LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 25: 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 XXV.	DISTINCTION 25
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 431-434. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 431-434. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
Cap. I. Quid significetur hoc nomine “persona” in plurali numero, scilicet cum dicitur “personae”.	Chapter I. What is signified by this name “Person” in the plural number, that is, when there is said “Persons”.
Praeterea considerandum est, cum hoc nomen persona, ut praedictum est,¹ secundum substantiam dicatur, quae sit intelligentia dicti, cum pluraliter profertur: tres personae, vel: duae personae, et cum dicitur: alia est persona Patris, alia est persona Filii, alia est persona Spiritus sancti. Si enim in his locutionibus personae vocabulum essentiae intelligentiam facit, plures essentias confiteri videmur, et ita plures deos. Si vero essentiae significationem ibi non tenet, alia est huius nominis ratio, cum dicitur: Pater est persona, vel Filius est persona; et alia, cum dicitur: Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus sunt tres personae; et cum dicitur: alia est persona Patris, alia Filii, et huiusmodi.	Moreover one must consider, when this name “person”, as has been said, is said according to substance, what is the understanding of the saying, when there is mentioned [profertur] in a plural manner: “Three Persons”, and/or: “Two Persons”, and when there is said: “one is the Person of the Father, another is the Person of the Son, another is the Person of the Holy Spirit”. For if among these expressions the word for ‘person’ causes an understanding of the Essence, we seem to confess that (there are) many Essences, and thus many Gods. However, if it does not have the signification of ‘essence’ There, one is the reckoning of this name, when there is said: “the Father is a Person”, and/or “the Son is a Person”; and another (is the reckoning of it), when there is said: “the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three Persons”; and when there is said: “one is the Person of the Father, another (that) of the Son”, and (expressions) of this kind.
« Persona enim, ut supra² ait Augustinus, ad se dicitur, et idem est Deo esse personam quod esse, . . .	« For “person” », as (St.) Augustine says above, « is said regarding Itself, and it is the same for God to be a person as to be, . . .
¹ Dist. XXIII. c. 1. ² Dist. XXIII. c. 1. Cfr. pag. 401, nota 4. — Deinde post id est codd. et ed. 1 omittunt divina.	¹ Distinction XXIII, ch. 1. ² Distinction XXIII, ch. 1. Cf. in the same, p. 401, footnote 4. — Then after that is [id est], on the subsequent page, the codices and edition 1 omit Divine [divina].

p. 432

sicut idem est ei esse quod Deum esse ». Unde manifeste colligitur, quod essentiam divinam praedicamus, dicentes: Pater est persona, Filius est persona, Spiritus sanctus est persona, id est divina essentia; et omnino unum et idem significatur nomine personae, id est essentia divina, cum dicitur: Pater est persona, et Filius est persona, quod significatur nomine Dei cum dicitur: Pater est Deus, Filius est Deus. Ita etiam idem significatur, cum dicitur: Deus est Deus, et Deus est persona; utroque enim nomine essentia divina intelligitur, quia utrumque secundum substantiam dicitur.	just as it is the same for Him to be as to be God ». From which there is manifestly gathered, that we do predicate the Divine Essence, when we say: “the Father is a Person, the Son is a Person, the Holy Spirit is a Person, that is, the Divine Essence; and entirely one and the same (thing) is signified by the name for ‘person’, that is the Divine Essence, when there is said: “the Father is a Person, and the Son is a Person”, as there is signified by the name for ‘God’, when there is said: “the Father is God, the Son is God”. Thus also the same is signified, when there is said: “God is God”, and “God is a person”; for by each name the Divine Essence is understood, because each is said according to substance.
Cum vero dicitur: Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus sunt tres personae, quid nomine personae significamus? An essentiam? Hoc enim videtur, si supra¹ posita verba Augustinis diligenter scrutemur.	On the other hand, when there is said: “the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three Persons”, what do we signify by the name “Persons”? Or (do we signify) the Essence? For this seems (the case), if we diligently scrutinize the words of (St.) Augustine posited above.¹
Supra enim dixit, quod « ideo tres personas dicimus, quia id quod persona est, commune est tribus ». Et item, « quia Pater est persona, et Filius est persona, et Spiritus sanctus est persona, ideo tres personae dicuntur ». Videtur ergo, eadem tenere significationem hoc nomen persona, cum dicitur: tres personae, quam habet, cum dicitur: Pater est persona, Filius est persona, Spiritus sanctus est persona; quia, ut ostendit Augustinus, hoc dicitur — id est tres personae — propter illud,² quia id quod persona est, commune est eis. Id ergo quod commune est eis, id est Patri et Filio et Spiritui sancto, videtur significari nomine personae, cum dicitur tres personae.	For above he said, that « for this reason do we say that (there are) “Three Persons”, because that which a person is, is common to the Three ». And again, « because the Father is a Person, and the Son is a Person, and the Holy Spirit is a Person, for that reason the Three are said (to be) “Persons” ». Therefore it seems, that this name “person” has the same signification, when there is said: “Three Persons”, as it has, when there is said: “the Father is a Person, the Son is a Person, the Holy Spirit is a Person”; because, as (St.) Augustine shows, the former is said — that is, “Three Persons” — on account of the latter,² because that which a person is, is common to Them. Therefore, that which is common to Them, that is, to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, seems to be signified by the name for ‘person’, when there is said “Three Persons”.
Aliter etiam potest ostendi, quod ibi nomine personae significetur essentia, cum dicitur tres personae. Ut enim supra³ dixit Augustinus, ea necessitate diximus tres personas, ut responderemus quaerentibus, quid tres, vel quid tria. Cum ergo quaeritur, quid tres vel quid tria, convenienter respondetur, cum dicitur: tres personae. At cum quaeritur, quid tres, vel quid tria, per quid de essentia quaeritur. Non enim invenitur, quid illi tres sint, nisi essentia. Si ergo quaestioni recte respondemus, oportet ut respondendo essentiam significemus; alioquin non ostendimus, quid tres sint. Si vero respondentes essentiam significamus, ipsam essentiam personae nomine intelligimus, cum dicitur: tres personae.	In another manner it can also be shown, that There the Essence is signified by the name for ‘person’, when there is said “Three Persons”. For as (St.) Augustine said above,³ for this necessity did we say that (there are) “Three Persons”, to respond to those asking, “What (are) the Three (Persons)?” [quid tres], and/or “What (are) the Three?” [quid tria]. Therefore when there is asked, “What (are) the Three (Persons)?”, and/or “What (are) the Three?”, there is a fitting response [convenienter respondetur], when there is said, “three Persons”. But when there is asked, “What (are) the Three (Persons)?”, and/or “What (are) the Three?”, through “What” one asks concerning the Essence. For what those Three are, naught is found but the Essence. If, therefore, we respond rightly to the question, it is necessary [oportet] that in responding we signify the Essence; otherwise we do not show, what the Three are. If, on the other hand, responding, we signify the Essence, we understand the Essence Itself by the name for ‘person’, when there is said: “Three Persons”.
Quibusdam videtur, quod nomine personae significetur essentia, cum dicitur tres personae, propterea quia Augustinus dicit,⁴ ideo dici tres personas, quia commune est eis id quod est persona, ut sit talis intelligentia: Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus sunt tres personae, id est, sunt tres id habentes commune, quod est persona, id est, tres sunt, quorum quisque est persona, id est essentia. Sed quomodo iuxta hanc intelligentiam dicetur: alia est persona Patris, alia Filii? Et hoc etiam ita volunt intelligere, scilicet alius est Pater, et alius est Filius, id tamen commune habentes quod est persona. Et hoc confirmant auctoritate Augustini, qui in septimo libro de Trinitate⁵ ait: « Tres personas eiusdem essentiae, vel tres personas unam essentiam dicimus. Tres autem personas ex eadem essentia non dicimus, quasi aliud ibi sit quod essentia est, aliud quod persona ». — Hac auctoritate et praemissis conantur asserere in praedictis locutionibus, nomen personae essentiam significare.	To certain ones it seems, that by the name for ‘person’ there is signified the Essence, when there is said “Three Persons”, on account of this, that (St.) Augustine says,⁴ that the Three are said (to be) “Persons”, because that which is a “person” is common to Them, so that such is the understanding: ‘the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three Persons’, that is, ‘are Three having that, which a person is, common (to Them)’, that is, ‘there are Three, Anyone of which is a Person, that is the Essence’. But in what manner according to this understanding will there be said: “one [alia] is the Person of the Father, another (that) of the Son?” And this also do they thus want to understand, namely, ‘One [alius] is the Father, and Another is the Son, yet (They) having that which a person is, common (to Them both)’. And they confirm this by the authority of (St.) Augustine, who in the seventh book On the Trinity⁵ says: « We say that the Three Persons (are) of the same Essence, and/or that the Three Persons (are) the One Essence. But we do not say that the Three Persons (are) out of the same Essence, as if there something is that which is the Essence, another that which (is) a Person ». — With this authority and the aforesaid they strive to assert in the aforesaid expressions, that the name for ‘person’ signifies the Essence.
Sed quid respondebunt ad id quod ipse Augustinus in libro de Fide ad Petrum⁶ dicit, « scilicet, quod alius est Pater in persona, sive personaliter, alius personaliter Filius, alius personaliter Spiritus sanctus »? Quomodo enim alius personaliter Pater, alius personaliter Filius, alius personaliter Spiritus sanctus, si in esse personam omnino conveniunt, id est, si persona essentiae tantum intelligentiam facit? Ideo nobis videtur aliter hoc posse dici congruentius iuxta catholicorum Doctorum auctoritates.	But what shall they respond to that which (St.) Augustine says in the book On the Faith to Peter,⁶ « namely, that the Father is one in person, or according to person [personaliter], the Son another according to person, the Holy Spirit another according to person »? For in what manner (is) the Father one according to person, the Son another according to person, the Holy Spirit another according to person, if They entirely convene in being a person [in esse personam], that is if “person” causes only the understanding of the Essence? For that reason it seems to us that it can be said in another manner more congruently according to the authorities of the Catholic Doctors.
Cap. II. De triplici acceptione huius nominis “persona” in Trinitate.	Chapter II. On the threefold acceptance of this name “Person” in the Trinity.
Sciendum est igitur, quod hoc nomen persona multiplicem intelligentiam facit, non unam tantum. Et ut Hilarius ait in libro quarto de Trinitate:⁷ « Intelligentia dictorum ex causis est assumenda dicendi, quia non sermoni res, sed rei sermo subiectus est ». Discernentes ergo dicendi causas huius nominis, scilicet persona, significationem distinguimus dicentes, quod hoc nomen, scilicet persona, proprie secundum substantiam dicitur et essentiam significat, sicut supra⁸ ostendit Augustinus, cum dicitur: Deus est persona, Pater est persona. Quadam tamen necessitate, ut supra dixit Augustinus, translatum est hoc nomen, ut pluraliter diceretur tres personae, cum quaereretur, quid tres, vel quid tria; ubi non significat essentiam, id est naturam divinam, quae communis est tribus personis, sed subsistentias, vel hypostases secundum Graecos. Graeci quippe, ut supra⁹ dixit Augustinus, aliter accipiunt substantiam, id est hypostasim, aliter nos. Nos enim substantiam dicimus essentiam sive naturam. Personas autem dicimus, sicut illi dicunt, substantias, id est hypostases. Si¹⁰ ergo nos ita accipimus personas, ut illi accipiunt substantias vel hypostases; at illi aliter accipiunt hypostases, quam nos substantiam: aliter ergo nos accipimus personas quam substantiam. Cum ergo dicimus: tres personas, non ibi personae nomine essentiam significamus. Quid ergo dicimus? Dicimus, quia . . .	It must be known, therefore, that this name “person” causes a multiple understanding, not only one. And as (St.) Hilary (of Poitiers) says in the fourth book On the Trinity:⁷ « The understanding of sayings is to be assumed from the causes for saying [ex causis dicendi], because thing has not subjected to speech [sermon], but speech to thing ». Therefore, discerning the causes for saying this name, that is, “person”, we distinguish the signification, saying, that this name, that is, “person”, is said properly according to substance and signifies an essence, just as (St.) Augustine shows above,⁸ when there is said: “God is a person, the Father is a person”. However, for a certain necessity, as (St.) Augustine said above, this name has been transferred, so that in a plural manner there is said “Three Persons”, when there is asked, “What (are) the Three (Persons)?”, and/or “What (are) the Three?”; where it does not signify an essence, that is, the Divine Nature, which is common to the Three Persons, but the Subsistences, and/or the Hypostases according to the Greeks. Indeed, the Greeks, as (St.) Augustine said above,⁹ accept “substance”, that is, “hypostasis”, in one manner, we in another. For we says that a “substance” (is) an “essence” or a “nature”. But we say “persons”, just as they say, “substances”, that is, “hypostases”. If,¹⁰ therefore, we accept “persons” thus, as they accept “substances” and/or “hypostases”; but they accept “hypostases” in another manner, than we (do) “substance”; therefore we accept “persons” in another manner than “substance”. Therefore when we say: “Three Persons”, we do not signify there by the name for ‘person’ the Essence. What, therefore, do we signify? We say, that . . .
¹ Dist. XXIII. c. 2. Loci isti indicati sunt pag. 402, nota 1. et 4. ² Codd. A D et ed. 1 non bene addunt id est. ³ Dist. XXIII. c. 1. et 2, ubi loci Augustini citati sunt. — Paulo ante Vat. et aliae edd., excepta 1, contra codd. videtur posse pro potest. — In sequentibus plurimae edd. habent dicimus pro diximus, et ostendemus pro ostendimus. ⁴ Libr. VII. de Trin. c. 4. n. 7. ⁵ Cap. 6. n. 11. — In fine textus post persona Vat. cum aliis edd., excepta 1, addit est contra codd. et originale. ⁶ Cap. 1. n. 5. ⁷ Num. 14. ⁸ Hic c. 1, et d. XXIII. c. 1. 3; et sequens locus ibid. c. 2. ⁹ Vide d. XXIII. c. 2. — Paulo ante codd. C D E pro subsistentias habent substantias, quae lectio non est falsa, dummodo substantiae intelligantur ut substantiae primae, sive ut hypostases apud Graecos, quemadmodum in loco mox sequente. ¹⁰ Vat. et ed. 8 perperam Sic. Mox Vat. et ed. 2 et illi pro at illi.	¹ Distinction XXIII, ch. 2. The passages indicated are found on p. 402, in footnotes 1 and 4. ² Codices A and D and edition 1 add not so well that is [id est]. ³ Distinction XXIII, chs. 1 and 2, where the passages of (St.) Augustine are cited. — A little before this the Vatican edition and the other editions, except edition 1, contrary to the codices, read it seems that it can [videtur posse] for it can [potest]. — In the following sentences, very many editions have we say [dicimus] for we said [diximus], and we shall show [ostendemus] for we show [ostendimus]. ⁴ On the Trinity, Bk. VII, ch. 4, n. 7. ⁵ Chapter 6, n. 11. — At the end of the text at a Person [persona], the Vatican edition, together with the other editions, except edition 1, add is [est], contrary to the codices and the original. ⁶ Chapter 1, n. 5. ⁷ Number 14. ⁸ Here in ch. 1, and in Distinction XXIII, chs. 1 and 3; the following passage is also ibid., ch. 2. ⁹ See Distinction XXIII, ch. 2. — A little before this codices C D and E have Substances [substantias] for Subsistences [subsistentias], which reading is not false, so long as Substances is understood as the First Substances, or as the Hypostases among the Greeks, as is said in the following clause. ¹⁰ The Vatican edition and edition 8 faultily read Thus [Sic]. Next the Vatican edition and edition 2 have and they [et illi] for but they [at illi].

p. 433

tres personae sunt, id est tres substantiae,¹ scilicet tres entes, pro quo Graeci dicunt: tres hypostases.	there are three Persons, that is three Substances,¹ namely three Beings, for which the Greeks say: three Hypostases.
Et hic sensus adiuvatur ex verbis Augustini praemissis, si interius intelligantur. Quia enim Pater est persona, id est essentia, et Filius persona, et Spiritus sanctus persona; ideo dicuntur tres personae, id est tres subsistentiae,² tres entes. Non enim possent dici tres subsistentiae vel entes, nisi singulus eorum esset persona, id est essentia. Quia ergo eis commune est id quod est persona, id est essentia; ideo recte dicuntur tres personae, id est subsistentiae vel subsistentes, ut, sicut essentia, quae est eis communis, vere ac proprie est, ita illi tres vere ac proprie subsistentiae vel entes intelligantur. Ideoque Augustinus,³ causas dictorum discernens, dicit, tres personas esse unam essentiam vel eiusdem essentiae, non ex eadem essentia, ne aliud intelligatur ibi esse persona, aliud essentia. Tres enim personae, id est subsistentiae, una sunt essentia et unius essentiae, non autem sunt una persona vel unius personae, licet persona secundum substantiam aliquando dicatur. Nam si hoc diceretur, confusio fieret in personis.	And here the sense is assisted from the aforesaid words of (St.) Augustine, if they are understood more interiorly. For because the Father is a Person, that is the Essence, and the Son a Person, and the Holy Spirit a Person; for that reason They are said (to be) “three Persons”, that is “three Subsistences”,² “three Beings” [tres entes]. For They cannot be said (to be) “three Subsistences and/or Beings”, unless each One of Them [singulus eorum] were a Person, that is, the Essence. Therefore, because that, which a person is, is common to Them; for that reason They are rightly said (to be) “three Persons”, that is, “Subsistences” and/or “Subsistents”, as, just as the Essence, which is common to Them, truly and properly is, so those Three are truly and properly understood (to be) Subsistences and/or Beings [entes]. And for that reason (St.) Augustine,³ discerning the causes of the sayings, says, that the Three Persons are the One Essence and/or of the same Essence, not out of the same Essence, lest There a Person be understood to be one (thing), the Essence another. For the Three Persons, that is, Subsistences, are one in essence and of the One Essence, but They are not one in person and/or of one Person, though “person” is sometimes said according to substance. For if this would be said, there would be a confusion among the Persons.
Ad hoc autem, quod illi dicunt: cum quaeritur, quid tres, vel quid⁴ tria, de essentia quaeritur, quia non invenitur, quid illi tres sint nisi essentia — per hoc volentes nos inducere, ut nomine personae essentiam intelligamus, cum respondemus: tres personas — ita dicimus: indubitabiliter verum est, quia non invenitur unum aliquid, quod illi tres sint nisi essentia. Unum enim sunt illi tres, id est essentia divina. Unde Veritas ait:⁵ Ego et Pater unum sumus. Verumtamen, cum quaeritur, quid tres, vel quid tria, non de essentia quaeritur, nec ibi quid ad essentiam refertur; sed cum fides catholica tres esse profiteretur, sicut Ioannes in Epistola canonica⁶ ait: Tres sunt, qui testimonium perhibent in caelo, quaerebatur, quid illi tres essent, id est, an essent tres res, et quae tres res, et quo nomine illae tres res significarentur. Et ideo loquendi necessitate inventum est ad respondendum hoc nomen persona, et dictum est: tres personae.	But to this, which they say: when there is asked, “What (are) the Three (Persons)?”, and/or “What (are)⁴ the Three?”, one asks concerning the Essence, because what those Three are, naught is found but the Essence — wanting through this to induce us, to understand the Essence by the name for ‘person’, when we respond: “Three Persons” — thus we say: indubitably it is true, that there is not found one Something [unum aliquod], which those Three are, except the Essence. For those Three are the One [unum], that is the Divine Essence. Whence the Truth says:⁵ I and the Father are One [unum]. Nevertheless, when there is asked, “What (are) the Three (Persons)?”, and/or “What (are) the Three?”; one does not ask concerning the Essence, nor does “What” refer there to the Essence; but when the Catholic Faith professed that there are Three, as (the Apostle) John says in the canonical Epistle:⁶ There are Three, who give [perhibent] testimony in Heaven, it used to ask, what those Three are, that is, whether They were three things [tres res], and what three things, and by what name are those three things signified. And for that reason by the necessity of speaking this name “person” was found to respond, and there was said: “three Persons”.
Non autem te moveat, quod diximus tres res. Non enim hoc dicentes diversarum rerum numerum ponimus in Trinitate, sed ita tres res dicimus, ut easdem esse unam quandam summam rem confiteamur. Unde Augustinus in primo libro de Doctrina chirstiana⁷ sic ait: « Res igitur, quibus fruendum est, sunt Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus. Eademque Trinitas una quaedam summa res est communisque fruentibus ea, si tamen res, et non rerum omnium causa sit, si tamen et causa.⁸ Non enim facile potest inveniri nomen, quod tantae excellentiae conveniat, nisi quod melius dicitur: Trinitas haec unus Deus ». Sicut ergo tres res dicuntur, et hae sunt una res, ita tres subsistentiae⁹ dicuntur, et hae sunt una substantia. — Ecce ostensum est, quae sit intelligentia huius nominis persona, cum dicimus: tres personas.	But let it not move you, that we have said “three things”. For saying this, we do not posit a number of diverse things in the Trinity, but we thus says “three things”, to confess that the same are one, certain, most high Thing. Whence (St.) Augustine in the first book On Christian Doctrine⁷ thus says: « The Things, therefore, which must be enjoyed, are the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And the same Trinity is one, certain most high Thing and (is) common to those enjoying It, if, however, (It is) a Thing, and not the Cause of all things, if, however, (It is) even a cause.⁸ For there can not easily be found a name, which befits so great an Excellence, except that which is better said: “This Trinity (is) the One God” ». Just as, therefore, They are said (to be) “three things”, and These are the one Thing, so They are said (to be) “three Subsistences”,⁹ and These are one Substance. — Behold, it has been shown, what is the understanding of this name “person”, when we say: “Three Persons”.
Cap. III. Ex quo sensu dicatur: alia persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus sancti; sive alius in persona Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus sanctus.	Chapter III. Out of which sense is there said: One, the Person of the Father, Another, (the Person) of the Son, Another, (that) of the Holy Spirit; or the Father (is) one in person, the Son another, the Holy Spirit another.
Nunc inspiciamus, utrum secundum eandem rationem et causam dicatur: alia est persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus sancti. Quod utique sane intelligi potest, ut sit sensus talis: alia est subsistentia vel hypostasis Patris, alia subsistentia Filii, alia subsistentia Spiritus sancti; et alia subsistentia Pater, alia Filius, alia Spiritus sanctus.	Now let us look into, whether according to the same reckoning and cause there is said: “One is the person of the Father, another (that) of the Son, another (that) of the Holy Spirit. Which, indeed, can be sanely understood, so that the sense is such: “One is the Subsistence and/or Hypostasis of the Father, another (that) of the Son, another the Subsistence of the Holy Spirit; and one Subsistence (is) the Father, another (is) the Son, another (is) the Holy Spirit.
Deinde quaeritur, utrum secundum eandem rationem accipiatur, cum dicitur: alius est in persona Pater, alius in persona Filius, alius in persona Spiritus sanctus; sive alius personaliter Pater, alius personaliter Filius, alius personaliter Spiritus sanctus.	Then there is asked, whether according to the same reckoning there is accepted, when there is said: “the Father is one in person, the Son another in person, the Holy Spirit another”; or “the Father is one according to person [personaliter], the Son another according to person, the Holy Spirit another according to person”.
Ad quod dicimus, quia etsi possit eodem modo accipi, congruentius tamen ex ratione dicti alia variatur intelligentia, ut hic personae nomine proprietas personae intelligatur, ut sit sensus talis: alius est in persona vel personaliter Pater, id est, proprietate sua Pater alius quam Filius, et Filius proprietate sua alius quam Pater; paternali enim proprietate distinguitur hypostasis Patris ab hypostasi Filii, et hypostasis Filii filiali proprietate discernitur a Patre, et Spiritus sanctus ab utroque distinguitur processibili proprietate.	To which we say, that even if it can be accepted in the same manner, yet more congruently is another understanding said differently from the reckoning of the saying, so that here by the name for ‘person’ the property of a Person is understood, so that the sense is such: the Father is one in person and/or according to person [personaliter], that is, the Father by His own property (is) Other than the Son , and the Son by His property is Other than the Father, for by the property of the paternity [paternali proprietate] the Hypostasis of the Father is distinguished from the Hypostasis of the Son, and the Hypostasis of the Son by the property of the filiation [filiali proprietate] is discerned from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is distinguished from Each by the property of the procession [processibili proprietate].
Hoc etiam modo sane potest accipi persona in praemissis locutionibus, cum dicitur: alia est persona Patris, alia Filii,¹⁰ id est, alia est proprietas, qua Pater est Pater, alia qua Filius est Filius, alia qua Spiritus sanctus est Spiritus sanctus. Ita etiam nomine personae quidam proprietates intelligere volunt, cum dicuntur tres personae; sed melius est, ut subsistentias vel hypostases intelligamus, cum dicimus tres personas.	In the same manner, too, “person” can be sanely accepted in the aforementioned expressions, when there is said: “one is the Person of the Father, another (that) of the Son”,¹⁰ that is, “one is the property, by which the Father is the Father, another that by which the Son is the Son, another that by which the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit”. Thus also by the name for ‘person’ certain ones want to understand the properties, when the Three are said (to be) “Persons”; but it is better, that we understand the Subsistences and/or Hypostases, when we say “Three Persons”.
Ex praedictis colligitur, quod nomen personae in Trinitate triplicem tenet rationem. Est enim ubi facit intelligentiam essentiae, et est ubi facit intelligentiam hypostasis, et est ubi facit intelligentiam proprietatis.	From the aforesaid there is gathered, that the name for ‘person’ in the Trinity has a threefold reckoning. For there is where it causes the understanding of the Essence, and there is where it causes the understanding of a Hypostasis, and there is where it causes the understanding of a property.
Quod autem secundum substantiam dicitur et essentiam aliquando significet, supra ex dictis Augustini aperte ostendimus. Quod vero pro hypostasi atque proprietate accipiatur, ex auctoritatibus Sanctorum ostendi . . .	On the one hand, that it is said according to substance and sometimes signifies the Essence, we have shown openly from the sayings of (St.) Augustine above. On the other hand, that it is accepted on behalf of a hypostasis and a property, must be shown from the authorities of the Saints, . . .
¹ Vat. et edd. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 substantiae; codd. A B D E subsistentiae, et cod. C subsistentes. ² Cod. C et ed. 8 hic et infra saepius substantiae pro subsistentiae; codd. C E et ed. 8 addunt vel ante tres entes. ³ Lib. VII. de Trin. c. 6. n. 11; vide cap. praecedens. ⁴ Vat. et edd. 4, 6, 9, omittunt quid. ⁵ Ioan. 10, 30. ⁶ I. Ioan. 5, 7. Vulgata: Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo. Etiam cod. X cum Vulgata legit dant pro perhibent. Cfr. supra pag. 49, nota 3. — Infra Vat. cum aliis edd., excepta 1, transponit verba ad respondendum post persona. ⁷ Cap. 3. n. 3. Sequens locus est ibid. c. 5. n. 5. — Supra, ante tres res Vat. cum edd. 4, 6 dicimus pro diximus. ⁸ Vat. cum aliis edd., exceptis 1, 6, omittit si tamen et causa contra originale et codd. ⁹ Vat. cum edd. 2, 3, 7, 8 et cod. C substantiae, et mox solummodo Vat. cum aliis edd., excepta 1, essentia pro substantia. ¹⁰ Solummodo cod. A et edd. 1, 6 addunt alia Spiritus sancti; sed haec verba ex praecedentibus facile suppleri possunt. ¹¹ Hic c. 1, et d. XXIII. c. 1.	¹ The Vatican edition and editions 1, 4, 5, 8 and 9, read Substances [substantiae]; codices A B D and E read Subsistences [subsistentiae], and codex C reads Subsistents [subsistentes]. ² Codex C and edition 8 here and below more frequently have Substances [substantiae] for Subsistences [subsistentiae]; codices C and E and edition 8 add and/or [vel] before three Beings [tres entes]. ³ On the Trinity, Bk. VII, ch. 6, n. 11; see the preceeding chapter. ⁴ The Vatican edition and editions 4, 6 and 9, omit What (are) [quid]. ⁵ Jn. 10:30. ⁶ 1 John 5:7. The Vulgate reads: Since there are Three, who give testimony in Heaven [Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo]. Also codex X, together with the Vulgate reads give [dant] for give [perhibent]. Cf. above Distinction II, ch. 5, p. 49, footnote 3. — Below this, the Vatican edition together with the other editions, except edition 1, transpose the words to respond [ad respondendum] in the Latin sytax to after “person” [persona]. ⁷ Chapter 3, n. 3. The following passage is ibid., ch. 5, n. 5. — Above, before three things [tres res], the Vatican edition together with editions 4 and 5, has we say [dicimus] for we have said [diximus]. ⁸ The Vatican edition, together with the other editions, except editions 1 and 6, omits if, however (It is) even a cause [sit amen et causa], contrary to the original and to the codices. ⁹ The Vatican edition, together with editions 2, 3, 7 and 8, and codex C, read Substances [substantiae], and next only the Vatican edition together with the other editions, except edition 1, has Essence [essentia] for Substance [substantia]. ¹⁰ Only codex A and editions 1 and 6 add another (that) of the Holy Spirit [alia Spiritus sancti]; but these words can be easily supplied from the preceding. ¹¹ Here in ch. 1, and in Distinction XXIII, ch. 1.

p. 434

oportet, ne coniecturis nostris aliquid ausi dicere videamur. De hoc Hieronymus in expositione fidei catholicae ad Damasum¹ ita ait: « Non est prorsus aliquis in Trinitate gradus, nihilque quod inferius superiusve dici possit, sed tota deitas sui perfectione aequalis est, ut exceptis vocabulis, quae proprietatem indicant personarum, quidquid de una persona dicitur, de tribus dignissime possit intelligi. Atque ut confutantes Arium, unam eandemque Trinitatis dicimus esse substantiam, et unum in tribus personis fatemus Deum; ita impietatem Sabellii declinantes, tres personas expressas sub proprietate distinguimus: non ipsum sibi Patrem, ipsum sibi Filius, ipsum sibi Spiritum sanctum esse dicentes, sed aliam Patris, aliam Filii, aliam Spiritus sancti esse personam. Non enim nomina tantummodo, sed etiam nominum proprietates, id est personas, vel, ut Graeci exprimunt, hypostases, id est subsistentias, confitemur. Nec Pater Filii vel Spiritus sancti personam aliquando excludit; nec Filius vel Spiritus sanctus Patris nomen personamque recipit, sed Pater semper Pater, et Filius semper Filius, et Spiritus sanctus semper Spiritus sanctus. Itaque substantia unum sunt, sed personis ac nominibus distinguuntur ». Ecce hic aperte dicit Hieronymus, proprietates esse personas, et personas esse subsistentias. Unde manifestum fit quod diximus, scilicet personae nomine significari et hypostasim et proprietatem. — Ioannes etiam Damascenus² personas dicit esse hypostases, et eas dicit entes, ita inquiens: « In deitate unam naturam confitemur et tres hypostases secundum veritatem entes, id est personas ».

lest according to our own conjectures we seem to say something daring [aliquid ausi]. On this (St.) Jerome in (his) exposition of the Catholic Faith To Damasus¹ thus says: « There is not, in a word, any grade in the Trinity, and nothing which (is) inferior or superior can be said (to be There), but the whole Deity is equal in Its own perfection, so that excepting the words, which indicate the property of the Persons, whatever is said of one Person, can be most worthily understood of the Three. And also as confuters of Arius, we say that there belongs to the Trinity one and the same Substance, and we say that the One God (is) in the Three Persons; thus deflecting [declinantes] the impiety of Sabellius, we distinguish the Three Persons expressed under a property: not saying that He is a Father to Himself, that He (is) a Son to Himself, that He (is) a Holy Spirit to Himself, but that one is the Person of the Father, another (that) of the Son, another (that) of the Holy Spirit. For we confess not only the names, but even the properties of the names, that is, the Persons, and/or as the Greeks express (it), the Hypostases, that is, the Subsistences. Nor does the Father sometimes exclude the person of the Son and/or of the Holy Spirit; nor the Son and/or the Holy Spirit received the name and Person of the Father, but the Father (is) always the Father, and the Son (is) always the Son, and the Holy Spirit (is) always the Holy Spirit. And so They are one in substance, but They are distinguished according to Persons and names ». Behold, here (St.) Jerome openly says, that the properties are the Persons, and the Persons are Subsistences. Whence what we have said has been made manifest, namely, that by the name for ‘person’ there is signified both Hypostasis and property. — (St.) John Damascene² also says that the Persons are “Hypostases”, and he says that These (are) “Beings” [entes], thus saying: « In the Deity we confess (that there is) One Nature and that Three Hypostases (are), according to the truth, Beings, that is, Persons ».

¹ Codd. omnes et edd. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9: ad Alipium et Augustinum, Episcopos. Sed inter opera S. Hieronymi liber inscribitur: ad Damasum. — In hoc textu, contra editionem Hieronymi, codd. A B C et ed. 1, Vat. cum aliis edd. ponit divinitas loco deitas. Deinde contra originale, codd. A B C E et ed. 1, Vat. cum aliis edd. addit essentiam vel ante substantiam, et postea ante impietatem addiciunt etiam.

² Libr. III. de Fide orthodoxa, c. 5, ubi sic ait: Unam in divinitate naturam confitemur, tres autem personas vere existentes dicimus.

¹ All the codices and editions 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9, read: to Alipius and Augustine, Bishops [ad Alipium et Augustinum, Episcopos]. But among the words of St. Jerome the book is entitled: To Damasus [ad Damasum]. — In this text, contrary to the edition of (St.) Jerome’ s works, codices A B and C and edition 1, the Vatican edition, together with the other editions, have Divinity [divinitas] for Deity [deitas]. Then contrary to the original, codices A B C and E, and edition 1, the Vatican edition, together with the other editions, add Essence and/or [essentiam vel] before Substance [substantiam], and after this before impiety [impietatem] add too [etiam].

² On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. III, ch. 5, where he speaks in this manner: We confess One Nature in the Divinity, but we say (that there are) truly existing Three Persons [Unam in divinitate naturam confitemur, tres autem personas vere existentes dicimus.]

Nota bene: Codices huius distinctioni addunt IV. caput: Nunc de proprietatibus, quod in principio distinctionis XXVI. legitur. Sed illud ibi ponendum erat, quia S. Bonaventura in divisione textus hoc capitulum ut parte distinctionis XXVI commemorat.

Note well: The codices add a fourth chapter to this Distinction, beginning: Nunc de proprietatibus, which is found at the beginning of Distinction XXVI. But it has been put there, because St. Bonaventure, in the Division of the Text cites this chapter as part of Distinction XXVI.

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 than that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator. Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.

Sententiarum Quatuor Libri

The Four Books of Sentences