LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 19: 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 XIX.	DISTINCTION 19
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 335-341. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 335-341. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
PARS. I.	PART I
Cap. I. De aequalitate trium personarum.	Chapter I. On the equality of the Three Persons.
Nunc postquam coaeternitatem trium personarum pro modulo¹ facultatis nostrae insinuavimus, iam de earundem aequalitate aliquid eloqui superest. Fides enim catholica sicut coaeternas, ita et coaequales tres personas asserit. Aequalis est enim in omnibus Patri Filius, et Patri et Filio Spiritus sanctus; quia ut Augustinus in libro de Fide ad Petrum,² breviter aperiens, quomodo intelligatur aequalitas, docet: « Nullus horum alium aut praecedit aeternitate aut excedit magnitudine aut superat potestate; quia nec Filio nec Spiritu sancto, . . .	Now after we have introduced [insinuavimus] the coeternity of the Three Persons according to the little measure¹ of our ability, there already remains to say something of the equality of the Same. For the Catholic Faith asserts that just as (They are) coeternal, so also the Three Persons (are) coequal. For the Son is equal in all (things) to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to the Father and to the Son; because as (St.) Augustine in the book On the Faith to Peter,² briefly revealing, in what manner (Their) equality is understood, teaches: « None of Them either precedes the Other in eternity or exceeds (Him) in magnitude or surpasses (Him) in power; because neither than the Son or the Holy Spirit, . . .
¹ Ed. 1 modico. ² Cap. I. n. 4; cfr. August. libr. VI. de Trinitate c. 5. n. 7. — Paulo supra ante Augustinus solummodo Vat. et edd. 4, 6, 8, male addunt ait.	¹ Edition 1 reads the modicum [modo] for the little measure [modulo]. ² Chapter I, n. 4; cf. (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity, Bk. VI, ch. 5, n. 7. — A little above this before (St.) Augustine only the Vatican edition and editions 4, 6 and 8, badly add says [ait].

p. 336

quantum ad naturae divinae unitatem pertinet, aut anterior aut maior est Pater nec Filius Spiritu sancto. Aeternum quippe et sine initio est, quod Filius de Patris natura existit; et aeternum ac sine initio est, quod Spiritus sanctus de natura Patris Filiique procedit. Ob hoc ergo tres unum recte credimus et dicimus Deum, quia una prorsus aeternitas, una immensitas, una naturaliter trium personarum est divinitas ». Ecce breviter assignavit Augustinus, in quo trium personarum consistat aequalitas, scilicet quia alia aliam non excellit aut aeternitate aut magnitudine aut potestate.	as much as pertains to the unity of the Divine Nature, is the Father anterior nor greater, nor the Son than the Holy Spirit. Indeed, it is eternal and without a beginning, that the Son exists from the Nature of the Father, and it is eternal and without a beginning, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Nature of the Father and the Son. Because of this, therefore, we believes rightly that the Three (are) One and say that (They are) God, because in a word there is, according to nature [naturaliter], one Eternity, one Immensity, one Divinity of the Three Persons ». Behold (St.) Augustine briefly assigned, in what the equality of the Three Persons consists, namely, because One does exceed the Other either in eternity, or in magnitude, or in power.
Cap. II. Quod aeternitas et magnitudo et potentia in Deo unum est, etsi videantur esse diversa.	Chapter II. That eternity and magnitude and power in God is one, even if they seem to be diverse.
Cumque enumerentur ista quasi diversa, in Deo tamen unum et idem sunt, scilicet essentia divina simplex et incommutabilis. Unde Augustinus in libro septimo de Trinitate:¹ « Non alio magnus, alio Deus est, sed eo magnus, quo Deus; quia non aliud ille est magnum esse, aliud Deum esse. Eadem quippe eius magnitudo est, quae virtus, et eadem essentia, quae magnitudo ». Pater ergo et Filius simul una essentia et una magnitudo. Ita etiam et potentia Dei essentia divina est. Unde Augustinus in septimo libro Confessionum:² « Voluntas et potentia Dei Deus ipse est ». Aeternitas quoque Dei essentia divina est. Quod Augustinus ostendit super illum locum Psalmi:³ In generationem et generationem anni tui dicens: « Est generatio generationum, quae non transit, collecta de omnibus generationibus, id est sanctis. In illa erunt anni Dei, qui non transeunt, id est aeternitas Dei. Non enim sunt aliud anni Dei, aliud ipse, sed anni Dei aeternitas Dei est. Aeternitas vero ipsa Dei substantia est, nihil habens mutabile ». Inconcusse igitur teneamus, quod unum et idem est, scilicet essentia divina, Dei aeternitas, potentia, magnitudo; et tamen consuevit Scriptura haec et his similia quasi distincta⁴ ponere. In his ergo verbis trium personarum aequalitatem breviter complexus est Augustinus. Quia alius alium nec aeternitate nec magnitudine nec potentia superat. Quod autem aeternitate aliqua trium personarum aliam non excedat, supra ostensum est,⁵ ubi coaeternitas trium personarum insinuata est.	And since these are enumerated as diverse, yet in God they are one and the Same, that is, the Divine Essence, simple and incommutable. Whence (St.) Augustine in the seventh book On the Trinity (says):¹ « He is not by one great, by another God, but (is) great by this, whereby (He is) God; because is it not one (thing) ‘to be great’, another ‘to be God’. Indeed His magnitude is the same, which (His) virtue (is), and (His) Essence is the same, which (His) magnitude is ». Therefore the Father and the Son are together [simul] the one Essence and the one magnitude. Thus also the power of God is the Divine Essence. Wherefore (St.) Augustine in the seventh book of The Confessions (says):² « The will and power of God is God Himself ». The eternity of God is also the Divine Essence. Which (St.) Augustine shows on that passage of the Psalm:³ Unto generation and generation Thy years saying: « There is a generation of generations, which does not pass away, gathered from all the generations, that is from the Saints [sanctis]. In those shall be the years of God, which do not pass away, that is the eternity of God. For the years of God are not one thing, He Himself another, but the eternity of God is the years of God. But the very eternity of God is (His) Substance, having nothing changeable ». Therefore, let us hold unshakably [inconcusse], that It is one and the Same, that is, the Divine Essence, God’s Eternity, Power, Magnitude; and yet Scripture is accustomed to posit these and (those) similar to these as if distinct.⁴ In these words, therefore, (St.) Augustine briefly comprises [complexus est] the equality of the Three Persons. Because neither in eternity nor magnitude nor power does One surpass the Other. But that Anyone of the Three Persons does not exceed Another, has been shown above,⁵ where the coeternity of the Three Persons was introduced.
Cap. III. Quod aliqua personarum aliam non excedit magnitudine, quia non est maior una pesona quam alia, nec maius aliquid duae quam una, nec tres quam duae vel una.	Chapter III That none of the Persons exceeds the Other in magnitude, because one Person is not greater than the Other, nor (are) Two something more than One, nor Three than Two and/or One.
Nunc igitur superest ostendere, quod magnitudine vel potentia alius alium non excedat; et prius de magnitudine videamus. Sciendum est ergo, quia Pater non est maior Filio, nec Pater vel Filius maior Spiritu sancto, nec maius aliquid duae personae simul sunt quam una, nec tres simul maius aliquid quam duae, nec maior est essentia in tribus quam in duabus nec in duabus quam in una, quia tota est in singulis. Unde Ioannes Damascenus⁶ ait: « Confitemur Deitatis naturam omnem perfecte esse in singula suarum hypostaseon, id est personarum: omnem in Patre, omnem in Filio, omnem in Spiritu sancto. Ideoque perfectus Deus Pater, perfectus Deus Filius, perfectus Deus Spiritus sanctus ».	Now, therefore, it remains to show, that in magnitude and/or in power One doest not exceed the Other; and first let us see concerning magnitude. It must be known, therefore, that the Father is not greater than the Son, nor the Father and/or the Son greater than the Holy Spirit, nor Two Persons together something greater than One, nor Three together something greater than Two, nor a greater Essence in Three than in Two, nor in Two than in One, because the Whole is in Each. Wherefore (St.) John Damascene⁶ says: « We confess all the Nature of the Deity to perfectly be in each one of Their Hypostases, that is, Persons: all in the Father, all in the Son, all in the Holy Spirit. And for that reason the perfect God the Father, the perfect God the Son, the perfect God the Holy Spirit ».
Cap. IV. Quo modo dicitur Pater esse in Filio et Filius in Patre et Spiritus sanctus in utroque.	Chapter IV In what manner is the Father said to be “in the Son” and the Son “in the Father” and the Holy Spirit “in” Each.
Et inde est, quod Pater dicitur esse in Filio et Filius in Patre et Spiritus sanctus in utroque et singulus in singulis. Unde Augustinus in libro de Fide ad Petrum:⁷ « Propter unitatem naturalem totus Pater in Filio et Spiritu sancto est, totus quoque Spiritus sanctus in Patre et Filio est. Nullus horum extra quemlibet ipsorum est propter naturae divinae unitatem ». Ecce hic aperit aliquatenus — non enim potest plene tantum ab homine reserari arcanum — ex qua intelligentia dicatur singula personarum tota esse in aliis. Unde etiam Hilarius ista interius perquirens in libro tertio de Trinitate⁸ ait: « Affert plerisque obscuritatem sermo Domini, cum dicit: Ego in Patre, et Pater in me est; nec immerito. Natura enim intelligentiae humanae rationem dicti huius non capit, nec exemplum aliquod rebus divinis comparatio humana praestabit; sed quod inintelligibile⁹ est homini, Deo esse possibile est. Cognoscendum itaque atque intelligendum est, quid sit illud: Ego in Patre, et Pater in me est; si tamen comprehendere hoc ita ut est valebimus, ut quod . . .	And hence it is, that the Father is said to be “in the Son” and the Son “in the Father” and the Holy Spirit “in” Each and Each One “in” Each. Whence (St.) Augustine in the book On the Faith to Peter (says):⁷ « On account of the natural unity the whole Father is in the Son and Holy Spirit, the whole Holy Spirit, too, is in the Father and the Son. None of These is outside of Any of Them on account of the unity of the Divine Nature ». Behold here he reveals [aperit] to some extent — for something so arcane [tantum arcanum] cannot be fully unbolted by man — out of what understanding Each of the Persons is said to be “whole” “in” the Others. Whence even (St.) Hilary, seeking eagerly after this, interiorly, says in the third book On the Trinity:⁸ « The sermon of the Lord bears off obscurity from very many (of His sayings), when He says: I (am) in the Father, and the Father is in Me; nor undeservedly. For the nature of human intelligence does not grasp the reckoning of this saying, nor will a human comparison offer any example for divine things; but what is unintelligible⁹ to man, is possible for God to be [esse possibile]. And so there must be cognized and understood, what this is: I (am) in the Father, and the Father is in Me; if, however, we will prevail to comprehend this such as it is, that what. . .
¹ Cap. 1. n. 1. ² Cap. 4. n. 6. — Mox solummodo Vat. et ed. 4 male omittunt ipse post Deus. ³ Psalm. 101, 25; Augustini Enarrat. serm. 2. n. 10. August. legit cum Septuag.: In generatione generationem; Magister vero iuxta Vulgatam; Vat. cum aliis edd., excepta 8, in generatione. — Mox Vat. et plures edd. omittunt dicens, contradicentibus omnibus codd. et edd. 1, 8. — Magister non verbotenus recitat Augustinum, cuius verba sunt: « Est quaedam generatio generationum; in illa erunt anni tui. Quae est ista? Est quaedam, et si bene agnoscamus, in illa erimus, et anni Dei in nobis erunt. Quomodo in nobis erunt? Quomodo ipse Deus in nobis erit; unde dictum est (I. Cor. 15, 28.), ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus. Non enim aliud anni Dei, et aliud ipse, sed anni Dei aeternitas Dei est: aeternitas ipsa Dei substantia est, quae nihil habet mutabile ». — In textu Magisteri ed. 1 pro sanctis legit Spiritus sancti, et edd. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 sancti. Paulo post codd. A C sunt loco erunt. ⁴ Vat. et aliae edd. contra edd. 1, 8 et cod. D perperam distincte. ⁵ Dist. IX. ⁶ De Fide orthodoxa, libr. III. c. 6. — Propositio praecedens quoad sensum et aliqua verba sumta sunt ex August. libr. VI. de Trinitate, c. 10.n. 12; vel etiam c. 8. n. 9. ⁷ Cap. 1. n. 4. ⁸ Num. 1. — Locus Scripturae est Ioan. 14, 11. ⁹ Vat. cum ceteris edd. non intelligibile, contradicentibus codd. omnibus et originali. Mox post Deo Vat. cum edd., exceptis 1, 8 contra originale et codd. omittit esse.	¹ Chapter 1, n. 1. ² Chapter 4, n. 6. — Next only the Vatican edition and edition 4 badly omit Himself [ipse] after God [Deus]. ³ Psalm 101:25; (St.) Augustine’s, Ennarations, sermon 2, n. 10. (St.) Augustine reads from the Septuagint: From generation unto generation [In generatione generationem], but Master (Peter) according to the Vulgate; the Vatican edition together with the other editions, except edition 8, reads In generation [in generatione]. — Next the Vatican edition and very many editions omit saying [dicens], with all the codices and editions 1 and 8 contradicting this. — Master (Peter) does not cite (St.) Augustine verbatim, whose words were: « There is a certain generation of generations; in those shall Thy years be. What is that (generation) of Thine? It is a certain one, and if we well acknowledge it, we shall be in it, and the years of God shall be in us. In what manner shall they be in us? In the manner in which God shall be in us; whence there has been said (1 Cor. 15:28), that God is all in all. For the years of God (are) not one thing, and He Himself another, but the eternity of God is the years of God: the eternity itself of God is the Substance, which has nothing changeable ». — In the text of Master (Peter) edition 1 for from the Saints [sanctis] reads of the Holy Spirit [Spiritus sancti], and editions 2, 3, 5, ,7 and 9 read of the Holy One [sancti]. A little after this codices A and C have are [sunt] for shall be [erunt]. ⁴ The Vatican edition and the other editions, contrary to editions 1 and 8 and codex D, faultily read distinctly [distincte]. ⁵ Distinction IX. ⁶ On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. III, ch. 6. — The preceding proposition in regard to it sense and the other words have been taken from (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity, Bk. VI, ch. 10, n. 12, and/or even ch. 8, n. 9. ⁷ Chapter 1, n. 4. ⁸ Number 1. — The text of Scripture is John 14:11. ⁹ The Vatican edition, together with all the other editions, reads not intelligible, with all the codices and the original contradicting this. Next the Vatican edition, together with the editions, except edition 1 and 8, and contrary to the original and the codices, reads is possible for God [Deo possibile est] .

p. 337

natura rerum pati non posse aestimatur, id divinae veritatis ratio consequatur ». « Patrem igitur in Filio et Filium in Patre esse, plenitudo in utroque divinitatis perfecta est »;¹ « quia plenitudo deitatis est in Filio. Quod in Patre est, hoc et in Filio est; quod in Ingenito est, hoc in Genito; alter ab altero et uterque unum »: « is scilicet qui est, nihil habens quod non sit etiam in eo, a quo est »;² « non duo unus, sed alius in alio, quia non aliud in utroque »; « ut unum in fide nostra sint uterque, non unus: nec eundem utrumque, nec aliud confitemur; quia Deum ex Deo natum nec eundem nativitas, nec aliud esse permittit ».³ « Eandem igitur in utroque et virtutis similitudinem et deitatis plenitudinem confitemur, quia Veritas dicit: Ego in Patre, et Pater in me est. Omnia enim Filius accepit a Patre ».⁴ « Nam si partem eiusdem, qui genuit, accepit, neuter ergo perfectus est: deest enim ei unde decessit, nec plenitudo in eo erit, qui ex portione constiterit. Neuter ergo perfectus est, si plenitudinem suam et qui genuit amittit, nec qui natus est consequitur ».⁵ « Fateamur ergo, quod Pater est in Filio et Filius in Patre, Deus in Deo », ut idem Hilarius ait in septimo libro de Trinitate,⁶ « non per duplicem convenientium generum coniunctionem, nec per insitivam capacioris substantiae naturam, sed per naturae unitam similitudinem, per nativitatem viventis naturae ex vivente natura; dum res non differt, dum naturam Dei non degenerat nativitas, dum non aliud aliquid ex Deo quam Deus nascitur, dum nihil in his novus est, nihil alienum, nihil separabile ». Ecce his verbis, prout humana permittit infirmitas, intelligi potest,⁷ ex quo sensu Christus dixerat, se esse in Patre et Patrem in se. Ex eodem etiam sensu intelligitur Spiritus sanctus esse in utroque et singula personarum in singulis; quia scilicet in singulis est eadem plenitudo divinitatis et unita similitudo naturae; quia non est maior divina natura in aliqua harum personarum, sed unius et indifferentis naturae sunt hae tres personae. Ideoque altera in altera esse dicitur, ut praedictum est. Unde Ambrosius⁸ praedictorum verborum sententiam nobis aperiens super Epistolam secundam ad Corinthios quinto ait: « Per hoc intelligitur Pater esse in Filio et Filius in Patre, quia una est eorum substantia. Ibi enim est unitas, ubi nulla est⁹ diversitas ». Ecce tribus illustrium virorum testimoniis, scilicet Augustini, Hilarii atque Ambrosii, in idem concurrentibus revelatione Spiritus sancti in eis loquentis pie credere volentibus ostenditur — tamen quasi per speculum et in aenigmate¹⁰ — qualiter accipiendum sit, cum dicitur Pater in Filio esse vel Filius in Patre vel Spiritus sanctus in utroque.	by the nature of the things be appraised not able to suffer, that, the reckoning of Divine Truth attain [consequatur] ». « (Because) the Father, therefore, is in the Son and the Son in the Father, the fullness of the Divinity in Each is perfect »;¹ « because the fullness of the Deity is in the Son. What is in the Father, this also is in the Son; what is in the Unbegotten, this is in the Begotten; the One by the Other and Each the One »: « He, that is, who is, having nothing which is not also in the One, from whom He is »;² « not Two One, but the One in the Other, because non else in Each »; « as the One (Being) in our Faith are Each, not One (Person): we confess neither that Each is the Same (Person), nor Another; because the nativity permits that the God born out of God is neither the Same (Person as the Father), nor an Other (than Himself) ».³ « Therefore we confess in Each the same similitude of virtue and fullness of Deity, because the Truth says: I (am) in the Father and the Father is in Me. For the Son accepted all from the Father ».⁴ « For if He accepted part of the Same, who begot (Him), therefore Neither is perfect: for it is lacking to Him whence He has departed [decesit], nor will there be a fullness in Him, who will have been established out of a portion. Therefore Neither is perfect, if both He who begot loses His own fullness, and He who has been born does not attain it ».⁵ « Let us say [fateamur], therefore, that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, God in God », as the same (St.) Hilary says in the seventh book On the Trinity,⁶ « not through a twofold conjunction of convening genera, nor through the engrafted [insitivam] nature of a more capable substance, but through the united similitude of nature, through the nativity of a living Nature out of a living Nature; while the thing does not differ, while the nativity does not degenerate the Nature of God, while not something out of God other than God is born, while None among Them is new, nothing from elsewhere, nothing separable ». Behold by these words, insofar as human infirmity permits, there can be understood,⁷ out of which sense Christ said, that He is in the Father and the Father in Him. Out of the same sense too is the Holy Spirit understood to be in Each and Each of the Persons in Each, because, namely, in Each there is the same fullness of the Divinity and the united similitude of nature; because there is not a greater Divine Nature in any of these Persons, but of the one and un-differing Nature are these Three Persons. And for that reason the One is said to be “in” the Other, as has been said beforehand. Whence Ambrose,⁸ opening for us the sense [sententia] of the aforesaid words, says on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, in the fifth (chapter): « Through this the Father is understood to be in the Son and the Son in the Father, because one is Their Substance. For there is a unity, where there is⁹ no diversity ». Behold by three testimonies of illustrious men, that is, of (Sts.) Augustine, Hilary and Ambrose, concurring in the same by the revelation of the Holy Spirit speaking in them, there is shown to those willing to believe in a pious manner — yet as through a mirror and in an enigma¹⁰ — in what manner it must be accepted, when the Father is said to be “in the Son” and/or the Son “in the Father” and/or the Holy Spirit “in” Each.
PARS. II.	PART II
Sed iam nunc ad propositum redeamus coeptoque insistamus ostendentes, quod magnitudine nulla trium pesonarum aliam superat, quia nulla maior aliis, nec maius aliquid sunt duae quam una, nec tres quam duae, nec maior Deus quam singuli eorum; quia singulus illorum perfectus est, nec est quo crescat illa perfectio.¹¹	But now presently let us return to the proposed, and having begun let us set out, showing, that in magnitude None of the Three Persons surpasses the Other, because None (is) greater than the Others, nor are Two something greater than One, nor Three than Two, nor a God greater than Each of Them; because Each One of Them is perfect, nor is there (anything) whereby that perfection grows.¹¹
Cap. V. Quod nulla personarum pars est in Trinitate.	Chapter V That None of the Persons is a part in the Trinity.
Nec est aliqua trium personarum pars Dei vel divinae essentiae, quia singula harum verus et plenus Deus est et tota et plena divina essentia est; et ideo nulla istarum in Trinitate pars est. Unde Augustinus in libro secundo contra Maximinum¹² haereticum sic ait: « Putas, Deum Patrem cum Filio et Spiritu sancto unum Deum esse non posse; times enim, ne Pater sit pars unius Dei, qui constet ex tribus. Noli hoc timere, nulla enim fit partium in deitatis unitate divisio. Unus est Deus Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, id est ipsa Trinitas unus est Deus. Ergo, inquis, Deus Pater est pars Dei; absit ».	Nor is Any of the Three Persons a part of God and/or of the Divine Essence, because Each of Them is the true and full God and is both the whole and full Divine Essence; and for that reason None of Them is a part in the Trinity. Whence (St.) Augustine in the second book Against Maximinus the Heretic,¹² speaks thus: « Do you think, that God the Father cannot be the One God with the Son and the Holy Spirit; for you fear, that the Father may be a part of the One God, who is constituted out of Three. Do not fear this, for no division of parts comes to be in the unity of the Deity. One God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, that is the Trinity Itself is the One God. Therefore, you ask, “Is God the Father a part of God?”; far be it ».
Cap. VI. Quare tres personae dicantur summe unum.	Chapter VI For what reason are the Three Persons said to be most highly one.
« Tres enim personae sunt Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres, quia unius substantiae sunt, . . .	« For there are Three Persons, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and these Three, because They are of the one Substance, . . .
¹ Ibid. n. 23; et quod sequitur n. 4; in quo textu Vat. et aliae edd. contra codd. et originale legunt divinitatis pro deitatis. ² Ibid. n. 23, et deinde n. 4; in quo textu cod. C post non duo adiicit sunt. ³ Libr. I. n. 47. ⁴ Libr. III. n. 23. — Locus Scripturae est Ioan. 14, 11. ⁵ Libr. III. n. 8, in quo circa initium Vat. cum paucis edd. deesset pro deest, et paulo infra post neuter ergo edd. 1, 8 addunt eorum. ⁶ Num. 39; sed verba: per naturae unitam similitudinem, sumta sunt ex n. 37. — In textu Vat. cum aliis edd. contra 1, 8 et codd. post in Patre addit et. Deinde Vat. et edd. 4, 6, 9 male legunt insitam pro insitivam. Denique post viventis auctoritate codd. A B E et edd. 1, 8 adiecimus naturae. Hilarius: viventis ex vivente naturae. ⁷ Vat. et aliae edd., exceptis 1, 8 aperitur pro intelligi potest contra omnes codd. ⁸ Vel potius Ambrosiater, ut communiter citatur, qui, teste Augustino, est quidam Hilarius, non Pictaviensis, sed quidam diaconus Romanus, ut videtur, auctor Commentarii in XII Epistolas beati Pauli (in appendice Operum Ambrosii). Contra eundem S. Hieronymus in Dialogo seu altercatione contra Luciferianos n. 25. scripsisse fertur. — Locus Apostoli ab ipso explicatus est II. Cor. 5, 19. — Ante vocem Ambrosius edd. 1, 8 bene addunt etiam. ⁹ Vat. ed aliae edd., excepta 5, omittunt est contra omnes codd. et originale. ¹⁰ I. Cor. 13, 12. — Paulo supra ante concurrentibus sola Vat. male legit in eodem pro in idem. ¹¹ Praecedentia quoad sensum et aliqua verba sumta sunt ex August. libr. VI. de Trint. c. 8. n. 9, et c. 10. n. 12. — Vat. cum pluribus edd. post singuli et singulus habet bis horum loco eorum et illorum. ¹² Cap. 10. n. 1, et duo sequentes loci ibid. n. 2.	¹ Ibid., n. 23; and what follows is n. 4; in which text the Vatican edition and the other editions, contrary to the codices and to the original, read of the Divinity [divinitatis] for of the Deity [deitatis]. ² Ibid., n. 23, and then n. 4; in which text codex C after not Two [non duo] inserts are [sunt]. ³ Book I, n. 47. ⁴ Book III, n. 23. — The text of Scripture is Jn. 14:11. ⁵ Book III, n. 8, in which near the beginning the Vatican edition, together with a few editions, reads it would be lacking [deesset] for it is lacking [deest], and a little below this after Therefore Neither [neuter ergo] add of Them [eorum]. ⁶ Number 39; but the words: through the united similitude of the Nature [per naturae unitam similtudinem], have been taken from n. 37. — In the text the Vatican edition together with the other editions, contray to editions 1 and 8 and the codices, after in the Father [in Patre] add and [et]. Then the Vatican edition and editions 4, 6, and 9, badly read implanted [insitam] for engrafted [insitivam]. Then after the nativity of a living [nativitatem viventis], on the authority of codices A B and E and editions 1 and 8, we have inserted Nature [naturae]. (St.) Hilary writes: the nativity of a living Nature out of a Living One [nativitatem viventis ex vivente naturae]. ⁷ The Vatican edition and the other editions, except editions 1 and 8, has there is revealed [aperitur] for there can be understood [intelligi potest], contrary to all the codices. ⁸ And/or rather Ambrosiater, as he is commonly cited, who, according to the testimony of (St.) Augustine, is a certain Hilary, not of Poitiers, but a certain Roman Deacon, as it seems, the author of the Commentary on the 12 Epistles of Blessed Paul (in the appendix of the Works of St. Ambrose). It is said that St. Jerome wrote against the same in his Dialogue or Altercation against the Luciferians, n. 25. — The passage from the Apostle explained by him is 2 Cor. 5:19. — Before the word Ambrose [Ambrosius] editions 1 and 8 rightly add even [etiam]. ⁹ The Vatican edition and the other editions, except edition 5, omit there is [est], contrary to all the codices and the original. ¹⁰ 1 Cor. 13:12. — A little above this only the Vatican edition badly reads in the same [in eodem] for in the same (word) [idem]. ¹¹ The preceding, in regard to its sense, and the other words, have been taken from (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity, Bk. VI, ch. 8, n. 9, and ch. 19, n. 12. — The Vatican edition, together with very many editions, after Each [singuli] and Each One [singulus], twice have of These [horum] in place of of Them [eorum and illourm, respectively]. ¹² Chapter 10, n. 1, and the two following passages, ibid., n. 2.

p. 338

unum sunt et summe unum sunt, ubi nulla naturarum, nulla est diversitas voluntatum. Si enim natura unum essent, et consensione¹ non essent, non summe unum essent; si vero natura dispares essent, unum non essent. Hi ergo tres, quia² unum sunt propter ineffabilem coniunctionem Deitatis, qua ineffabiliter copulantur, unus Deus est ». « Pars ergo Trinitatis esse non potest quicumque unus³ in tribus. In Trinitate igitur, quae Deus est, et Pater Deus est, et Filius Deus est, et Spiritus sanctus Deus est, et simul hi tres unus Deus; nec huius Trinitatis tertia pars est una, nec maius aliquid duo quam unus est ibi, nec maius aliquid sunt omnes quam singuli, quia spiritualis, non corporalis est magnitudo. Qui potest capere, capiat;⁴ qui autem non potest, credat et oret, ut quod credit intelligat. Verum est enim quod dicitur per Prophetam:⁵ Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis ». His verbis aperte ostendit indifferentem magnitudinem trium personarum. Item in eodem:⁶ « Tu nempe dixisti, unum Deum non ex partibus esse compositum; et hoc de Patre tantum vis intelligi. Ille, inquis, virtus est ingenita, simplex. Et tamen in hac simplici virtute multa videris commemorare, cum dicis: Deus Deum genuit, bonus bonum genuit, sapiens sapientem, clemens clementem, potens potentem. Nunquid ergo bonitas et sapientia et clementia et potentia partes sunt unius virtutis, quam simplicem esse dixisti? Si dixeris, partes sunt: simplex ergo virtus ex partibus constat. Et simplex ista virtus, te definiente, unus est Deus: ergo Deum ex partibus compositum esse dicis. Non dico, inquis, non sunt ergo⁷ partes. Si ergo in una persona Patris et illa invenis quae plura videntur, et partes non invenis, quia una virtus simplex est: quanto magis Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus et propter individuam deitatem unus Deus est et propter uniuscuiusque proprietatem tres personae sunt et propter singulorum perfectionem partes unius Dei non sunt! Virtus est Pater, virtus est Filius, virtus est Spiritus sanctus. Hoc verum dicis; sed quod virtutem de virtute genitam et virtutem de virtute procedentem non vis eandem habere naturam, hoc falsum dicis, hoc contra fidem rectam et catholicam dicis ». His verbis aperte docetur, quod tres illae pesonae non sunt partes Dei vel divinae essentiae, nullaque illarum⁸ Trinitatis pars dicenda est nec una maior aliis.	are the One and are most highly One, where there is no diversity of natures, none of wills. For if They were one by Nature, and were not¹ in agreement, They would not be most highly One; but if They were disparate by Nature, They would not be One. These Three, therefore, because² They are One on account of the ineffable conjunction of the Deity, by which They are ineffably joined, the One God is ». « Therefore, part of the Trinity cannot be any One³ whosoever among the Three. Therefore, in the Trinity, which God is, both the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and these three together the One God; neither is a third part of this Trinity One (Person), nor is Two something more than One there, nor are All something more than Each, because (Their) magnitude is spiritual, not corporal. Who can grasp it, let him grasp it;⁴ but who cannot, let him believe and pray, to understand what he believes. For what is said through the Prophet is true:⁵ Unless you will have believed, you will not understand ». With these words he openly shows the un-differing magnitude of the Three Persons. Likewise in the same (chapter he says):⁶ « You, namely, have said, that the One God has not been composed out of parts, and you want that this be understood of the Father only. He, you say, is the unbegotten, simple, Virtue. And yet in this simple Virtue, you will see many things called to mind [multa commemorare], when you say: “God begot God”, “the Good One begot the Good”, “the Wise (begot) the Wise”, “the Clement (begot) the Clement”, “the Powerful One (begot) the Powerful”. Therefore are Goodness and Wisdom and Clemency and Power part of the one Virtue, which you have said is simple? If you will say, they are parts: therefore the simple virtue is established out of parts. And that simple Virtue of yours, by your definition, is the One God: therefore you say that God has been composed out of parts. I do not say it, you say it, there are, therefore,⁷ no parts. If, therefore, in the one Person of the Father you both find those which seem many, and you do not find parts, because the one Virtue is simple: how much more the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit both on account of the undivided Deity is the One God and on account of the property of each One are Three Persons and on account of the perfection of Each are not parts of the One God! “The Virtue is the Father, the Virtue is the Son, the Virtue is the Holy Spirit.” In this you speak the truth; but because you do not want that the virtue begotten from the Virtue, and the virtue proceeding form the Virtue to have the same Nature, in this you speak a falsehood, in this you speak against the right and Catholic Faith ». With these words there is openly taught, that those Three Persons are not parts of God and/or of the Divine Essence, and that None of Those⁸ is to be said (to be) “a part of the Trinity” nor (is) One (said to be) “greater than” the Others.
Cap. VII. Cum dicimus, tres personas esse unam essentiam, nec ut genus de speciebus nec ut speciem de individuis praedicamus, quia non est essentia genus et persona species, vel essentia species et personae individua.	Chapter VII When we say, that the Three Persons are the one Essence, neither do we predicate It as a genus of species nor as a species of individuals, because it is not (that) the Essence is a genus and a Person a species, and/or the Essence a species and the Persons individuals.
Hic adiiciendum est, quod tanta est aequalitas trium personarum atque indifferens magnitudo, quod cum dicamus, tres personas unam esse⁹ essentiam vel substantiam, neque ut genus de speciebus, neque ut speciem de individuis praedicamus. Non enim essentia divina genus est et tres pesonae species, vel essentiae divina species et tres personae individua. Quod Augustinus rationibus probabilibus atque irrefragabilibus aperte demonstrat in libro septimo de Trinitate¹⁰ ita dicens: « Si essentia genus est, species autem persona, ut nonnulli sentiunt, oportet appellari tres substantias, ut appellantur tres personae; sicut cum sit animal genus et equus species, appellantur tres equi, iidemque tria animali. Non enim species ibi pluraliter dicitur et genus singulariter, ut si diceretur, tres equi sunt unum animal; sed sicut tres equi speciali nomine, ita tria animalia generali nomine dicuntur ». Cum ergo tres personas unam fateamur esse essentiam, non tres essentias, cum tres¹¹ equi tria animali dicantur, non unum: patet, nomine essentiae non significari genus nec nomine personae speciem.	Here there must be inserted, that so great is the equality of the Three Persons and indifferent the magnitude, that when we say, that the Three Persons are⁹ the one Essence and/or Substance, neither do we predicate (Them) as a genus of species, nor as a species of individuals. For the Divine Essence is not a genus and the Three Persons species, and/or the Divine Essence a species and the Three Persons individuals. Which (St.) Augustine openly demonstrates with probable and irrefragable reasons in the seventh book On the Trinity,¹⁰ saying thus: « If the Essence is the genus, but a Person the species, as not a few think [sentiunt], one is bound to name the Three substances, as They are named “Three Persons”; just as since “animal” is a genus and “horse” a species, they are named three “horses”, and the same three “animals”. For There are not said to be species in the plural and a genus in the singular, as if there would be said, “three horses are one animal”; but just as they are said (to be) three “horses” by the name of a species, so three “animals” by the name of a genus ». Therefore since we say that the Three Persons are the one Essence, not Three essences, since three horses are said (to be)¹¹ “three animals”, not one: it is clear, that by the name “essence” a genus is not signified, nor by the name “person” a species.
« Si vero dicunt, nomine personae non speciem significari, sed aliquid singulare atque individuum, et nomine essentiae speciem intelligi, ut persona non dicatur sicut homo, sed quomodo dicitur hic homo, velut Abraham, Isaac et Iacob vel quis alius, qui etiam digito praesens demonstrari possit; sic quoque illos eadem ratio confutabit. Sicut enim dicuuntur Abraham, Isaac et Iacob tria individua, ita tres homines et tria animalia. Cur ergo Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, si secundum genus et speciem et individuum ista disserimus, non ita dicuntur tres essentiae, ut tres personae »?¹²	« On the other hand, if they say, that by the name “person” a species is not signified, but something singular and individual (is), and by the name “essence” there is understood a species, as a “person” is not said just as “man” is said, but the manner “this man” is said, just as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and/or anyone else, who could also be demonstrated to be present by a finger, so also shall the same reckoning confute them. For just as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are said (to be) “three individuals”, so “three men” and “three animals”. Why, therefore, are the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, if we discuss Them according to genus and species and individual, not thus said (to be) “three essences”, as (They are said to be) “Three Persons” »?¹²
Alio quoque modo idem probat Augustinus, scilicet quod essentia divina non est genus, nec personae species, vel essentia non est species nec personae . . .	In another manner, (St.) Augustine also proves the same, that is, that the Divine Essence is not a genus, nor the Persons species, and/or (that) the Essence is not a species nor the Persons . . .
¹ Vat. et edd. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 addunt unum, contradicentibus aliis edd., codd. et originali. Paulo post cum originali, codd. et ed. 1 expunximus summe ante non essent. ² Edd. 1, 6, 8 et orginale qui. ³ Vat. et alia edd., exceptis 1, 6, addunt est contra codd. et originale. ⁴ Matth. 19, 12. ⁵ Isai. 7, 9. iuxta lectionem Septuag. et Augustini. Vulgata. Si non credideritis, non permanebitis. ⁶ Ibid. n. 3. ⁷ Vat. et plures edd. omittunt ergo contra originale codd. et edd. 1, 6. Mox Vat. et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 non inveneris loco non invenis. ⁸ Codd. B C D E earum, cod. A harum. Deinde in fine ante aliis solummodo Vat. et edd. 4, 9 non bene addunt est. ⁹ Vat. et ed. 4 omittunt esse. ¹⁰ Cap. 6. n. 11. — Vat. contra edd. 1, 8 et codd. omittit ita ante dicens. Verba vero Augustini sic leguntur in originali: « Nam si genus est essentia, species autem substantia sive persona, ut nonnulli sentiunt, omitto illud quod iam dixi, oportere appellari tres essentias, ut appellantur tres substantiae vel personae, sicut appellantur tres equi, eademque animalia tria, cum sit species equus, animal genus. Neque enim species ibi pluraliter dicta est et genus singulariter, tanquam diceretur tres equi, unum animal; sed sicut tres equi speciali nomine, ita tria animalia generali nomine ». ¹¹ Vat. et edd. 4, 8, 9 hic male adiiciunt esse. ¹² Loc. cit. immediate post; in quo textu Vat. et plures edd. bis omittunt et post Isaac.	¹ The Vatican edition and editions 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 add one [unum], with the other editions, codices and the original contradicting this. Similarly, together with the original, the codices and edition 1, we have expunged most highly [summe] from this clause, which otherwise would read and were not most highly in agreement [et consensione summe non essent]. ² Editions 1, 6, and 8 and the original read who [qui] for because They [quia]. ³ The Vatican edition and the other editions, except edition 1 and 6, read whosoever is among the Three [quicumque unus est in tribus] for whosoever among the Three [quicumque unus in tribus], contrary to the codices and the original. ⁴ Mt. 19:12. ⁵ Isaiah 7:9, according to the Septuagint and (St.) Augustine. The Vulgate reads: If you will not have believed, you shall not remain [Si non credideritis, non permanebitis]. ⁶ Ibid., n .3. ⁷ The Vatican edition and very many editions omit therefore [ergo], contrary to the original, to the codices and to editions 1 and 6. Next the Vatican edition and editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9, read you will not have found [non inveneris] for you do not find [non invenis]. ⁸ Codices B C D and E have of Them [earum], codex A has of These [harum]. then at the end before One [aliis] only the Vatican edition and editions 4 and 9, add not so well is [est]. ⁹ The Vatican edition and edition 4 omit are [esse]. ¹⁰ Chapter 6, n. 11. — The Vatican edition, contrary to editions 1 and 8 and the codices, omits thus [ita]. But the words of (St.) Augustine are read in the original in this manner: « For if the genus is the Essence, but the species the Substance or Person, as not a few think, I omit that which I have already said, that one is bound to name the Three essences, as the Three are named substances and/or Persons, just as there are said (to be) three horses and the same three animals, since the species is “horse”, “animal” the genus. For neither has species been said there in the plural and genus in the singular, as if three horses were said (to be) one animal; but just as (there is said to be) three “horses” by the name of a species, so three “animas” by the name of a genus ». ¹¹ The Vatican edition and editions 4, 8 and 9, here badly add to be [esse, which however is required in English when dicere is rendered as to say]. ¹² Loc. cit., immediately after this; in which text the Vatican edition and very many editions twice omit and [et] after Isaac [Iasaac].

p. 339

individua. « Una, inquit,¹ essentia non habet species, sicut unum animal non habet species unius essentiae. Pater ergo et Filius et Spiritus sanctus non sunt tres species unius essentiae: divina ergo essentia genus non est. Sed nec species est essentia divina et personae individua, sicut homo species est, individua autem Abraham, Isaac et Iacob. Si enim essentia species est, ut homo, sicut unus homo non dicitur esse Abraham, Isaac et Iacob, ita non dicetur² una essentia esse tres personae. Non itaque secundum genus et species ista dicimus ».	individuals. « The one Essence », he says,¹ « has no species, just as one animal does not have a species of one essence. Therefore the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three species of the one Essence: therefore the Divine Essence is not a genus. But neither is the Divine Essence a species and the Persons individuals, just as “man” is a species, but Abraham, Isaac, and Jacobs individuals. For if the Essence is a species, as (is) “man”, just as one man is not said to be Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, thus the one Essence will not be said² to be the Three Persons. And so not according to genus and species do we say These ».
Cap. VIII. Quod nec secundum materialem causam dicuntur tres personae una essentia.	Chapter VIII That neither according to a material cause are the Three Persons said to be the one Essence.
Notandum etiam, quod essentia divina non est materia trium personarum, ut Augustinus in eodem libro³ docet, « tanquam secundum communem eandemque materiam tres personae dicantur esse una essentia, sicut ex eodem auro si fierent tres statuae, diceremus tres statuas unum aurum. Non autem sic Trinitatem, id est tres personas, dicimus unam essentiam et unum Deum, tanquam ex una materia tria quaedam subsistant. In statuis enim aequalibus plus auri est tres simul quam singulae, et minus auri est una quam duae. In illa vero essentia Trinitatis nullo modo ita est ». Non ergo secundum materialem causam tres personas unam dicimus esse⁴ essentiam, sicut tres statuae dicuntur unum aurum.	It must also be noted, that the Divine Essence is not the matter of the Three Persons, as (St.) Augustine teaches in the same book,³ « just as if according to a common and same matter the Three Persons were said to be the one Essence, as if there statues were made out of the same gold, we would say that the three statues (are) the one piece of gold [unum aurum]. But not in this manner do we say that the Trinity, that is the Three Persons, (are) the one Essence and the One God, as if a certain Three subsist out of one matter. For in equal statutes three is more gold than each, and one is less gold than two. But in that Essence of the Trinity it is in no manner thus ». Not, therefore, according to a material cause do we say that the Three Persons are⁴ the one Essence, just as three statues are said (to be) the one piece of gold.
Cap. IX. Nec ita dicuntur tres personae una essentia, ut tres homines una natura vel unius naturae.	Chapter IX Nor are the Three Persons thus said to be the one Essence, as three men (are) one in nature and/or of one nature.
His quoque addendum est, quod tres personas non ita dicimus esse unam essentiam, ut Augustinus in eodem⁵ ait, vel unius essentiae, « sicut dicimus, aliquos tres homines eiusdem sexus et eiusdem temperationis corporis eiusdemque animi unam esse naturam vel unius naturae. Nam in his rebus non tantum est unus homo, quantum tres homines simul, et plus aliquid sunt homines duo quam unus homo, sicut et in statuis esse diximus; at in Deo non est ita. Non enim maior essentia est Pater et Filius quam solus Pater vel solus Filius, sed tres simul illae personae aequales sunt singulis ». Ex praemissis patet, quod tres personae dicuntur divina essentia nec secundum materialem causam, ut tres statuae unum aurum, nec secundum complexionis similitudinem, ut tres homines unius naturae, nec ut genus praedicatur de speciebus, vel ut species de individuis, id est continens de contentis, maius de minoribus.	To these too must be added, that we do not thus say that the Three Persons are the one Essence, as (St.) Augustine says in the same (book),⁵ and/or (are) of the one Essence, « just as we say, that any three men of the same sex and of the same self-control [temperationis] of the body and of the same spirit [animi] are one nature and/or of one nature. For among these things one man is not as much, as three men (are) together, and two men are something more than one man, just as we have said is also among statues; but in God it is not so. For not greater in Essence is the Father and the Son than the Father alone and/or the Son alone, but those Three Persons together are equal to Each ». From the aforementioned it is clear, that the Three Persons are said (to be) the Divine Essence neither according to a material cause, as three statues (are said to be) the one piece of gold, nor according to a similitude of complexion, as three men (are said to be) of one nature, nor as a genus is predicated of species, and/or a species of individuals, that is as one containing of the contained, more of the less.
His autem videtur adversari quae quidam sacrae Scripturae tractatores catholici in suis scriptis tradiderunt, in quibus significare videntur, quod essentia divina sit quoddam⁶ commune et universale, velut species; tres vero personae sint tria particularia, tria individua numero differentia. Unde Ioannes Damascenus, inter Doctores Graecorum magnus, in libro, quem de Trinitate scripsit,⁷ quem et papa Eugenius transferri facit, ait: « Communia et universalia praedicantur de subiectis sibi ipsis particularibus. Commune ergo substantia est, particulare vero hypostasis, id est persona. Particulare autem dicitur, non quod partem naturae habet, sed particulare numero, ut atomus, id est individuum. Numero enim et⁸ non natura differre dicuntur hypostases ». Item in eodem:⁹ « Substantia significat communem et circumplectivam speciem homoideon, id est similium specie hypostaseon, id est personarum, ut puta Deus, homo; hypostasis autem individuum demonstrat, id est Patrem, Filium et Spiritum sanctum, Petrum, Paulum et huiusmodi ». Ecce aperte dicit, substantiam esse univeralem, hypostasim vero particulare, et quod Deus est species, ut homo, et quod Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus sunt individua, sicut Petrus et Paulus, eo quod numero differunt; quae praemissae sententiae Augustini penitus contradicere videntur. Quid ergo dicemus ad haec? Hoc utique dicere possumus atque debemus, quod ea quae Augustinus tradidit superius, sine omni haesitatione tenenda sunt.	On the one hand, to these seem to be opposed (those), which certain Catholic commentators [tractatores] on Sacred Scripture, in their own writings, handed down, among which seem to signify, that the Divine Essence is a certain⁶ common and universal, just as a species; on the other hand, (they seem to signify that) the Three Persons are three particulars, three individuals differing in number. Whence (St.) John Damascene, great among the Doctors of the Greeks, in the book, which he wrote on the Trinity,⁷ which Pope Eugenius also caused to be translated, says: « Common and universal (names) are predicated of subjects particular to themselves. Therefore common is the Substance, but particular a Hypostasis, that is a Person. Moreover there is said “particular”, not because it has part of the nature, but (because it is) particular in number, as an atom, that is an individual. For in number and⁸ not by Nature are the Hypostases said to differ ». Likewise in the same:⁹ « “Substance” signifies the common and encompassing [circumplectivam] species of homoides, that is of hypostases similar in species, that is persons, as for example “God”, “man”; but a “hypostasis” demonstrates an individual, that is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Peter, Paul and (individuals) of this kind ». Behold he openly says, that a “substance” is universal, but a “hypostasis” particular, and that “God” is a species, as “man”, and that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are individuals, just as Peter and Paul, for this that They differ in number; which seems to entirely contradict the aforementioned sentence of (St.) Augustine. What, therefore, shall we say to this? This, indeed, we can and ought to say, that those which (St.) Augustine handed down above, without any [omni] hesitation are to be held.
Haec autem, quae hic dicuntur, licet in sermonis superficie aliquid a fide alienum resonare videantur, sane tamen intelligi queunt piumque lectorem atque . . .	But, these (words), which are here said, though they seem on the surface [superficie] of discourse to resonate something alien from the Faith, yet they can be sanely understood and do earnestly demand a most pious reader and . . .
¹ Loc. cit. parum infra; sed ultimas propositiones Magister contraxit ex diffusiore Augustini doctrina. — Mox auctoritate omnium codd. et ed. 1 inseriumus unius essentiae post animal non habet species. Deinde solummodo Vat. et ed. 8 post Pater ergo omittunt et. ² Vat. cum pluribus edd. contra edd. 1, 3, 7, 8 et codd. B C E dicitur; codd. A D bene diceretur. In fine codd. C D dicuntur pro dicimus. ³ Loc. cit. immediate post. ⁴ Vat. et aliae edd., excepta 1, contra omnes codd. adiiciunt substantiam vel. ⁵ Cap. 6. n. 11. — Prima propositio iam paulo ante relata est. In textu Vat. cum pluribus edd. contra edd. 1, 6, 8, codd. et originale omittit et ante in statuis. ⁶ Cod. D cum Vat. et edd. 3, 4, 6, 8 quiddam. Paulo ante post adversari codd. A C non male addunt ea. ⁷ Libr. III. de Fide orthodoxa c. 6, secundum versionem a Burgundione Pisamo iussu Eugenii III. factam et a Ioanne Conon valde impugnatam, qua tamen antiqui Shcolastici saec. 13 post Lombardum utebantur. Teste Fabricio (Bilioth. Graec. tom. 9.) nunquam typis impressa est. Subiicimus Damasceni verba iuxta versionem Mich. Lequien Od. Praed. (ed. Migne Patrolog. Graec. tom. 94.): « Quae communia et universalia sunt de particularibus sibi subiectis praedicantur. Commune porro quoddam est essentia, ut species; particulare persona. Particulare, inquam, non quod naturae partem quandam sibi vindicet, sed quia numero particulare est, ut individuum. Personae siquidem non natura, sed numero inter se distingui dicuntur ». — Vat. contra ed. 1 et codd. legit Graecorum maximus loco Graecorum magnus. ⁸ Vat. et edd. 4, 6 omittunt et, et immediate post contra originale, codd. et edd. 1, 6, 8 Vat. cum aliis edd. videntur loco dicuntur. ⁹ Cap. 4. — Ed. Migne: « Quod porro aliud sit substantia et aliud hypostatis, multoties a nobis dictum est, quodque substantia sive essentia communem speciem eiusdemque speciei personas (omoeidwn upostasewn) complectentem significet, ut Deus, homo; persona autem ac hypostasis individuum denotet, puta Patrem, Filium et Spiritum sanctum, Petrum, Paulum ».	¹ Loc. cit., a little below; but Master (Peter) contracted the final sentences from the more lengthy doctrine of (St.) Augustine. — Next on the authority of all the codices and edition 1, we have inserted of one essence after animal does not have a species [animal non habet species]. Then only the Vatican edition and edition 8 after Therefore, the Father [Pater ergo] omit and [et]. ² The Vatican edition, together with very many editions, contrary to editions 1, 3, 7 and 8, and codices B C and E, has is not said [non dicitur], codices A and D have well would not be said [non diceretur]. At the end, codices C and D have are These said [ista dicuntur] for do we say These [ista dicimus]. ³ Loc. cit., immediately after this. ⁴ The Vatican edition and the other editions, except edition 1, contrary to all the codices, inserts the Substance and/or [substantiam vel]. ⁵ Chapter 6, n. 11. — The first proposition has already been related a little before this. In the quote, the Vatican edition together with very many editions, contrary to editions 1, 6 and 8, the codices, and to the original, omits also [et] before among statues [in statuis]. ⁶ Codex D, together with the Vatican edition, and editions 3, 4, 6, and 8, reads a certain something [quiddam] for a certain [quoddam]. A little before this after to be opposed [adversari] codices A and C do not badly add those [ea]. ⁷ On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. III, ch. 6, according to the version by the Burgundian Pisamus, executed by order of Pope Eugene III, and greatly impugned by John Conon, which, however, after Lombard, was used by the ancient Scholastics of the 13th Century. According to the testimony of Fabricius (Biblioth. Graec., tome 9), it was never published in typeface. We offer the words of (St. John) Damascene according to the version of Friar Michael Lequien, O. P., (Migne’s, Patrologia Graeca., tome 94): « Those which are common and universal are predicated of particulars subject to themselves. Furthermore, a common, certain something is an essence, as a species; a particular, a person. I say a particular, not because it claims for itself a certain part of a nature, but because it is particular in number, as an individual. Persons, if indeed not by nature, but in number are said to be distinguished among themselves ». — The Vatican edition, contrary to edition 1 and the codices, reads the greatest [maximus] in place of great [magnus]. ⁸ The Vatican edition and editions 4 and 6, omit and [et], and immediately after this, contrary to the original, to the codices and to editions 1, 6, and 8, the Vatican edition, together with some editions, has do . . . seem to differ [differre videntur] in place of are . . . said to differ [differre dicuntur]. ⁹ Chapter 4. — In the edition of Migne: « Furthermore, that one is a substance and another a hypostasis, has be said by us many times, and that the “substance” or “essence” signifies the common species comprising also the persons of the same species (omoeidwn upostasewn), as “God”, “man”; but “person” and “hypostasis” denotes an individual, as for example the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Peter, Paul ».

p. 340

intellectorem plurimum efflagitant. In quorum explanatione mallem silens alios audire, quam loquendo malevolis detrahendi occasionem praestare. Videtur¹ tamen mihi ita posse accipi. Cum ait: substantia est commune, et hypostatis est particulare, non ita haec accepit, cum de Deo dicantur, ut accipiuntur in philosophica disciplina, sed per similitudinem eorum quae a philosophis dicuntur, locutus est; ut sicut ibi commune vel universale dicitur quod praedicatur de pluribus, particulare vero vel individuum quod de uno solo; ita hic² essentia divina dicta est universale, quia de omnibus personis simul et de singulis separatim dicitur, quia nec de aliis communiter nec de aliqua aliarum singulariter praedicatur. Propter similitudinem ergo praedicationis substantiam Dei³ dixit universale, et personae particularia vel individua. Propter hoc idem etiam eandem divinam essentiam dixit esse « speciem communem et circumplectivam similium specie personarum », quia sicut haec species homo de suis praedicatur individuis, velut de Petro, Paulo et aliis, nec isti specie differunt, sed conveniunt,⁴ ita Deus de tribus praedicatur personis, quae in divinitate non differunt, sed per omnia conveniunt. Hanc ergo similitudinem inter res sempiternas et res temporales perpendens Ioannes universalitatis et particularitatis nomine, quae rebus temporalibus proprie conveniunt, ad res aeternas transtulit; Augustinus vero, maiorem videns dissimilitudinem quam similitudinem inter res praedictas, ab excellentia Trinitatis praedicta nomina removit.	understander. In the explanation of which I prefer, as one silent, to hear others, than by speaking offer occasion to the malevolent for detracting (them). However, it seems¹ to me that (they) can be accepted thus. When there is said: “a substance is common, and a hypostasis is particular”, he did not accept these (words), when they are said of God, as they are accepted in the philosophical discipline, but they have been spoken through a similitude to those things which are said by philosophers; as just as there, that which is predicated of many is said (to be) “common” and/or “universal”, but what is (said) of one alone (is said to be) “particular” and/ “individual”; thus here² the Divine Essence has been said (to be) “universal”, because of all the Persons together and of Each separately It is said, because neither is It predicated of the Others commonly nor of Anyone of the Others singularly. On account of a similitude, therefore, of predication he said that the Substance of God³ (is) “universal”, and the Persons “particular” and/or “individual”. On this account the same also said that the same Divine Essence is « a species common and encompassing of Persons similar in species », because just as this species “man” is predicated of its own individuals, as of Peter, Paul and others, neither do they differ in species, but (rather) agree [conveniunt];⁴ thus “God” is predicated of the Three Persons, who do not differ in Divinity, but agree in all things [per omnia]. Weighing carefully, therefore, this similitude among things sempiternal and things temporal, (St.) John transferred it, in the name of universality and particularity, which properly convenes with temporal things, to eternal things; but (St.) Augustine, seeing a greater dissimilarity, than similarity among the aforementioned things, removed the aforesaid names from the excellence of the Trinity.
Cap. X. Utrum tres personae differant numero, quae proprietatibus distinctae sunt.	Chapter X Whether the Three Persons differ in number, who have been distinguished by properties.
Quod autem Ioannes dicit, hypostases differre numero, non natura, in eo quod non differre natura ait, verissime et sine scrupulo loquitur; quod vero dicit, differre numero, cavendum est, quomodo intelligatur; diversis enim modis dicuntur aliqua differre numero.	On the one hand, what (St.) John (Damascene) says, that the Hypostases differ in number, not in nature, in this that he says that They do not differ in nature, he speaks very truly and without scruple; on the other hand, what he says, that They differ in number, one must beware, in what manner it be understood; for in diverse ways are somethings said to differ in number.
Dicuntur enim aliqua differre numero, quando ita differunt, ut hoc non sit illud nec aliquid, quod illud est vel in ipso est: qualiter differunt Socrates et Plato et huiusmodi, quae apud philosophos dicuntur individua vel particularia; iuxta quem modum non possunt dici tres personae differre numero. Dicuntur quoque differre numero quae in enumeratione sive computatione non sibi adiunguntur, sed a se invicem discernuntur, ut cum de aliquibus rebus loquentes dicimus una, duae, tres, et secundum hunc modum forte dixit Ioannes hypostates, id est personas, differre numero. Possumus enim dicere: Pater est unus, et Pater et Filius sunt duo, et Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus sunt tres; et item: haec persona est una, et haec et illa sunt duae, et haec et illa et alia sunt tres. Convenientius tamen tres illae personae proprietatibus tantum distingui dicuntur, de quarum distinctione secundum proprietates in sequenti tractabitur.⁵ Nunc vero ad inceptum redeamus, quae dicta sunt repetentes, ut saepius versando familiarius innotescant.	For some are said to differ in number, when they so differ, that this is not that nor something, which that is and/or is in that: in this manner Socrates and Plato differ, and (things) of this kind, which among philosophers are said (to be) individuals and/or particulars; according to which manner there cannot be said that the Three Persons differ in number. Also, those are said to differ in number, which are not added [adiunguntur] to themselves in enumeration or computation, but are discerned by themselves, as when speaking of some things we say “one, two, three,” and according to this manner perhaps did (St.) John say, that the Hypostasis, that is the Persons, differ in number. For we can say: “the Father is one, the Father and the Son are two, and the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three”; and likewise: “this person is one, this and that are two, this and that and the other are three”. However, more fittingly are those Three Persons said to be distinguished by properties only, concerning the distinction of which according to properties there will be treatment in a following (distinction).⁵ But now let us return to the undertaking, so that those (things) which have been recently said, might more familiarly become known [innotescant] by being more often turned over (in the mind).
Cap. XI. Quare tres personae simul non maius aliquid quam una.	Chapter XI For what reason are the Three Persons together not something greater than One (Person).
Sciendum est ergo, « tantam aequalitatem esse in Trinitate, ut ait Augustinus in octavo libro de Trinitate,⁶ ut non solum Pater non sit maior quam Filius, sed nec Pater et Filius simul maius aliquid sint quam Spiritus sanctus, aut quaelibet persona minus aliquid sit quam ipsa Trinitas ». Quod autem ita sit, aliquo modo, si fieri potest, demonstrandum est. « Quantum ergo ipse Creator adiuvat, attendamus, inquit Augustinus in eodem,⁷ quodmodo in hac Trinitate duae vel tres personae non sunt maius aliquid quam una earum ».	It must be known, therefore, « that there is so great an equality in the Trinity », as (St.) Augustine says in the eighth book On the Trinity,⁶ « that not only is the Father not greater than the son, but neither are the Father and the Son together something more than the Holy Spirit, or any Person less something than the Trinity Itself ». Moreover, what thus may be, in another manner, must be demonstrated, if it can come to be. « As much, therefore, as the Creator Himself assists, let us attend », says (St.) Augustine in the same (book),⁷ « in what manner in this Trinity Two and/or Three Persons are not something more than One of Them ».
« Quod ibi magnum dicitur, aliunde magnum non est quam eo, quo vere est; quia ibi magnitudo ipsa veritas est et veritas essentia; non ergo ibi maius est quod verius non est. Non autem verius est Pater et Filius simul quam Pater solus vel Filius. Non ergo maius⁸ aliquid uterque simul quam singulus eorum. Et quia aeque vere est etiam Spiritus sanctus, ideo Pater et Filius simul non sunt aliquid maius quam ipse, quia nec verius sunt. Item in essentia veritatis hoc est verum esse, quod est esse, et hoc est esse, quod est magnum esse: hoc est ergo magnum esse quod verum esse. Quod igitur ibi aeque verum est, et aeque magnum est. Quod ergo ibi plus veritatis non habet, non habet plus magnitudinus. Plus autem veritatis non habet quod verius non est. Non est autem verius una persona qua alia, vel duae quam una, vel tres simul quam singula. Non ergo plus veritatis habet una quam alia, vel duae quam una, vel tres simul quam singula. Sic ergo et ipsa Trinitas non est maius aliquid quam unaquaeque ibi persona, sed tam magnum quam singula. Non enim ibi maior est quae verior non est, ut ipsa veritas est magnitudo ».⁹ Ecce modo convenienti et ratione catholica ostensum . . .	« There what is said (to be) “great”, is not great from elsewhere than by this, whereby It truly is; because There the magnitude is Truth Itself and the Truth the Essence; therefore, none is There more greatly [non ibi maius est], because none is there more truly. Moreover, not more truly is the Father and the Son together than the Father alone and/or the Son. Therefore Each together (is)⁸ not something greater than Each One of Them. And because equally truly is also the Holy Spirit, for that reason the Father and the Son together are not something more than He, because neither are They more truly. Likewise, in the Essence of Truth “to be true” is that, which it is “to be”, and “to be” is that, which it is “to be great”: therefore “to be great” is that, which “to be true” (is). Therefore, what There (is) equally true, is also equally great. Therefore, what There does not have more of Truth, has not more of magnitude. Moreover, what is not more truly, has not more of Truth. Moreover, not more truly is one Person, than Another, and/or Two than One, and/or Three together than Each One. Therefore, One does not have more of truth than Another, nor Two than one, nor Three together than Each One. Therefore in this manner too the Trinity Itself is not something greater than anyone Person There, but (is) as great as Each One. For there is not a greater There, which is not more true, as Truth Itself is the magnitude ». Behold, it has not been shown by fitting and catholic reason, . . .
¹ Sola Vat. videntur; et paulo infra accipit pro accepit et dicuntur pro dicantur. ² Vat. et edd. 4, 8 contra alias edd. et codd. haec. ³ Codd. et edd. 1, 8 omittunt Dei, sed minus bene. Mox sola Vat. post hoc idem omittit etiam. ⁴ Vat. et edd. 4, 5, 6, 9 contra alias edd. et codd. addunt per omnia. ⁵ Dist. XXVI. ⁶ Prooem. n. 1. — Mox post aliquid Vat. et plures edd. cum cod. D contra ceteros codd. et originale non bene sunt pro sint. ⁷ Ibid. et in principio cap. 1. n. 2. ⁸ Vat. cum plerisque edd. contra 1, 2 et originale addunt est, quod edd. 3, 7 melius transponunt legendo: Non est ergo maius. Immediate post codd. B C E et edd. 2, 3, 7 cum originali habent utrumque loco uterque. ⁹ Quae praecedunt, leguntur ibid. c. 1. n. 2, sed non paucis a Magistro omissis, transpositis et mutatis.	¹ Only the Vatican edition has they seem [videntur], and a little below this does . . . accept [accipit] for did . . . accept [accepit] and they are said [dicuntur] in the indicative. ² The Vatican edition and editions 4 and 8, contrary to the other editions and codices, have this [haec] for here the [hic]. ³ The codices and editions 1 and 8, omit of God [Dei], but less well. Next only the Vatican edition after On this account the same [Propter hoc idem] omits also [etiam]. ⁴ The Vatican edition and editions 4, 5, 6, and 9, contrary to the editions and codices add in all things [per omnia]. ⁵ Distinction 26. ⁶ Foreword, n. 1. — Next the Vatican edition and very many editions, together with codex D, contrary to all the other codices and the original, has the indicate are [sunt] rather than the subjunctive of indirect discourse. ⁷ Ibid., and at the beginning of ch. 1, n. 2. ⁸ The Vatican Edition, together with very many editions, contrary to editions 1 and 3 and the original, add is [est], which editions 3 and 7 transpose by reading: There is not, therefore [Non est ergo]. Codices B C and E, and editions 2, ,3 and 7, together with the original have the neuter form of Each ( thing) [utrumque] in place of the masculine Each (Person) [uterque]. ⁹ Those things which precede this, are taken from ibid., ch. 1, n. 2, but with not a few things omitted, transposed and changed by Master (Peter).

p. 341

est, quomodo indifferens sit magnitudo trium personarum, quia nec una maior est alia, nec duae maius aliquid quam una,¹ nec tres simul maius aliquid quam singula.	in what manner the magnitude of the Three Persons is un-differing, because neither is there One greater than Another, nor Two more something than One,¹ nor Three together something more than Each One.
Cap. XII. Quod Deus non est dicendus triplex, sed trinus.	Chapter XII That God is not to be said (to be) “threefold”, but “triune”.
Praeterea cum Deus dicatur trinus, non tamen debet dici triplex. Ibi enim non est triplicitas, uti summa est unitas et indifferens aequalitas. Unde Augustinus in libro sexto de Trinitate² ait: « Non, quoniam Deus Trinitas est, ideo triplex putandus est: alioquin minor esset Pater solus, vel Filius solus, quam simul Pater et Filius ». « Cum itaque tantus est Pater solus vel solus Filius, vel solus Spiritus sanctus, quantus est simul Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, nullo modo triplex dicendus est Deus. Non enim Pater cum Filio et Spiritu sancto maior Deus est quam singuli eorum, quia non est quo crescat illa perfectio. Perfectus autem est et Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, et perfectus dicitur Deus singulus eorum. Et ideo Trinitas potius quam triplex dici debet ».	Besides, though God is said (to be) “Triune”, He, however, ought not be said (to be) “threefold”. For there is not a threefold-ness [triplicitas] There, since [uti] the Unity is most high and the Equality un-differing. Whence (St.) Augustine in the sixth book On the Trinity² says: « Not, since God is the Trinity, must He for that reason be thought (to be) threefold: otherwise the Father alone, and/or the Son alone would be less, that the Father and the Son together ». « And when the Father alone and/or the Son alone, and/or the Holy Spirit alone is as great, as is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit together, in no manner is God to be said (to be) “threefold”. For the Father with the Son and the Holy Spirit is not a greater God than Each of Them, because there is not (anything) whereby that perfection grows. Moreover, Perfect is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and Each One of Them is said (to be) the perfect God. And for that reason there ought rather be said “the Trinity”, than “threefold”.
« In rebus corporeis non tantum est una, quantum tres simul, et plus sunt duae quam una res; in Trinitate vero summa tantum est una persona, quantum tres simul, et tantum sunt duae, quantum una, et in se infinitae sunt »,³ quia non est finis magnitudinis earum. Ac per hoc aperitur quod supra diximus,⁴ scilicet quomodo et singula sunt in singulis, et omnia in singulis, et singula in omnibus, et unum in omnibus est, et unum omnia. Ecce iam ostendimus sufficienter, qualiter in Trinitate aliqua persona aliam non superet magnitudine.	« In corporeal things one is not as much as three together, and two are more than one thing; but in the Most High Trinity one Person is as much as Three together, and Two are as much as One, and in Themselves They are infinite »,³ because there is not end to Their magnitude. And through this there is revealed [aperitur] what we have said above,⁴ namely, in what manner both Each are in Each, and All in Each, and Each in All, and One in All, and One All. Behold we have already sufficiently shown, in what manner in the Trinity any Person does not surpass the Other in magnitude.
¹ Codd. A C D et edd. 1, 2, 3, 7 nec duae una, codd. B E nec duae quam una. ² Cap. 7. n. 9. — Sequens locus est ibid. c. 8. ³ Ibid. cap. 10. n. 12. — Locus Scripturae est: Psalm. 144, 3. ⁴ Cap. 3, 4 in fine et 11. — Vat. cum pluribus edd. contra codd. superius dictum est loco supra diximus; item Vat. cum cod. C et aliis edd., excepta 1, omittit scilicet; denique post quodmodo omitt