LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 31: 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 XXXI.	DISTINCTION 31
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 529-532. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 529-532. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
PARS. I.	PART I
Cap. I. An Filius dicatur aequalis vel similis Patri secundum substantiam.	Chapter I. Whether the Son is said (to be) “equal” and/or “similar” to the Father according to substance.
Praeterea considerari oportet, cum tres personae coaequales sibi sint, utrum relative hoc dicatur, an secundum substantiam; et si relative, utrum secundum relationem, an secundum essentiam consideranda sit aequalitas; deinde, quid sit ipsa aequalitas. — Ad quod dicimus, quia, sicut simile nihil sibi est; « similitudo enim, ut ait Hilarius,¹ sibi ipsi non est »; ita et aequale aliquid sibi non dicitur, ac per hoc, sicut simile, ita et aequale relative dicitur. Dicitur ergo relative Filius aequalis Patri et utrique Spiritus sanctus. — Est tamen aequalis Patri Filius et utrique Spiritus sanctus propter summam simplicitatem essentiae et unitatem. Aequalis est ergo Filius Patri secundum substantiam, non secundum relationem. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate² ait: « Quaerimus, secundum quod aequalis sit Patri Filius. Non secundum hoc, quod ad Patrem dicitur, Filius aequalis est Patri; restat ergo, ut secundum id aequalis sit, quod ad se dicitur. Quidquid autem ad se dicitur, secundum substantiam sit aequalis. Eadem est igitur utriusque substantia ». Item in sexto libro:³ « Satis est videre, nullo modo Filium aequalem esse Patri, si in aliquo scilicet quod pertineat ad significandum eius substantiam, inaequalis invenitur. In omnibus ergo aequalis est Patri Filius et est eiusdem substantiae ». Ex his perspicuum fit, quod secundum substantiam Filius est aequalis Patri et utrique Spiritus sanctus, et appellatio tantum relativa est. — Aequalitas ergo Patris et Filii non est relatio vel notio, sed propter naturae unitatem indisparitas.⁴	Moreover one must consider, since the Three Persons are coequal to Themselves, whether this is said relatively, or according to substance; and if relatively, whether the equality is to be considered according to relation, or according to essence; then, what is the equality itself. — To which we say, that, just as nothing is “similar” to itself, « for a similitude », as (St.) Hilary says,¹ « is not to itself »; thus also something is not said (to be) “equal” to itself, and through this, just as “similar”, so is “equal” also said relatively. Therefore the Son is said relatively (to be) “equal” to the Father and the Holy Spirit (“equal”) to Each. — The Son, however, is equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit to Each on account of the most high Simplicity of the Essence and (its) Unity. The Son, therefore, is equal to the Father according to substance, not according to relation. Whence (St.) Augustine in the fifth book On the Trinity says:² « We ask, “according to what is the Son equal to the Father?” Not according to this, that the Son is said (to be such) regarding the Father, is He equal to the Father; it remains, therefore, that He is equal according to That, which He is said (to be such) regarding Himself. Moreover whatever is said regarding itself, is equal according to substance. There is, therefore, the same Substance of Each ». Likewise, in the sixth book (he says):³ « It is sufficient to see, that in no manner is the Son equal to the Father, if in anything, that is, which pertains to signifying His Substance, He is found (to be) unequal. In all (things), therefore, the Son is equal to the Father and is of the same Substance ». From these (words) it becomes perspicuous, that the Son according to substance is equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit to Each, and the appellation (of equality) alone is relative. — Therefore, the equality of the Father and the Son is not a relation and/or a notion, but an indisparity on account of a unity of nature.⁴
Hoc idem etiam dicimus de simili et similitudine. Cum enim dicitur Filius similis Patri, relative quidem dicitur, sed similis est Patri propter unitatem essentiae. Est ergo appellatio tantum relativa, similitudo vero « indifferens essentia ».⁵ Unde quibusdam non indocte videtur, nomine aequalis vel similitudinis non aliquid poni, sed removeri, ut ea ratione dicatur Filius aequalis Patri, quia nec maior est eo nec minor, et hoc propter unitatem essentiae. Ita et similis dicitur, quia nec diversus nec alienus nec in aliquo dissimilis, et hoc propter essentiae simplicitatem. Non ergo secundum quod Filius est genitus a Patre, aequalis vel inaequalis est Patri, nec similis vel dissimilis, sed aequalis et similis secundum substantiam.	We also say the same thing [hoc] concerning “similar” and “similitude”. For when the Son is said (to be) “similar” to the Father, He is indeed said (to be such relatively, but He is similar to the Father on account of a unity of essence. Therefore, the appellation is only a relative one, but the similitude is (Their) « undiffering Essence ».⁵ Whence in a not unlearned manner it seems to certain ones, that by the name of “equal” and/or “similitude” something is not posited, but is removed, so that according to this reckoning the Son is said (to be) “equal” to the Father, because He is neither greater nor lesser than He, and this on account of a unity of essence. Thus, too, He is said (to be) “similar”, because (He is) neither diverse nor from another [alienus] nor dissimilar in anything, and this on account of a simplicity of essence. Therefore, not according to which the Son is begotten from the Father, is He equal and/or unequal to the Father, nor similar and/or dissimilar, but (He is) equal and similar according to substance.
PARS. II.	PART II
Cap. II. De sententia sancti Hilarii, qua in Trinitate personarum propria ostendit.	Chapter II. On the sentence of Saint Hilary, by which he shows (the names) proper to the Persons in the Trinity.
Non est hic praetermittendum, quod illustris vir Hilarius proprietates personarum assignans dicit,⁶ aeternitatem esse in Patre, speciem in Imagine, usum in Munere. Quae tantae difficultatis sunt verba, ut in eorum intelligentia atque explanatione vehementer laboraverit Augustinus, ut ipse ostendit in sexto libro de Trinitate⁷ ita dicens: « Quidam, cum vellet brevissime singularum in Trinitate personarum insinuare propria, aeternitas est, inquit, in Patre, species in Imag- / -ine . . .	Here it must not be overlooked, that the illustrious man, (St.) Hilary, assigning the properties of the Persons, says,⁶ that eternity is in the Father, sightliness [speciem] in the Image, use in the Gift [Munere]. Of such great difficulty are (these) words (of his), that (St.) Augustine labored vehemently in their understanding and explanation, as he himself shows in the sixth book On the Trinity,⁷ thus says: « A certain (author), since he wanted to insinuate in the briefest manner the (names) proper to Each of the Persons in the Trinity, said that eternity is in the Father, sightliness in the Image, . . .
¹ De Trin. III. n. 23 ² Cap. 6. n. 7. — Paulo superius Vat. et edd. 4, 6 cum cod. D secundum essentiam pro secundum substantiam. ³ Cap. 4. n. 6. Sequens textus ibid. c. 5. n. 7. ⁴ Auctoritate omnium codd. et ed. 1 (5 in margine) posuimus propter naturae unitatem indisparitas pro naturalis unitas et identitas, quam sequitur S. Bonaventura, hic a. 1. q. 2. arg. 1. ad opposit.; cfr. nota seq. ⁵ Haec definitio sumta est ex Hilario (de Synodis n. 73): « Similitudo res ipsas naturalis coaequat per similitudinem non indifferentis essentiae » (cfr. ibid. n. 13-19). Ad hunc locum refertur quod Alexander Hal. (S. p. I. q. 55. m. 1. a. 1) de Lombardo dicit: « Quidam dicunt, quod haec nomina aequalis, similis tantum remotive accipiuntur, ut cum dicitur: Pater et Filius sunt aequales, id est, non sunt inaequales; et sunt similies, id est, non sunt dissimiles. In qua sententia videtur fuisse Lombardus. In prima enim editione Sententiarum dixit: Similitudo est indifferens substantia; et in secunda quasi corrigens dixit: Similitudo est indifferentia, quasi dicat: Pater et Filius dicuntur similes, quia non sunt differentes ». — Ex hoc testimonio Alexandri evincitur, Petrum Lombardum in secunda Sententiarum editione aliqua mutasse. Hinc etiam explicatur, unde notulae illae ortum habuerint, quae interdum textui additae sunt, ut tres notulae huic distinctioni annexae; aliam iam supra d. VI. notavimus. ⁶ De Trin. II. n. 1. in fine. ⁷ Cap. 10. n. 11. In hoc textu invenitur non parva differentia cum originali, scil. in verbis: sed idem, hoc est unum pro quibus in originali legitur: sed id quod est intelligere hoc vivere, hoc esse est, unum omnia: tanquam.	¹ On the Trinity, Bk. III, n. 23. ² Chapter 6, n. 7. — A little above this the Vatican edition and editions 4 and 6, together with codex D, have according to essence [secundum essentiam] for according to substance [secundum substantiam]. ³ Chapter 4, n. 6. The following text is ibid., ch. 6. n. 7. ⁴ On the authority of all the codices and edition 1 (edition 5 in the margin), we have put an indisparity on account of a unity of nature [propter naturae unitatem indisparitas] for a natural unity and identity [naturalis unitas et identitas], which St. Bonaventure follows, here in a. 1, q. 2, 1st. opposed argument; cf. the following footnote. ⁵ This definition has been taken from (St.) Hilary, On Synods, n. 73: « A natural similitude co-equates things themselves through the similitude of a not-undiffering essence » (cfr. ibid. nn. 13-19). On this passage refer to what Alexander of Hales (Summa., p. I, q. 55, m. 1, a. 1) says of (Peter) Lombard: « Certain (authors) say, that these names “equal” (and) “similar” are only accepted in a removed manner, just as when there is said: “the Father and the Son are equal”, that is, “They are not unequal”; and “They are similar”, that is, “They are not dissimilar”. In which sentence Lombard seems to have been. For in the first edition of the Sentences he said: “The similitude is (Their) undiffering Substance”; and in the second, as if correcting (himself) he said: “The similitude is (Their) indifference”, as if to say: The Father and the Son are said (to be) similar, because They are not different ». — From this testimony of Alexander (of Hales), it is evinced, that Peter Lombard in the second edition of the Sentences changed some (things). From this it is also explained, where those Brief Notes [notula] have arisen, which have been added to the text now and then, as the three Brief Notes annexed to this Distinction; we have noted another already, above, in Distinction VI. ⁶ On the Trinity, Bk. II, n. 1, at the end. ⁷ Chapter 10, n. 11. I this text there is found no small difference with the original, namely in the words (near the end of the passage on the following page): but (they are) the same, that is, one thing [sed idem, hoc est unum] for which in the original there is read: but that which is the ‘to understand’, this is the ‘to live’, this (is) the ‘to be’, all (are) one: as [sed id quod est intelligere hoc vivere, hoc esse est, unum omnia: tanquam].

p. 530

Imag- / -ine, usus in Munere. Et quia non mediocris auctoritatis in tractatione Scripturarum et assertione fidei vir extitit — Hilarius enim hoc in libris suis posuit — horum verborum, id est Patris et Imaginis et Muneris, aeternitas, speciei et unus, abditam scrutatus intelligentiam, quantum valeo, non eum secutum arbitro in aeternitatis vocabulo, nisi quod Pater non habet patrem, de quo sit; Filius autem de Patre est, ut sit atque ut illi coaeternus sit. Imago enim, si perfecte implet illud cuius imago est, ipsa coaequatur ei, non illud imagini suae; in qua imagine speciem nominavit, credo, propter pulcritudinem, ubi est tanta congruentia et prima aequalitas et prima similitudo, nulla in re dissidens et nullo modo inaequalis et nulla ex parte dissimilis, sed ad identitatem respondens ei cuius imago est; ubi est prima et summa vita, cui non est aliud vivere et aliud esse, sed idem; et primus ac summus intellectus, cui non est aliud vivere et aliud intelligere, sed idem, hoc est unum, tanquam verbum perfectum, cui non desit aliquid, et ars quaedam omnipotentis et sapientis Dei plena omnium rationum viventium incommutabilium, et omnes unum in ea, sicut ipsa unum de uno, cum quo unum; ibi novit omnia Deus, quae fecit per ipsam ».	Image, use in the Gift. And because he stood forth (as) a man of no mediocre authority in the treatment of the Scriptures and the assertion of the Faith — for (it is St.) Hilary (who) posited this in his books — having scrutinized [scrutatus] the concealed understanding of these words, that is, of “the Father”, and “Image” and “Gift”, “eternity”, “sightliness” and “one”, as much as I am able, I judge that (I have) not followed him in the word for eternity, except that the Father does not have a father, of which He is; but the Son is of [de] the Father, so that He is and is coeternal to Him. For an image, if it perfectly fulfills that of which it is the image, is itself co-equated to it, not it to its own image; in which image he names a “sightliness” [speciem], I believe, on account of the beauty, where there is so great a congruence and a first equality and a first similitude, dissident in no thing and in no manner unequal and dissimilar on no side [nulla ex parte], but responding to the identity of Him whose image He is; where there is a first and most high Life, for which ‘to live’ is not one (thing) ‘to be’ another, but (they are) the same; and a first and most high Intellect, for which ‘to live’ is not one (thing) ‘to understand’ another, but (they are) the same, that is one [unum], just as a perfect word, to which nothing is lacking, and a certain Art of the Omnipotent and Wise God, full of all, living, incommutable reasons, and all (are) one [unum] in that (Art), just as that (Art is) the One from the One, with whom (there is) the One; therefore God knows all (things), which He made through It ».
Notula. Hilarius in libro de Synodis:¹ « Imago eius, ad quem imaginatur, species indifferens est. Neque enim ipse sibi quisquam imago est; sed eum cuius imago est, necesse est ut imago demonstret. Imago ergo est rei ad rem coaequandam et imaginata et indiscreta similitudo. Est ergo Pater, est etiam Filius, quia imago Patris est Filius; et quia imago est, ut rei imago sit, speciem necesse est et naturam et essentiam, secundum quod imago est, in se habeat auctoris ».	A Brief Note: (St.) Hilary in (his) book On Synods (says):¹ « The image of that, according to which it is imaged, is an undiffering appearance [species]. For neither is anyone himself his own image; but it is necessary, that that of which the image is, the image demonstrate. Therefore, an image is an imaged [imaginata] and indiscrete similitude of a thing for co-equating the thing. Therefore, it is the Father, (and) it is also the Son, because the Image of the Father is the Son; and because an image is, to be the image of a thing, it is necessary (that) the Appearance have in itself both the nature and essence of the Author, according to which It is an image ».
« Est autem ineffabilis quidam complexus Patris et Imaginis, qui non est sine perfruitione, sine caritate, sine gaudio. Illa ergo dilectio, delectatio, felicitas vel beatitudo — si tamen aliqua humana voce digne dicitur — usus ab illo appellata est breviter, et est in Trinitate Spiritus sanctus non genitus, sed genitoris genitique suavitas, ingenti largitate atque ubertate perfundens omnes creaturas pro captu earum. Itaque illa tria et a se invicem determinari videntur, et in se infinita sunt. Qui videt hoc vel ex parte vel per speculum et in aenigmate,² gaudeat cognoscens Deum et gratias agat. Qui vero non videt, tendat per pietatem ad videndum, non per caecitatem ad calumniandum, quoniam unus est Deus, sed tamen Trinitas ».³ — Ecce habes, qualiter verba Hilarii praemissa accipienda sint, licet tantae sint profunditatis, ut etiam adhibita expositione, vix aliquatenus ea intelligere valeat humanus sensus, cum et ipsa eorum explanatio, quam hic Augustinus edidit, plurimum in se habeat difficultatis et ambiguitatis.	« Moreover, there is a certain ineffable embrace [complexus] of the Father and the Image, which is not without a thorough enjoyment [perfruitione], (not) without charity, (not) without joy. Therefore that love [dilectio], delectation, felicity and/or beatitude — if, yet, by any human voice it is worthily spoken of — has been briefly named “use” by him, and is in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, not begotten, but (rather) a sweetness [suavitas] of the Begetter and Begotten, pouring over all creatures to capture them [pro captu earum] by (His) vast largess and fruitfulness [ubertate]. And so those Three both seem to be determined by one Another, and are in Themselves infinite. He who sees this either in part and/or through a mirror and in an enigma,² rejoices as one knowing [cognoscens] God, and gives thanks. But the one who does not see (this), tends through piety to see (it), not through blindness to calumniate (it), since God is one, but yet a Trinity ».³ — Behold, you have, in what manner the aforesaid words of (St.) Hilary are to be accepted, though they be of such a great profundity, that even with the employed exposition, human sense hardly prevails a little to understand them, since even the explanation itself of them, which (St.) Augustine here gives forth, has in itself a very great (share) of difficulty and ambiguity.
Non enim secundum praemissam expositionem distinguuntur hic tres illae proprietates superius⁴ assignatae, sed ipsae hypostases distinctae ab invicem monstrantur. Aeternitatis tamen nomine eadem videtur designata proprietas, quam notat hoc nomen ingenitus. — Sed videamus, quid sit quod ait: « Imago si perfecte implet illud cuius imago est, ipsa coaequatur ei, non illud imagini suae ». Videtur enim dicere, quod Filius, qui est imago Patris, coaequatur Patri, non Pater Filio, cum et Filius dicatur aequalis Patri in Scriptura, et Pater Filio; sed Filius hoc habet a Patre, ut sit ei aequalis, Pater autem non habet a Filio, et tamen Filius plene ac perfecte aequalis est Patri, id est imago ei cuius est imago.	For not according to the aforementioned exposition are there distinguished here those three properties assigned above,⁴ but the Hypostases Themselves are shown (to be) distinct from one Another. However, by the name of “eternity” there seems to be designated the same property, which this name “unbegotten” notes. — But let us see, what is that which he says: « For an image, if it perfectly fulfills that of which it is the image, is itself co-equated to it, not it to its own image ». For he seems to say, that the Son, who is the Image of the Father, is co-equated to the Father, not the Father to the Son, though the Son is also said (to be) equal to the Father in Scripture, and the Father to the Son; but the Son has this from the Father, to be equal to Him, but the Father does not have (this) from the Son, and yet the Son is fully and perfectly equal to the Father, that is, is an image of Him of whom He is the Image.
Propria ergo personarum in praedictis verbis assignasse dicitur Hilarius, quia relativa nomina personarum posuit, scilicet patris,⁵ imaginis et muneris, quae relative dicuntur de personis et proprietates notant, quibus distinguuntur personae. — Ita enim dicitur Spiritus sanctus munus relative, sicut donum. Verumtamen ipsas proprietates aliis tribus nominibus non significavit, iuxta praedictam Augustini expositionem, nisi solo nomine aeternitatis, quo non ipsam paternitatem, sed eam voluit intelligi notionem, qua dicitur ingenitus.	Therefore, in the aforesaid words (St.) Hilary is said to have assigned (names) proper to the Persons, because he posited the relative names of the Persons, namely, “father”,⁵ “image” and “gift”, which are said relatively of the Persons and note the properties, by which the Persons are distinguished. — For thus the Holy Spirit is said relatively (to be) a “gift” [munus], just as a “gift” [donum]. Nevertheless, he did not signify those properties by three other names, according to the aforesaid exposition of (St.) Augustine, except by the sole name of “eternity”, by which he wanted not that the paternity itself be understood, but that notion, by which He is said (to be) “unbegotten”.
Illud etiam sciri oportet, quod earundem trium personarum distinctionem Augustinus ostendere volens sine expressione illarum trium proprietatum superius commemoratarum, in primo libro de Doctrina christiana⁶ sic ait: « In Patre est unitas, in Filio aequalitas, in Spiritu sancto unitatis aequalitatisque concordia: et tria haec unum omnia propter Patrem, aequalis omnia propter Filium, connexa omnia propter Spiritum sanctum. Itaque Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus et singulus quisque horum Deus est, et simul omnes unus Deus, et singulus quisque horum plena substantia est, et simul omnes una substantia. Pater nec Filius est nec Spiritus sanctus; Filius nec Pater est nec Spiritus sanctus; Spiritus sanctus nec Pater est nec Filius, sed Pater tantum pater, et Filius tantum filius, et Spiritus sanctus tantum spiritus sanctus. Eadem tribus aeternitas, eadem incommutabilitas, eadem maiestas, eadem potestas ». — Iin his verbis aperte insinuatur personarum trium distinctio.	It must also be known [sciri oportet] , that (St.) Augustine wanting to show the distinction of the same Three Persons without the expression of those three properties commemorated above, thus says in the first book On Christian Doctrine:⁶ « In the Father there is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the concord of unity and equality: and these three (names are) all one, on account of the Father, all equal on account of the Son, all connected on account of the Holy Spirit. And thus the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and any single One of These is God, and together All (are) the one God, and any single One of These is the full Substance, and All together (are) the one Substance. The Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Son is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but the Father (is) only a father, the Son only a son, and the Holy Spirit only a holy spirit. Of the Three [tribus] (there is) the same eternity, the same incommutability, the same Majesty, the same Power ». — In this words he openly insinuates the distinction of the Three Persons.
Cap. III. Quare Patri attribuitur unitas.*	Chapter III. For what reason is “unity” attributed to the Father.*
Sed plurimos movet, quod Patri attribuit unitatem, Filio aequalitatem. Cum enim unitas dicatur secundum substantiam, non tantum in Patre est, sed etiam in Filio et in Spiritu sancto; et aequalitas una . . .	But it disturbs [movet] very many, that he attributes to the Father a unity, to the Son an equality. For since “unity” is said according to substance, it is not only in the Father, but also in the Son and in the Holy Spirit; and there is one “equality” . . .
¹ Propositio 1. n. 13. Haec et duae sequentes notulae in nonnullis editionibus (ut 8) desunt, in aliis (ut in Vat. et 7) ad marginem exhibentur, in aliis (ed. 9) ipsi textui inseruntur. Etiam in codicibus nostris non in eodem loco positae sunt. Antiquiores Commentatores Lombardi saepius earum mentionem faciunt. Ipsae videntur pertinere ad secundam editionam Lombardi, de qua pag. 529, nota 5 locuti sumus. ² I. Cor. 13, 12. Vulgata et etiam plurimae edd. cum Vat. in hoc textu omittunt et contra codd. et originale. ³ August., VI. de Trin. c. 10. n. 11, et 12; in quo textu ed. August. ad se invicem pro a se invicem (ut antiquae edd.). Post per pietatem Vat. et. edd. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 addunt fidei, refragantibus codd. et originali. ⁴ Dist. XXVI. ⁵ Vat. omittit patris, et paulo post perperam ponit notat pro notant. ⁶ Cap. 5. n. 5, nonnullis omissis vel additis.	¹ Proposition 1, n. 13. This and the two following Brief Notes [Notula] are lacking in not a few editions, such as. edition 8; in some, such as the Vatican and edition 7, they are exhibited in the margin, in others, such as edition 9, they are inserted into the text itself. Even in our codices they are not put in the same place. The more ancient Commentators on Lombard often make mention of them. They seem to originate with the second edition of Lombard’s work, of which we have spoken above on p. 529, in footnote 5. ² 1 Cor. 13 :12. The Vulgate and even very many editions, together with the Vatican edition, omit in this text and [et], contrary to the codices and original. ³ (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity, Bk. VI, ch. 10, nn. 11 and 12; in which text the edition of (St.) Augustine’s (works) has according to one Another [ad se invicem] for by one Another [a se invicem], which the ancient editions have. For through piety [per pietatem] the Vatican edition and editions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 read through the piety of the faith [per pietatem fidei], breaking with the codices and the original. ⁴ Distinction XXVI. ⁵ The Vatican edition omits “father” [patris], and a little after this it faultily puts notes [notat] for note [notant]. ⁶ Chapter 5, n. 5, with not a few (words) omitted and/or added.
* [Trans. nota: Hic in titulo originaliter lectum est nomen unitas cum litteris cursivis, perperam et contra consuetudinem editorum editionis criticalis, qui scribunt since cursivis nomina in titulis ad significandum vocabulas exhibitas ut vocabulas.]	* [Trans. note: Here unity in the title has been faultily italicized in the Latin, contrary to the custom of the Quaracchi editors, of omitting italics in titles, when words are used as terms.]

p. 531

est Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. Cur ergo Patri attribuitur unitas et Filio aequalitas? Forte eadem ratione attribuitur Patri unitas secundum Augustinum, qua supra eidem aeternitas secundum Hilarium: quia videlicet Pater ita est, ut ab alio non sit, et quia Filium genuit unum secum Deum, et Spiritus sanctus ab eo procedit unus cum eo Deus. Unitas ergo in Patre esse dicitur, quia nec est aliquid aliud, a quo sit — non enim ab alio est — nec ab eo aliquid vel aliquis est ab aeterno, quod unum cum eo non sit; Filius enim et Spiritus sanctu unum sunt cum Patre. Unde Veritas ait: Ego et Pater unum sumus.¹	of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, why is “unity” attributed to the Father and “equality” to the Son? Perhaps “unity” is attributed to the Father according to (St.) Augustine for the same reason, for which “eternity” (is attributed), above, to the Same according to (St.) Hilary: because, namely, the Father is such, that He is not from Another, and because He begot the Son, (to be) the one God with Himself , and (because) the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him (to be) the one God with Him. Therefore a “unity” is said to be in the Father, because neither is there anything other, than which He is — for He is not from Another — nor is there anything or anyone from Him from eternity, which is not one (thing) [unum] with Him; for the Son and the Holy Spirit are one (thing) with the Father. Whence the Truth says: I and the Father are one [unum].¹
Notula. Hilarius in libro de Synodis:² « Si quis innascibilem et sine initio dicat Filium, quasi duo sine principio et duo innascibilia et duo innata dicens duos faciat deos: anathema sit. Caput enim, quod est principium omnium, Filius; caput autem, quod est principium Christi, Deus. Sic enim ad unum ininitiabile omnium initium per Filium universa referimus. Filium innascibilem confitieri, impissimum est. Iam enim non erit Deus unus, quia Deum unum praedicari, natura unius innascibilis Dei exigit. Cum ergo Deus unus sit, duo innascibiles esse non possunt; cum idcirco Deus unus sit — cum Pater Deus sit, et Filius Dei Deus sit — quia innascibilitas sola penes unum sit. Filius autem idcirco Deus, quia ex innascibili essentia natus existat. Respuit ergo innascibilem Filium praedicari fides sancta, ut per unum innascibilem Deum unum Deum praedicet, ut naturam unigenitam, ex innascibili genitam essentia, in uno innascibilis Dei nomine complectatur. Caput enim omnium Filius est, sed caput Filii Deus est, et ad unum Deum omnia hoc gradu et hac confessione referuntur, cum ab eo sumant universa principium, cui ipse principium sit ». Idem in eodem: « Omnibus creaturis substantiam voluntas Dei attulit, sed naturam dedit Filio ex innascibili ac non nata substantia perfecta nativitas. Talia enim cuncta creata sunt, qualia Deus esse voluit. Filius autem natus ex Deo subsistit talis, qualis Deus est, nec dissimilem sui edidit natura naturam; sed ex substantia Dei genitus naturae secundum originem attulit essentiam, non secundum creaturam voluntatis essentiam ».	A Brief Note. (St.) Hilary in the book On Synods (says):² « If anyone says that the Son (is) innascible without a beginning [sine initio], as if saying that two without a beginning [sine principio] and two innascibles and two unborns makes two gods: anathema sit. For the Head, which is the beginning of all (things), (is) the Son; but the Head, which is the beginning of Christ, (is) God. For thus do we refer all (things) through the Son to the one uninitiable Beginning of all [ininitiabile omium initium]. To confess the Son innascible, is most impious. For now there will not be one God, because that one God be preached, requires [exigit] the Nature of one innascible God. Therefore, since there is one God, there cannot be two Innascibles; since there is one God for this reason [idcirco] — since the Father is God, and the Son of God is God — because innascibility alone is from within the One [penes unum]. Moreover the Son (is) God for this reason, because He exists (as) One born from the innascible Essence. Therefore the Holy Faith rejects that there be preached an innascible Son, so that it may preach through the one innascible God the One God, to embrace the only-begotten Nature, begotten out of the innascible Essence, in the one Name of the Innascible God. For the Head of all (things) is the Son, but the Head of the Son is God, and to the One God all (things) are referred by this step and this confession, since from Him each and every (thing) takes (its) beginning [principium], the beginning of which He Himself is ». The same (says) in the same (book): « To all creatures the Will of God brings to bear the Substance, but a perfect nativity gave to the Son the Nature out of the innascible and not born Substance. For such are all created (things), as God has willed (them) to be. But the Son, born out of God, subsists (as) such, as God is, nor has He brought forth a nature dissimilar to Himself according to nature; but out of the substance of God the begetting of the Nature has brought to bear the Essence, according to origin, it (has) not (brought to bear) the Essence according to a creature of the Will ».
Cap. IV. Quare Pater et Filius dicantur esse unum vel unus Deus, sed non unus.	Chapter IV. For what reason are the Father and the Son said to be unum and/or unus Deus, but not unus.
Hic dici oportet, quod Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus recte dicuntur esse unum et unus Deus, sed non unus. Res enim duae vel plures recte possunt dici unum esse, si sint unius essentiae, et earum una sit natura. Unus autem vel una non potest dici de diversis rebus, nisi addatur, quid unus vel una; quo addito, recte potest dici de rebus et unius et diversae substantiae. Unde Augustinus in sexto libro de Trinitate capitulo tertio³ ait sic: « Nescio, utrum inveniatur in Scripturis dictum, unum sunt, quorum est diversa natura. Si autem et aliqua plura sint eiusdem naturae, et diversa sentiant, non sunt unum, in quantum diversa sentiunt. Cum ergo si dicitur unum, ut non addatur, quid unum, et plura unum dicuntur; eadem natura atque essentia, non dissidens neque dissentiens significatur ». « Unde Paulus et Apollo, qui est ambo homines erant et idem sentiebant, unum esse dicuntur, cum dicitur: Qui plantat et qui rigat unum sunt.⁴ Cum vero additur, quid unum, potest significari aliquid ex pluribus unum factum, quamvis diversa natura: sicut anima et corpus non possunt utique dici unum — quod enim tam diversum? — nisi addatur vel subintelligatur, quid unum, id est unus homo. Unde Apostolus: Qui adhaeret, inquit, Domino, unus spiritus est. Non dixit: unus est, vel unum sunt, sed addidit spiritus. Diversi sunt enim natura spiritus hominis et spiritus Dei, sed inhaerendo fit spiritus hominis unus spiritus cum Deo », quia particeps fit veritatis et beatitudinis illius. Si ergo de his quae diversae substantiae sunt, recte dicitur, quod sint unus spiritus, quanto magis qui unius substantiae sunt recte dicuntur unus Deus esse? « Pater ergo et Filius unum sunt, utique secundum unitatem substantiae, et unus Deus ». In quo et Ariana haeresis damnatur, quae Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, ut ait Augustinus in libro de Haeresibus,⁵ non vult esse unius eiusdemque substantiae atque naturae vel, ut expressius dicatur, essentiae, quae Graece dicitur usia, sed Filium esse creaturam. Nec non et Sabelliana, quae, ut ait Augustinus in eodem libro, dicebat, Christum eundem ipsum et Patrem et Spiritum sanctum esse, ut esset trinitas nominum sine subsistentia personarum. « Utramque pestem, ut ait Augustinus super Ioannem,⁶ elicit Veritas dicens: Ego et Pater unum sumus. Utrumque audi et adverte et unum, et sumus, et a Charybdi et a Scylla liberaberis. Quod enim dixit unum, liberat te ab Ario; quod dixit summus, liberat te a Sabellio. Si unum: ergo non diversum; si sumus: ergo Pater et Filius. Sumus enim non diceret de uno, nec unum de diverso. Erubescant ergo Sabelliani, qui dicunt, ipsum esse Patrem, qui est Filius, confundentes personas, qui est dicti sunt Patripassiani, qui⁷ dicunt, Patrem fuisse passum. Ariani vero dicunt, aliud Patrem esse, aliud Filium, non unam substantiam, sed duas; Patrem maiorem, Filium minorem. Noli hoc dicere, tu catholice! In medio ergo naviga, utrumque periculosum latus devita et dic: Pater pater est, et Filius filius est: alius Pater, alius Filius, sed non aliud, immo hoc ipsum, quia unus Deus ». — Ecce ostensum est, quare unitas in Patre esse dicatur, cum tres illi unum sint.	Here it must be said [dici oportet], that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are rightly said to be “one” [unum] and “one God” [unus Deus], but not “one” [unus]. For two and/or more things can rightly be said to be “one” [unum], if they are of one essence, and theirs is one nature. But “one” [unus vel una] cannot be said of diverse things, unless there be added, what one (is) [quid unus vel una]; with which added, it can rightly be said of things both of one and diverse substance. Whence (St.) Augustine in the sixth book On the Trinity, in the third chapter,³ says thus: « I know not, whether there be found in the scriptures the saying, they are one [unum], of those which are diverse in nature. But if there are both any more of the same nature, and they think diverse (thoughts), they are not one [unum], inasmuch as they think diverse (thoughts). When, therefore, if there is said “one” [unum], not to add, what unum (is), and many are said (to be) one [unum]; there is signified (that they are) the same (thing) by nature and essence, not dissident nor dissenting ». « Whence (St.) Paul and Apollo, who were both men and used to think the same, are said to be “one” [unum], when there is said: He who plants and he who irrigates are one [unum].⁴ However when there is added, what unum (is), something can be signified (to have been) made one out of many, though diverse in nature: just as the soul and body cannot indeed be said (to be) ‘one’ — for what is so diverse (as they)? — unless there be added and/or understood [subintelligatur], what unum (is), that is, “one man”. Whence the Apostle (says): He who adheres, he says, to the Lord, is one spirit (with Him). He did not say: “is one” [unus est], and/or “are one” [unum sunt], but added “spirit”. For diverse in nature are the spirit of a man and the spirit of God, but by inhering the spirit of the man becomes one spirit with God », because it comes to be a sharer [particeps] of His truth and beatitude. If, therefore, of those which are of a diverse substance, there is rightly said, that they are “one spirit”, how much more those, who are of one Substance, rightly said to be the “one God”? « Therefore, the Father and the Son are ‘one’, indeed, according to the Unity of the Substance, and the one God ». In which there is also damned the Arian heresy, which does not want that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as (St.) Augustine says in (his) book On Heresies,⁵ be of one and the same Substance and Nature and/or, to speak more expressly, Essence, which in Greek is said “ousia”, but that the Son be a creature. And also the Sabellian, which, as (St.) Augustine says in the same book, used to say, that the same Christ Himself is both the Father and the Holy Spirit, so that there is a trinity of names without the subsistence of persons. « Each pest », as (St.) Augustine says On the Gospel of St. John,⁶ « the Truth destroys, saying: I and the Father are one [unum]. Hear each (word) and turn away (from each error), both “one” [unum] and “we are” [sumus], and you shall be freed from Charybdus and Scylla. For that He said “one” [unum], he frees you from Arian; that He said “we are”, He frees you from Sabellius. If ‘one’: therefore not diverse; if “we are”: therefore the Father and the Son. For “we are” would not be said of one, nor “one” [unum] of (something) diverse. Therefore, let the Sabellian blush, who say, that the very Father is, He who is the Son, confounding the Persons, who have also been called the Patripassians, who⁷ say, that the Father has suffered. However, the Arians say, that the Father is one (thing), the Son another, not one substance, but two; that the Father (is) greater, the Son lesser. Do not say this, you (who are) Catholic! Sail in the midst, therefore, avoid each dangerous side and say: “the Father is a father, and the Son a son: one [alius] (is) the Father, another the Son, but not another (thing) [aliud], nay the very (same), because (They are) the one God ». — Behold, it has been shown, for what reason unity is said to be in the Father, when those Three are ‘one’.
¹ Ioan. 10, 30. ² Propositio 26. n. 59. 60, et sequens locus est propos. 24. n. 58. In originali ex impassibili pro ex innascibili. ³ Num. 4, sed pluribus a Magistro interpolatis et mutatis. ⁴ I. Cor. 3, 8. Sequens locus est ibid. c. 6, 17. — Circa finem huius textus Augustini ante et unus Deus Vat. cum pluribus edd. essentiae pro substantiae. ⁵ Art. 49; sequens locus est art. 36. et 41. ⁶ Tract. 36. n. 9. ⁷ Edd. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 quia.	¹ Jn. 10:30. [Trans. note: On the translation of the adjective unum here, see unum in the Rationale for the Translation of Peculiar Latin Terms, in the Introduction to this English translation.] ² Proposition 26, nn. 59 and 60, and the following text is proposition 24, n. 58. In the original there is read from the impassible Essence [ex impassibili essentia] for from the innascible Essence [ex innascibili essential]. ³ Number 4, but with very many (words) interpolated and changed by Master (Peter). ⁴ 1 Cor. 3:8. The following passage is ibid., 6:17. — Near the end of this text of (St.) Augustine, the Vatican edition together with very many editions has the Unity of the Essence [unitatem essentiae] for the Unity of the Substance [unitatem substantiae]. ⁵ Article 49; the following passage is articles 36 and 41. ⁶ Tract 36, n. 9. ⁷ Editions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 read because they [quia] for who [qui].

p. 532

Notula. Hilarius in libro de Synodis:¹ « Minus forte expresse videtur de indifferenti similitudine Patris et Filii fides locuta esse, cum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto ita senserit significatam in nominibus propriam uniuscuiusque nominatorum substantiam et ordinem et gloriam, ut sint quidem per substantiam tria, per consonantiam vero unum. Volens igitur congregata sanctorum Synodus impietatem eam perimere, quae unitatem Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti nominum numero eluderet, ut, non subsistente causa uniuscuiusque nominis, triplex nuncupatio obtineret sub falsitate nominum unionem, et Pater solus atque unus idem et ipse haberet et Spiritus sancti nomen et Filii. Idcirco tres substantias esse dixerunt, subsistentium personas per substantias edocentes, non substantiam Patris et Filii diversitate dissimilis essentiae separantes. Quod autem dictum est, ut sint quidem per substantiam tria, per consonantiam vero unum, non habet calumniam; quia connominato Spiritu, id est Paracleto, consonantiae potius quam essentiae per similitudinem substantiae praedicari convenit unitatem ». Item in eodem: « Cum Deum Patrem confitemur, et Christum Dei Filium praedicamus, et inter haec duum deorum sit irreligiosa confessio; non possunt secundum naturae indifferentiam et nomen indifferens non unum esse in essentiae genere, quorum essentiae nomen non licet esse nisi unum ». « Non enim religiosa unitas nominis ex indifferentis naturae essentia constituta personam genitae ademit essentiae, ut unica ac singularis Dei substantia per unionem nominis intelligatur, cum utriusque essentiae nomen unum, id est unus Deus, ob indiscretae in utroque naturae indissimilem substantiam praedicetur ».	A Brief Note. (St.) Hilary in (his) book On Synods (says):¹ « Perhaps it seems that the Faith has spoken less expressly of the undiffering similitude of the Father and the Son, since of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it thought that Their own [propiam] Substance and order and glory (were) so signified in the names of each One named, that They indeed are Three through substance, but One [unum] through consonance. Therefore, the gathered Synod of the Saints, wanting to thoroughly crush that impiety, which mocked [eluderet] the Unity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit with a number of names, so that, not by the subsisting cause of each name, a threefold naming [nuncupatio] would obtain a union under the falsity of names, and the Father Himself would have the one and only same Name of both the Holy Spirit and the Son. For that reason (the Saints) said that there are three substances, thoroughly teaching through “substances” (that there are) persons of subsistences, not separating the Substance of the Father and the Son by a diversity of a dissimilar Essence. Moreover, what has been said, that They are indeed “Three through substance, but One through consonance”, is not worthy of calumny [non habet calumniam]; because by the surname of the Spirit [connominato Spiritu], that is, “the Advocate” [Paracleto], it is fitting that a unity of consonance rather than of essence be predicated through a similitude of substance ». Likewise in the same (book he says): « When we confess God (to be) the Father, we also preach Christ (to be) the Son of God, and between these let the confession of two gods be irreligious; They cannot according to an indifference of nature and an undiffering Name be one in the genus of essence, for Whose Essence is not licit that there be but one Name ». « For the religious unity of the Name, constituted out of the essence of an undiffering Nature, does not take away the Person of the begotten Essence, so that the unique and singular Substance of God is understood through the union of the Name, since the one Name of each Essence, that is, “the one God”, is preached on account of the indissimilar substance of the Nature in Each ».
Cap. V. Quare dicitur esse aequalitas in Filio.	Chapter V. Why there is said to be an equality in the Son.
Nunc videamus, quare aequlitas dicatur esse in Filio, cum una et summa aequalitas sit trium. Hoc ideo forte dictum est, quia Filius genitus est a Patre aequalis Gignenti et Dono, quod ab utroque procedit, et ideo illa tria dicuntur esse aequalia propter Filium. Filius enim habet a Patre, ut sit ei aequalis et Spiritui sancto; et Spiritus sanctus ab utroque habet, ut sit aequalis utrique. Hoc autem sine assertionis supercilio et maioris intelligentiae praeiudicio dicimus, malentes in apertione tam clausarum sermonum peritiores audire quam aliquid aliis influere.	Now let us see, for what reason is “equality” said to be in the Son, since there is a one and most high equality of the Three. This has, perhaps, been said, for this reason, because the Son has been begotten by the Father (to be) equal to the One Begetting and to the Gift, which proceeds from Each, and for that reason those Three are said to be equal on account of the Son. For the Son has from [a] the Father, that He is equal to Him and to the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit has from Each, that He is equal to Each. But we say this without the arrogance [supercilio] of an assertion and prejudice against a greater understanding, preferring in the explanation [apertione] of such reserved discourses [clausarum sermonum] to hear those more expert that to pass on [influere] anything to others.
Cap. VI. Quare in Spiritu sancto dicitur esse virtus, concordia vel connexio.	Chapter VI. Why in the Holy Spirit there is said to be virtue, concord and/or a connection.
Quod autem in Spiritu sancto dicitur esse utriusque concordia et per eum omnia connexa, facilior est intelligentia nobis praemissa ad mentem revocantibus. Supra² enim secundum auctoritates Sanctorum dictum est, quod Spiritus sanctus amor est, quo Pater diligit Filium, et Filius Patrem. Recte igitur Spiritus sanctus dicitur connexio vel concordia Patris est Filii, et per eum omnia connexa. Unde Augustinus in sexto libro de Trinitate:³ « Communio quaedam consubstantialis Patris et Filii est amborum Spiritus sanctus ». Idem in septimo libro de Triniate: « Spiritus sanctus est summa caritas, utrumque coniugens nosque subiungens ».	Moreover, that in the Holy Spirit there is said to be the “concord” of Each and that through Him all (things have been) connected, the understanding is easier for us, who recall [revocantibus] the aforesaid to mind. For above,² according to the authorities of the Saints, it has been said, that the Holy Spirit is the “love” [amor], by which the Father loves [diligit] the Son, and the Son the Father. Therefore, rightly is the Holy Spirit said (to be) the “connection” [connexio] and/or “concord” of the Father and the Son, and that through Him all (things have been) connected. Whence (St.) Augustine in the sixth book On the Trinity (says):³ « The Holy Spirit is a certain consubstantial communion of both the Father and the Son ». Likewise in the seventh book On the Trinity (he says): « The Holy Spirit is most high Charity, joining Each together, and joining us from below ».
¹ Notula sumta est ex tribis locis huius libri, scilicet n. 31. 32, n. 41. et n. 42. Circa finem notulae pro unica ac singularis ed. Hilarii unici ac singularis. ² Dist. X. ³ Cap. 5. n. 7: Spiritus ergo sanctus commune aliquid est Patris et Filii, quidquid illud est. At ipsa communio consubstantialis et coaeterna. Et V. c. 11. n. 12: Ergo Spiritus sanctus ineffabilis est quaedam Patris Filiisque communio. — Sequens locus est ibid. VII. c. 3. n. 6.	¹ The Brief Note [Notula] has been composed from three passages from this book, namely, nn. 31 and 32, n. 41, and n. 42. Near the end of the Brief Note the edition of (St.) Hilary’ s (works) has the Substance of the unique and singular God [unici ac singularis Dei substantia] for the unique and singular Substance of God [unica ac singularis Dei substantia]. [Trans. note: Cf. here St. Bonaventure’s Commentary, dubium 8 throughout, on this passage of St. Hilary.] ² Distinction X. ³ Chapter 5, n. 7: Therefore, the Holy Spirit is something common to the Father and to the Son, whatever that is. But the communion itself (is) consubstantial and coeternal. And in Bk. V, ch. 11, n. 12 (St. Augustine says): Therefore, the Holy Spirit is a certain ineffable communion of the Father and the Son. — The following passage is ibid., Bk. VII, ch. 3, n. 6.

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