the Nature of Each ».
Hic oritur quaestio: si Filius nascendo habet non tantum, ut sit Filius, sed ut sit essentia, et Spiritus sanctus procedendo non tantum, ut sit donum, sed ut sit essentia; ergo et Filius nativitate essentia est, et Spiritus sanctus processione essentia est; cum alibi dicatur, quod nec Pater eo Pater est, quo Deus, nec Filius eo Filius, quo Deus, nec Spiritus sanctus eo donum, quo Deus; quia, ut ait Augustinus in septimo libro de Trinitate,¹⁰ « his nominibus relativa eorum ostenduntur, non essentia ». Unde post plenius agemus.¹¹	Here there arises the question: ‘if the Son by being born has not only, that He is the Son, but that He is the Essence, and the Holy Spirit by proceeding not only, that He is a gift, but that He is the Essence; is, therefore, both the Son by the nativity the Essence, and is the Holy Spirit by the procession, the Essence?’; since elsewhere there is said, that neither the Father for this, that (He is) God, is the Father, nor the Son for this, that (He is) God, is the Son, nor the Holy Spirit for this, that (He is) God, a gift; because, as (St.) Augustine says in the seventh book On the Trinity,¹⁰ « with these names those (things) relative to Them are shown, not (Their) Essence ». With which we will more fully deal afterwards.¹¹
Ad quod breviter respondentes dicimus, quia nec Filius nativitate essentia est, sed tantum Filius; nec Spiritus sanctus processione essentia est, sed tantum donum; et tamen uterque, et ille nascendo et iste procedendo, accepit, ut esset essentia. « Non enim, ut ait Hilarius in quinto libro de Trinitate,¹² per defectionem, aut protensionem, aut derivationem ex Deo Deus est, sed ex virtute naturae in naturam eandem nativitate subsistit Filius », et ex virtute naturae in naturam eandem processione subsistit Spiritus sanctus.	To which responding briefly, we say, that neither is the Son by the nativity the Essence, but only the Son; nor is the Holy Spirit by the procession the Essence, but only the Gift; and yet Each, both the Former by being born and the Latter by proceeding, accepts, ‘to be the Essence’. « For not », as (St.) Hilary says in the fifth book On the Trinity,¹² « through a defection, or an extension [protensionem], or a derivation from God is He God, but (rather) the Son subsists by the nativity, out of the virtue of the Nature upon [in] the same Nature », and out of the virtue of the Nature upon the same Nature, does the Holy Spirit (also) subsist.
Quod ita intelligi potest: ex Patre, qui est virtus ingenita, naturam, quam habet, eandem Filius nativitate, id est nascendo, et Spiritus sanctus processione, id est procedendo habet. Unde ipse idem apertius eloquens, . . .	Which can thus be understood: out of the Father, who is the Unbegotten Virtue, the Nature, which He has, the Same the Son by the nativity, that is by being born, and the Holy Spirit by the procession, that is by proceeding, has. Whence saying the same more openly, . . .
¹ Supple cum ed. 1 proprietatibus, de quibus agitur hic et dist. XXVI. XXVIII. XXIX. ² Cap. 15. n. 16. — Et sequens locus est ibid. c. 16. n. 17. — In primo loco ante Aliter Vat. cum pluribus edd. contra originale, codd. et edd. 1, 8 donaretur. ³ Isai. 9, 6. ⁴ Vat. et edd. 4, 6 omittunt quia. ⁵ Cap. 45. n. 16. ⁶ Contra codd. et ed. 1 Vat. cum aliis edd. addit est, sed potius referendum est donabilis ad praecedens erat. Paulo post Vat. et edd. 4, 6, 9 datur pro datus, ed. 8 datus est. — Ultima sententia quoad sensum sumta est ex libr. II. contra Maximinum c. 14. n. 1. ⁷ Vat. et plures edd. hic paulo post ex eo quod pro eo quo. Particula ex omittitur ab omnibus codd. et ed. 1, hic et in sequenti textu Augustini; quo legunt hic et in textu Augustini codd. B D. Alii codd. in textu quidem Augustini habet quo; extra ipsum vero modo quo, modo quod. Cum originali Augustini semper posuimus quo. ⁸ Cap. 15. n. 16, sed diffusius. Ex codd. A C D inseruimus ait, quod deest in editis. ⁹ Cap. 26. n. 47. — Paulo ante Vat., omittendo sit, mendose legit ut essentia. Eadem Vat. cum pluribus edd. omittit in textu Augustini ulla ante mutabilitate. ¹⁰ Cap. 2. n. 3, sed mutato verborum ordine. ¹¹ Dist. XXVI. XXVII. XXIX. ¹² Num. 37. — In originali Hilarii melius legitur: per desectionem loco per defectionem, quod habent omnes edd., codd. et etiam editiones Commentatorum, ut Bonav., hic dub. 4, S. Thomas in expositione textus.	¹ Supply with edition 1 properties, with which this and Distinctions XXVI, XXVIII, and XXIX deal. ² Chapter 15, n. 16. — And the following passage is ibid., ch. 16, n. 17. — In the first passage, at the beginning of the sentence For it is understood etc.[Aliter etc.] there is in the Vatican edition and very many editions, contrary to the original, to the codices, and to editions 1 and 8, He would be given [donaretur]. ³ Isaiah 9:6 ⁴ The Vatican edition and editions 4 and 6, omit because [quia]. ⁵ Chapter 45, n. 16. ⁶ Contrary to the codices and to edition 1, the Vatican edition, together with the other editions adds He is [est], but grantable [donabilis] must rather be referred to the preceding was [erat]. A little after this the Vatican edition and editions 4, 6, and 9, have is given [datur] for (has been) given [datus], edition 8 reads has been given [datus est]. — The last sentence has been taken according to its sense from Against Maximinus, Bk. II, ch. 14, n. 1. ⁷ The Vatican edition and very many editions, here and a little after this, have from this that [ex eo quod] for for the reason that [eo quod]. The particle from [ex] is omitted by all the codices and edition 1, here and in the following text of (St.) Augustine; that [quo] is read here in the text of (St.) Augustine and in codices B and C. The other codices in the text of (St.) Augustine indeed have that [quo]; but for this, that now one has that [quo], now another that [quod]. With the original of (St.) Augustine we have always put that [quo]. ⁸ Chapter 15, n. 16, but more diffusely. From codices A C and D we have inserted says [ait], which is lacking in the editions. ⁹ Chapter 26, n. 47. — A little before this the Vatican edition, by omitting be [sit], faultily reads as the Essence [ut essentia]. The same Vatican edition, together with very many editions, omits in the text of (St.) Augustine any [ulla] before changeability [mutabilitate]. ¹⁰ Chapter 2, n. 3, but with a changed order of words. ¹¹ Distinctions XXVI, XXVII, and XXIX. ¹² N. 37. — In the original of (St.) Hilary there is better read: through a dissection [per desectionem] for through a defection [per defectionem], which all the editions, the codices and even the editions of the Commentators, such as (St.) Bonaventure, here in dubium 4, and St. Thomas, in the exposition of the text.

p. 321

quod dixerat aperit, subdens:¹ « Nativitas, inquit, Dei non potest non eam, de qua profecta est, tenere naturam. Non enim aliud quam Deus subsistit, quod non aliunde quam de Deo subsistit ». Ecce his verbis aperitur, quomodo accipiendum sit illud:² « De Patre generatio praestat essentiam Filio, et de utroque processio praestat essentiam Spiritui sancto »; non quia ille essentia sit Filius, et iste essentia sit Spiritus sanctus, immo proprietate personali, sed quia et ille nascendo, et iste procedendo essentiam habet eandem et totam, quae in Patre est.	(St. Augustine) reveals [aperit], what he had said, subjoining:¹ « The nativity of God », he says « cannot not hold that Nature, by which it has come forth [profecta est]. For no Other than God subsists, because from nowhere else than from God does He subsist ». Behold with these words he reveals, in what manner this must be accepted:² « From the Father the generation presents the Essence to the Son, and from Each the procession presents the Essence to the Holy Spirit »; not because the Former by the Essence is the Son, and the Latter by the Essence is the Holy Spirit, nay by the personal property (of Each), but because both the Former by being born, and the Latter by proceeding, have the same and the whole Essence, which is in the Father.
Cap. IV. Quod Spiritus sanctus dicitur donum et donatum secundum duos modos praedictos processionis, qui, secundum quod donum est, refertur ad Patrem et Filium, secundum quod datum, ad eum qui dedit et ad eos quibus datur.	Chapter IV That the Holy Spirit is said (to be) a “gift” and a “granted” according to the two aforesaid manners of procession, who, according to which He is a gift, is referred to the Father and the Son, according to which a given, to Him who gives and to those to whom He is given.
Ex praedictis patet, quod Spiritus sanctus sempiterne donum est et temporaliter datum vel donatum. Ex quo apparet illa distinctio geminae processionis, de qua supra egimus.³ Nam secundum alteram processionem dicitur donatum vel datum, secundum alteram vero dicitur donum.	From the aforesaid it is clear, that the Holy Spirit is a gift sempiternally, and temporally (is) a given and/or a granted. From which appears that distinction of the twin procession, with which we have dealt above.³ For according to the latter procession He is said (to be) “a granted” and/or “a given”, but according to the former He is said (to be) “the Gift”.
Et secundum hoc, quod sempiterne donum est, refertur ad Patrem et Filium, secundum hoc vero, quod dicitur datum vel donatum, et ad eum qui dedit refertur, et ad eos quibus datur; et eius dicitur esse qui dat, et illorum quibus datur. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate⁴ ait: « Quod datum est et ad eum qui dedit refertur, et ad eos quibus dedit. Itaque Spiritus sanctus non tantum Patris et Filii, qui dederunt, sed etiam noster dicitur, qui accepimus. Spiritus ergo et Dei est, qui dedit, et noster, qui accepimus; non ille spiritus noster, quo sumus, quia ipse spiritus est hominis, qui in ipso est:⁵ quamvis et illum spiritum, qui hominis dicitur, utique accepimus; sed aliter iste, aliter ille noster dicitur. Aliud est enim quod accepimus, ut essemus, aliud quod accepimus, ut sancti essemus. Quod autem Spiritus sanctus noster dicatur, Scriptura ostendit. Scriptum est enim de Ioanne, quod in Spiritu Eliae veniret.⁶ Ecce dictus est Eliae Spiritus, scilicet Spiritus sanctus, quem accepit Elias. Et Moysi ait Dominus:⁷ Tollam de spiritu tuo et dabo eis, id est, dabo illis de Spiritu sancto, quem iam dedi tibi ». Ecce et hic dictus est spiritus Moysi. Patet igitur, quia Spiritus sanctus noster dicitur spiritus, scilicet⁸ quia nobis datus et datus utique ad hoc, ut sancti essemus. Spiritus vero creatus ad hoc est datus, ut essemus.	And according to this, that He is sempiternally a gift, He is referred to the Father and the Son, but according to this, that He is said (to be) “a given” and/or “a granted”, He is referred both to him who gives, and to those to whom He is given, and He is said (to be) of him, who gives, and to those to whom He is given. Whence (St.) Augustine in the fifth book On the Trinity⁴ says: « Because He is “a given”, He is referred both to him who has given, and to those to whom he gave. And so the Holy Spirit is said (to be) not only “of the Father” and “of the Son”, who gave (Him), but also “ours”, who accepted (Him). Therefore the Spirit is both God’s, who gave, and ours, who accepted; not that spirit of ours, by which we are, because (that) is the spirit of a man, which is in him:⁵ but in one manner the Former, in another the latter, is (“a spirit”) said (to be) ours. For one is that which we accepted, to be, the Other that which we accepted, to be holy. Moreover, that the Holy Spirit is said (to be) ours, Scripture shows. For it is written of (St.) John (the Baptist), that he came in the Spirit of Elijah.⁶ Behold the Spirit was said (to be) “of Elijah”, that is the Holy Spirit, whom Elijah accepted. And to Moses the Lord says:⁷ I shall take of thy spirit and I shall give (it) to them, that is, I shall give them of the Holy Spirit, whom I have already given to thee ». Behold here also He is said (to be) the spirit “of Moses”. Therefore it is clear, that the Holy Spirit is said (to be) “our spirit”, that is,⁸ because (He has been) given to us, and given indeed for this, that we be holy. However the created spirit has been given for this, that we be.
Cap. V. An Filius, cum sit nobis datus, possit dici noster, ut Spiritus sanctus.	Chapter V Whether the Son, since He has been given to us, can be said (to be) “ours”, as the Holy Spirit (is).
Hic quaeritur, utrum et Filius, cum sit nobis datus, dicatur vel possit dici noster. Ad quod dicimus, quia⁹ Filius dicitur noster panis, noster redemptor et huiusmodi; sed non dicitur noster Filius, quia Filius dicitur relative tantum ad eum qui genuit. Et ideo noster Filius non potest dici, sed Patris tantum. In eo autem quod dicitur datus, et ad eum qui dedit, et ad eos quibus datus est, refertur, ut¹⁰ Spiritus sanctus; qui etiam cum in Scriptura, ut praedictum est, dicatur spiritus noster, vel spiritus tuus vel illius ut de Moyse et Elia dictum est, nusquam tamen in Scriptura occurrit ita dici: Spiritus sanctus noster vel tuus vel illius, sed spiritus noster vel tuus vel illius, quia Spiritus sanctus eo dicitur, quo donum, et utrumque relative dicitur ad Patrem et ad¹¹ Filium, et hoc sempiterna relatione. Si tamen aliquando dicitur donum nostrum, accipitur donum pro donato vel dato. Cum vero donum accipitur eo modo, quo Spiritus sanctus, donum¹² tantum Patris et Filii dicitur, non hominis; ita et Filius sub hac appellatione non potest dici noster, ut dicatur Filius noster, sicut nec dicitur Spiritus sanctus noster; et tamen de Filio dicitur panis noster, et de Spiritu spiritus noster. Ille noster panis, quia nos reficit nobis datus; iste noster spiritus, quia nobis inspiratur a Patre et Filio, et in nobis spirat, sicut vult. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate¹³ ait: « Quod de Patre natum est ad Patrem solum refertur, cum dicitur Filius; et ideo Filius Patris est, et non noster. Dicimus tamen et panem nostrum da nobis, sicut dicimus, spiritum nostrum ».	Here there is asked, whether the Son also, since He has been given to us, is said and/or can be said (to be) “ours”. To which we way, that⁹ the Son is said (to be) “our Bread”, “Our Redeemer” and (things) of this kind; but is not said (to be) “our Son”, because “the Son” is said in a manner relative only to Him who begets. And for that reason He cannot be said (to be) “our Son”, but the Father’s only. Moreover, in this that He is said (to have been) given, He is both referred to Him who gave, and to those to whom He has been given, as the Holy Spirit (is);¹⁰ who also, since in the Scripture, as has been said before, is said (to be) “our spirit”, and/or “thy spirit” and/or “his”, as has been said of Moses and Elijah, yet never in Scripture does it thus occur that there be said: “our Holy Spirit” and/or “thy” and/or “his”, but “our spirit” and/or “thy” and/or “his”, because He is said (to be) “the Holy Spirit” for this, that (He is) “a gift”, and each (name) is said in a manner relative to the Father and to¹¹ the Son, and this by a sempiternal relation. Yet, if at any time He is said (to be) “our gift”, “gift” is accepted as “granted” and/or “given”. However, when “gift” is accepted in the manner, whereby (He is) the Holy Spirit, He is said only¹² (to be) the Gift “of the Father and the Son”, not “of a man”; thus also the Son cannot be said (to be) “ours” under this appellation, that He be said (to be) “our Son”, just as neither is the Holy Spirit said (to be) “ours”, and yet of the Son there is said “our Bread”, and of the Spirit “our spirit”. The Former (is) “our Bread”, because as One given to us He refects us; the Latter “our spirit”, because He breathes into us from the Father and the Son, and breathes in us, as He will. Whence (St.) Augustine in the fifth book On the Trinity¹³ says: « What has been born of the Father is referred to the Father alone, when there is said “the Son”; and for that reason He is the Son of the Father, and not ours. Yet, we do also say “give us . . . our daily Bread”, just as we say, “our spirit” ».
Cap. VI. Utrum Spiritus sanctus ad se ipsum referatur.	Chapter VI Whether the Holy Spirit is referred to Himself.
Post haec quaeritur, utrum Spiritus sanctus ad se ipsum referatur: hoc enim videtur ex praedictis posse probari. Si enim quod datur refertur ad eum qui dat, et ad eum cui datur; et Spiritus sanctus datur a se ipso, ut praedictum est, ergo refertur ad se ipsum. Huius quaestionis determinationem in posterum differimus, donec tractemus de his quae relative dicuntur de Deo ex tempore,¹⁴ in quibus datum et donatum continentur.	After these there is asked, whether the Holy Spirit is referred to Himself: for this seems to be able to be proven from the aforesaid. For if because He is given He is referred to him who gives, and to him to whom He is given, and the Holy Spirit is given by Himself, as has been said before, therefore He is referred to Himself. The determination of this question we defer to later, when we shall treat of those (things) which are said in a relative manner, on account of time,¹⁴ of God, among which are contained the “given” and the “granted”.
¹ Loc. cit., paucis interpositis. — Vat. et plures edd. legunt: dicens pro subdens, et sola Vat. addit ut ante inquit. ² Scil. August., libr. XV. de Trin. c. 26. n. 47: cfr. supa pag. 320 notam 9. — Immediate ante loco accipiendum Vat. cum pluribus edd. intelligendum. ³ Dist. XIV. ⁴ Cap. 14. n. 15. ⁵ Alludit Augustinus ad I. Cor. 2, 11: Quis enim hominum scit, quae sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est? ⁶ Luc. 1, 17. — Immediate post Vat. sola cum originali omittit Ecce. ⁷ Num. 11, 17. Vulgata: Auferam de Spirituo tuo tradamque eis. — Solummodo Vat. locum detruncte legit, lineam omittendo, nempe: tuo et dabo eis, id est, dabo illis de Spiritu. ⁸ Vat. et plures edd. sed contra codd. A D et ed. 1. Cod. C glossando: Spiritus, non quod sumus, sed quia nobis datur. ⁹ Codd. B E et edd. 1, 8 quod. Sed familiare est Magistro adhibere quia pro quod. — Subinde sequimur codd. B C D E in positione verborum, dum editi legunt tantum relative; idem codd. habent illum pro eum. ¹⁰ Solummodo Vat. et ed. 4 superflue addunt et post ut. — Deinde eadem Vat. cum pluribus edd. supra dictum est loco praedictum est. ¹¹ Vat. ed edd. 1, 8 omittunt ad. ¹² Vat. cum aliis edd., sed contradicentibus edd. 1, 6, 8 et codd., omittit tantum. — Mox post et Filius ed. 1 adiicit Dei. ¹³ Cap. 14. n. 15, sed apud Magistrum truncate. Respicitur ad orationem Domini, Matth. 6, 11, Luc. 11, 3. ¹⁴ Dist. XXX.	¹ Loc. cit., with a few words interposed. — The Vatican edition and very many editions read saying [dicens] for subjoining [subdens], and only the Vatican edition adds as [ut] before he says [inquit]. ² Namely, (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity., Bk. XV, ch. 26, n. 47: cf. above p. 320, footnote 9. — Immediately before this, in place of accepted [accipiendum] the Vatican edition, together with very many editions, has understood [intelligendum]. ³ Distinction XIV. ⁴ Chapter 14, n. 15. ⁵ (St.) Augustine alludes to 1 Cor. 2:11: For who of men knows, what are a man’s, except the spirit of the man, which is in him? [Quis enim hominum scit, quae sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est?] ⁶ Lk. 1:17. — Immediately after this the Vatican edition alone, together with the original, omits Behold [Ecce]. ⁷ Num. 11:17. The Vulgate reads: I shall take of thy Spirit and I shall give to them [Auferam de Spiritu tuo tradamque eis]. — Only the Vatican edition exhibits a truncated passage, by omitting an entire line, namely: thy Spirit and I shall give (Him) to them, that is, I shall given them of the Spirit [tuo et dabo eis, id est, dabo illis de Spiritu]. ⁸ The Vatican edition and very many editions read but [sed], contrary to codices A an D and to edition 1. Codex C by glossing reads: the Spirit, that which we are, but because He is given to us [Spiritus, non quod sumus, sed quia nobis datur]. ⁹ Codices B and E and editions 1 and 8 that [quod]. But it is common for Master (Peter) to employ because [quia] for that [quod]. — Then we follow codices B C D and E according to the position of the words, while the editions read only in a relative manner [tantum relative]; the same codices have to the One [ad illud] for to Him [ad eum]. ¹⁰ Only the Vatican edition and edition 4 superfluously adds is [et] after as [ut]. — Then the same Vatican edition, together with very many editions, reads has been said above [supra dictum est] for has been said before [praedictum est]. ¹¹ The Vatican edition and editions 1 and 8 omits to [ad]. ¹² The Vatican edition together with the other editions, but with editions 1, 6 and 8, and the codices contradicting this, omits only [tantum]. Next after also the Son [et Filius] edition one inserts of God [Dei]. ¹³ Chapter 14, n. 15, but in truncated form in Master (Peter)’s text. This refers to the Lord’s Prayer, Mt. 6:11, Lk. 11:3. ¹⁴ Distinction XXX.

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