LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 32: 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 XXXII.	DISTINCTION 32
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 552-555. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 552-555. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
Cap. I. Utrum Pater vel Filius ea dilectione diligant, quae procedit ab utroque, id est Spiritu sancto	Chapter I. Whether the Father and/or the Son love by that love, which proceeds from Each, that is, by the Holy Spirit.
Hic oritur quaestio ex praedictis deducta. Dictum est enim supra¹ atque Sanctorum auctoritatibus ostensum, quod Spiritus sanctus est communio Patris et Filii et amor, quo Pater et Filius se invicem diligunt. Ideo quaeritur, utrum Pater vel Filius per Spiritum sanctum vel Spiritu sancto² diligat. Quod utique videtur oportere dici secundum auctoritates supra positas, quibus ostenditur, Spiritum sanctum esse quo genitus a gignente diligatur genitoremque suum diligat. Sed contra: si Pater vel Filius dicatur diligere per Spiritum sanctum, videtur esse per Spiritum sanctum, quia . . .	Here arises a question, deduced from the aforesaid. For it has been said above¹ and shown by the authorities of the Saints, that the Holy Spirit is the communion of the Father and of the Son and (is) the Love [amor], by which the Father and the Son love [diligunt] one Another. For that reason there is asked, whether the Father and/or the Son love through the Holy Spirit and/or by the Holy Spirit.² Indeed, it seems that it must be said [oportere dici], according to the authorities posited above, by which it is shown, that the Holy Spirit is He by Whom the Begotten is loved by the One begetting and loves His own Begetter. But on the contrary: if the Father and/or the Son is said to love through the Holy Spirit, it seems to be through the Holy Spirit, because . . .
¹ Dist. XXXI. c. 6. ² Vat. aliaeque edd., refragantibus codd. et ed. 1, omittunt vel Spiritu sancto; deinde codd. C D et ed. 8 diligant pro diligat, et insuper cod. C addit se.	¹ Distinction XXXI, ch. 6. ² The Vatican edition and the other editions, brekaing with the codices and edition 1, omit and/or by the Holy Spirit [vel Spiritu sancto]; codices C and D and edition 8, have the plural form for love [diligant]; and codex C, moreover, adds Themselves [se].

p. 553

non est aliud Deo esse, et aliud diligere, sed idem; quia, ut ait Augustinus in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate:¹ « Quidquid secundum qualitates in illa simplici natura dici videtur, secundum essentiam est intelligendum », ut bonus, magnus, immortalis, sapiens, diligens et huiusmodi. Ideoque, si Pater vel Filius diligit per Spiritum sanctum, per ipsum Spiritum esse videtur. Neque tantum essentia sua diligit, sed etiam Dono.	it is not one (thing) for God to be, and another to love, but (they are) the same; because, as (St.) Augustine says in the fifteenth book On the Trinity:¹ « Whatever seems to be said according to qualities in that simple Nature, must be understood according to essence », such as “good”, “great”, “immortal”, “wise”, “loving”, and (names) of this kind. And for that reason, if the Father and/or the Son love through the Holy Spirit, it seems to be through the Holy Spirit. Nor does (the Father or the Son) love only by Their Essence, but also by (Their) Gift.
Huic quaestioni, cum altitudinem nimiae profunditatis contineat, id solum respondemus, quod Augustinus significare videtur, scilicet quod Pater et Filius se diligant et unitatem servent non solum essentia sua, sed suo dono proprio; quod licet supra² positum sit, iterare tamen non piget, quia sic expedit. Ait ergo Augustinus in sexto libro de Trinitate³ ita: « Manifestum est, quod non aliquis duorum est, quo uterque coniungitur, quo genitus a gignente diligatur genitoremque suum diligat, sintque non participatione, sed essentia sua, neque dono superioris alicuius, sed suo proprio servantes unitatem pacis ».⁴ Ecce hic dicit, quod essentia sua et Dono suo servant unitatem. Idem in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate⁵ ait: « In illa Trinitate, quis audeat dicere, Patrem nec se nec Filium nec Spiritum sanctum diligere nisi per Spiritum sanctum »? — Hic aperte ostendit, Patrem non tantum per Spiritum sanctum diligere; non autem simpliciter dicit, Patrem non diligere per Spiritum sanctum.	To this question, since it contains a depth of exceeding profundity, we respond this alone, that (St.) Augustine seems to signify, that is, that the Father and the Son love Themselves and guard (Their) unity not only by Their own Essence, but by Their own, proper Gift; which, though it has been posited above,² yet it is no annoyance [non piget] to repeat (it), because it is thus expedient. Therefore, (St.) Augustine speaks in the sixth book On the Trinity³ thus: « It has been made manifest, that Any of the Two is not, the One by whom Each is conjoined, by whom the Begotten is loved by the One begetting and loves His own Begetter, and that They are not by participation, but by Their own Essence, nor by the gift of Anyone superior, but by Their own (Gift) the Ones preserving [servantes] the unity of peace ».⁴ Behold, here he says, that by Their own Essence and by Their own Gift They preserve [servant] unity. Likewise in the tenth book On the Trinity⁵ he says: « In that Trinity, who dares to say, that the Father loves neither Himself nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit except through the Holy Spirit »? — Here he openly shows, that the Father loves not only through the Holy Spirit; however he does simply say, that the Father does not love through the Holy Spirit.
Cap. II. Utrum Pater sit sapiens sapientia, quam genuit.	Chapter II. Whether the Father is wise by the Wisdom, which He begot.
Praeterea diligenter investigari oportet, utrum Pater sapiens sit sapientia, quam genuit, quae tantum Filius est. Quod videtur a simili posse probari. Si enim Pater diligit amore, qui ab ipso procedit, cur non et sapientia vel intelligentia, quam ipse genuit, sapit vel intelligit? « Hanc quaestionem urgere videtur, ut ait Augustinus in septimo libro de Trinitate,⁶ quod scripsit Apostolus dicens Christum, Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam, ubi quaeritur, utrum ita sit Pater sapientiae et virtutis suae, ut hac sapientia sapiens sit, quam genuit, et hac virtute potens, quam genuit. — Sed absit, ut ita sit; quia si hoc est ibi esse quod sapere, non per illam sapientiam, quam genuit, sapiens est Pater, alioquin non ipsa ab illo, sed ille ab ipsa est. Si enim sapientia, quam genuit, causa est illi, ut sapiens sit, etiam ut sit, ipsa illi causa est; quod fieri non potest, nisi gignendo eum aut faciendo; sed nec genitricem nec conditricem Patris ullo modo quisquam dixerit sapientiam. Quid enim est inasius? Ergo et Pater ipsa sapientia est, qua sapiens est; Filus vero dicitur sapientia Patris et virtus Patris, non quia Pater per eum sit sapiens vel potens, sed quia Filus, sapientia et virtus, est de Patre, sapientia et virtute ». — Ex his ergo patet, quod Pater non est sapiens sapientia genita, sed se ipso sapientia ingenita.	Moreover, one must diligently investigate, whether the Father is wise by the Wisdom, which He begot, which is only the Son. Which it seems can be proven by a simile. For if the Father loves by the Love [amore], who proceeds from Him, why is He not wise [sapit] and/or does not understand also by the Wisdom and/or Intelligence, which He Himself begot? « There seems to urge this question », as (St.) Augustine says in the seventh book On the Trinity,⁶ « that which the Apostle wrote, saying, Christ, the Virtue of God and the Wisdom of God, where there is asked, whether thus there is a Father of His own wisdom and virtue, that He is wise by this Wisdom, which He begot, and powerful by this Virtue, which He begot. — But far be it, that it be thus; because, if There ‘to be’ is that which (it is) ‘to be wise’, the Father is wise not through that Wisdom, which He begot, otherwise That is not from Him, but He from That. For if the Wisdom, which He begot, is the cause for Him, to be wise, (then) it is the very cause for Him, to be; which cannot come to be, except by begetting or by making Him; but neither has anyone said in any manner that Wisdom (is) the begetter or founder of the Father. For what is more insane? Therefore the Father is also the very Wisdom, by which He is wise; but the Son is said to be “the Wisdom” of the Father and “the Virtue” of the Father, not because the Father through Him is wise and/or powerful, but because the Son, (who is) Wisdom and Virtue, is from the Father, (who is) Wisdom and Virtue ». — From these, therefore, it is clear, the Father is not wise by begotten Wisdom, but by Himself, the unbegotten Wisdom.
Notula. Augustinus in libro Octoginta trium Quaestionum:⁷ « Cum sapiens Deus dicitur, et sapientia sapiens dicitur, sine qua cum vel fuisse aliquando vel esse posse, nefas est credere, non participatione sapientiae sapiens dicitur, sicut anima, quae et esse et non esse sapiens potest; sed quod ipse eam genuerit, qua sapiens dicitur sapientia ». — Animadverte, lector, Patrem dici sapientem genita sapientia, quod aliis obviat testimonis. Verum hoc Augustinus corrigit in libro primo Rectractationum inquiens: « Dixi in libro Octoginta trium Quaestionum, quaestione vigesima tertia, quae est de Patre, quod eam genuit qua sapiens dicitur sapientiam; sed melius istam quaestionem in libro postea de Trinitate tractavi ».	A Brief Note. (St.) Augustine in the book The Eighty-Three Questions (says):⁷ « When God is said (to be) wise, and said (to be) wise by the Wisdom, without which, is forbidden to believe, that at some time He either was and/or can be, He cannot be wise by participation in wisdom, just as a soul (is), which can both be and not be wise; but because He Himself begot That, by which He is said (to be) wise by Wisdom ». Observer, o reader, that the Father is said (to be) wise by begotten Wisdom, which is obvious [obviat] by other testimonies. But (St.) Augustine corrects this in the first book of Retractations, saying: « I said in the book The Eighty-Three Questions, in the twenty-third question, which concerns the Father, that He begot That by which the Wise one is said (to be) Wisdom; but I treated that question afterwards, better, in the book On the Trinity ».
Post haec quaeri solet a quibusdam, utrum Filius sit sapiens sapientia genita, vel ingenita. Si enim non est sapiens sapientia genita, nec se ipso sapiens est; si vero sapientia genita sapiens est, non videtur esse sapiens sapientia ingenita; et ita non videtur esse sapiens a Patre, cum a Patre habeat omnia. — Ad quod dicimus, quod una est sapientia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, sicut una essentia, quia sapientia in illius naturae simplicitate est essentia; et tantum sapientia ingenita; et sapientia genita est de sapientia ingenita vel a sapientia ingenita. Et cum idem sit ibi esse quod sapientem esse, relinquitur, ut sapientia genita sit sapiens de sapientia ingenita. Non ergo Filius dicitur sapientia Dei, tanquam ipse solus sit intelligens vel sapiens sibi et Patri et Spiritui sancto; quia, ut ait Augustinus in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate:⁸ « Si solus ibi Filius intelligit et sibi et Patri et Spiritui sancto, ad illam reditur absurditatem, ut Pater non sit sapiens de se ipso, sed de Filio, nec sapientia sapientiam genuerit, sed ea sapientia Pater dicatur sapiens esse, quam genuit. Ubi enim non est intelligentia, nec sapientia potest esse. Ideoque, si Pater non intelligit ipse sibi, sed Filius intelligit Patri, profecto Filius Patrem sapientem facit. Et si hoc est Deo esse quod sapere, et ea illi essentia est quae sapientia; non Filius a Patre, quod verum est, sed a Filio potius Pater habet essentiam; quod absurdissimum atque falsissimum est. Est ergo Deus Pater sapiens ea quae ipse est sua sapientia; et Filius, sapientia Patris, est sapiens de sapientia, quae est Pater, de quo est genitus Filius. Ita et Pater est intelligens ea quae ipse est sua intelligentia. Non enim esset sapiens, qui non esset intelligens. Filius autem, intelligentia Patris, de intelligentia genitus est, quae est Pater, de qua intelligens est ».	After these, there is customarily asked by certain (authors), whether the Son is wise by begotten or unbegotten Wisdom. For if He is not wise by begotten Wisdom, neither is He wise by Himself; however, if begotten Wisdom is wise, He does not seem to be wise by unbegotten Wisdom; and thus He does not seem to be wise by the Father, since He has all from the Father. — To which we say, that there is one Wisdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, just as (there is) one Essence, because the Wisdom in the simplicity of that Nature is the Essence; and only an unbegotten Wisdom; and the begotten Wisdom is from [de] the unbegotten Wisdom and/or by [a] the unbegotten Wisdom. And since it is the same There ‘to be’ as ‘to be wise’, it remains, that the begotten Wisdom is wise from the unbegotten Wisdom. Therefore the Son is sot said (to be) the Wisdom of God, as if He alone is the One understanding [intelligens] and/or discerning [sapiens] Himself and the Father and the Holy Spirit; because, as (St.) Augustine says in the fifteenth book On the Trinity:⁸ « If the Son alone understands There both Himself and the Father and the Holy Spirit, there is this absurd result [ad illam reditur absurditatem], that the Father is not wise from Himself, but from the Son, and Wisdom has not begot Wisdom, but the Father is said to be wise by that Wisdom, which He begot. For where there is not intelligence, neither can there be wisdom. And for that reason, if the Father Himself does not understand Himself, but the Son understands the Father, the Son indeed makes the Father wise. And if for God ‘to be’ is that which (it is) ‘to be wise’, and that Essence of His is what Wisdom (is); it is true that the Son does not have the Essence from the Father, but rather the Father from the Son; which is most absurd and also most false. Therefore God the Father is wise by That which He Himself is as His own Wisdom; and the Son, the Wisdom of the Father, is wise from the Wisdom, which is the Father, from whom the Son has been begotten. Thus the Father is also intelligent by That which He is as His own Intelligence. For one would not be wise, who was not intelligent. Moreover, the Son, the Intelligence of the Father, has been begotten from the Intelligence, which is the Father, from whom He is intelligent ».
Proinde Pater est sapientia, et Filius sapientia, et uterque una sapientia, et tamen solus Pater est ingenita sapientia, et Filius solus genita sapientia; nec tamen alia sapientia Pater, alia Filius sed una eademque est: . . .	Therefore [proinde], the Father is Wisdom, and the Son Wisdom, and Each the One (is) Wisdom, and yet the Father alone is the unbegotten Wisdom, and the Son alone the begotten Wisdom, and yet the Father is not one Wisdom, the Son Another, but there is one and the same Wisdom: . . .
¹ Cap. 5. n. 8. ² Dist. X. c. 2. ³ Cap. 5. n. 7. — Paulo superius post sed cod. D bene adiicit etiam, deinde codd. B E pigebit pro piget. ⁴ Ephes. 4, 3. Codd. A B D E addunt in vinculo ante pacis. Vulgata: Solliciti servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis. ⁵ Cap. 7. n. 12. ⁶ Cap. 1. n. 1. Ultima propositio est ibi ex n. 2. — Locus s. Scripturae est I. Cor. 1, 24. ⁷ Quaest. 23. — Locus ex libro Restractationum est c. 26. In libris de Trinitate agitur de hac quaestione in VI. c. 1. n. 1. seqq.; VII. c. 1-4; et XV. c. 7. n. 12. ⁸ Cap. 7. n. 12.	¹ Chapter 5, n. 8. ² Distinction X, ch. 2. ³ Chapter 5, n. 7. — A little above this after but [sed] codex D adds well also [etiam], then codices B and E have it will be no annoyance [non pigebit] for it is no annoyance [non piget]. ⁴ Eph. 4:3. Codices A B D and E read unity in the bond of peace [unitatem in vinculo pacis] for the unity of peace [unitatem pacis]. The Vulgate reads: Solicitous to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace [Solliciti servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis]. ⁵ Chapter 7, n. 12. ⁶ Chapter 1, n. 1. The last proposition is ibid, n. 2. — The passage of Sacred Scripture is 1 Cor. 1:24. ⁷ Question 23. — The passage from the book on Retractations, is ch. 26. In his work On the Trinity, this question is dealt with in Bk. VI, ch. 1, n. 1 ff; Bk .VII, chs. 1-4; and in Bk .XV, ch. 7, n. 12. ⁸ Chapter 7, n. 12.

p. 554

sicut Pater est Deus ingenitus, et Filius est Deus ingenitus, neque Deus genitus est Deus ingenitus; non ideo tamen alius Deus est Pater, alius Filius, sed unus Deus uterque, non autem unus. Alius est enim genitus, alius ingenitus, sed non alius Deus, immo uterque unum sive unus Deus. Ita non est sapientia genita sapientia ingenita, sed alia est sapientia genita, alia ingenita; non est tamen alia sapientia, sed una eademque sapientia.	just as the Father is the unbegotten God, and the Son is the begotten God, and the begotten God is not the unbegotten God; yet nor for that reason is the Father one God, the Son another, but the one God (is) Each, but (They are) not one [unus]. For One is the Begotten, the Other the Unbegotten, but (there is) not other God, nay Each (is) the One [unum] or the One God. Thus the begotten Wisdom is not the unbegotten Wisdom, but One is the begotten Wisdom, the Other the Unbegotten; yet there is no other Wisdom, but one and the same Wisdom.
Cap. III. An Filius sit sapiens se ipso vel per se ipsum.	Chapter III. Whether the Son is wise by Himself and/or through Himself.
Ex praedictis constat, quod Filius non est sapiens a se neque de se, sed a Patre et de Patre. Quaeri autem solet, utrum Filius sit sapiens se ipso vel per se ipsum. — Quidam dicunt, multiplicem hic fieri intelligentiam, et ideo distinguendum fore, ita ut, cum dicis, Filium esse sapientem se ipso vel per se ipsum, si sui natura et essentia sapientem intelligas, verus sit intellectus; si vero a se ipso vel de se ipso sapientem esse intelligas, falsitati subiectam habes intelligentiam. — Alii vero simpliciter et absque determinatione concedunt huiusmodi locutiones: Filius est sapiens per se, sed non a se vel de se; et Filius est Deus per se et est per se, sed non a se vel de se; hoc confirmantes verbis Hilarii, qui Filium non a se, sed per se agere, in libro nono de Trinitate¹ ait: « Naturae, inquit, cui contradicis, haeretice, haec unitas est, ut ita per se agat Filius, ne a se agat, et ita non a se agat, ut per se agat. Intellige Filium agentem, et per eum Patrem agentem. Non a se agit, cum Pater in eo manere monstratur; per se agit, cum secundum nativitatem Filii agit ipse quae placita sunt. Infirmus sit non a se agendo, nisi a Deo ipse agit; non sit vero in unitate naturae, si quae agit et in quibus placet non per se agit ». Sicut ergo, inquiunt, Filius per se agit, sed non a se; ita Filius debet dici sapiens per se, sed non a se; sic et² per se Deus est vel esse dicendus est, ut aiunt, sed non a se vel de se.	From the aforesaid it is established, that the Son is not wise by Himself nor from Himself, but by the Father and from the Father. Moreover, there is customarily asked, whether the Son is wise by Himself and/or through Himself. — Certain (authors) says, that here a multiple understanding is caused, and for that reason one will have to distinguish, so that, when you say, that the Son is wise by Himself and/or through Himself, if you understand that (He is) wise by the Nature and Essence, (your) understanding is true; but if you understand that He is wise by Himself and/or from Himself, you have an understanding subjected to falsehood. — However others simply and without a determination concede expressions of this kind: “the Son is wise through Himself, but not by Himself and/or from Himself”; and “the Son is God through Himself and is through Himself, but not by Himself and/or from Himself”; confirming this by the words of (St.) Hilary, who says in the ninth book On the Trinity,¹ that the Son acts not by Himself, but through Himself: « Of the Nature », he says, « which you contradict heretically, is this Unity, so that the Son acts through Himself, lest He act by Himself, and thus He does not act by Himself, to act through Himself. Understand the Son acting, and through Him the Father acting. He does not act by Himself, when the Father is shown to remain in Him; He does act through Himself, when according to the nativity of the Son He Himself does (those things) which are pleasing. He would be infirm, by not acting by Himself, unless He acts by God; but He would not be in the Unity of the Nature, if He did what He did and in which He pleases (to do what He did), not through Himself ». Therefore, just as, they say, the Son acts through Himself, but not by Himself; so the Son ought to be said (to be) wise through Himself, but not by Himself; in the same manner also is He² and/or is He to be said to be, as they say, through Himself God, but not by Himself and/or from Himself.
Cap. IV. An una tantum sit sapientia Patris.	Chapter IV. Whether there is only one Wisdom of the Father.
Post haec a quibusdam solet quaeri, utrum una tantum sit sapientia Patris; quod non esse nituntur probare hoc modo: Filius, inquiunt, est sapientia Patris genita, qua Pater sapiens non est: est igitur aliqua sapientia Patris, qua sapiens non est; est autem et sapientia Patris ingenita, et ea Pater sapiens est: est ergo quaedam sapientia Patris, qua sapiens est, et ipsa non est illa sapientia Patris, qua Pater sapiens non est: non est ergo una tantum sapientia Patris. — Item, sapientia ingenita est sapientia Patris, et sapientia genita est sapientia Patris; non est autem sapientia ingenita sapientia genita: non est igitur una tantum sapientia Patris. — Haec et his similia tanquam sophistica et a veritate longinqua cunctisque in theologia peritis patentia abiicimus, responso³ indigna advertentes, id tamen adiicientes, quia una est tantum sapientia Patris, sed non uno modo dicitur. Nam sapientia Patris dicitur illa quam genuit, et sapientia Patris dicitur ea qua sapiens est: diversa est ergo ratio dicti. Illa enim dicitur Patris, quia eam genuit; et ea dicitur Patris, quia ea sapit. Una est tamen sapientia Patris, quia sapientia genita est eadem sapientia et ea qua sapiens est, sive ea qua sapiens est intelligatur persona Patris, sive essentia Patris; quia persona Patris, quae intelligitur, cum dicitur sapientia ingenita, et persona Filii, quae significatur, cum dicitur sapientia genita, una eademque sapientia est, quae essentia divina intelligitur communis tribus personis.	After these, there is customarily asked by certain (authors), whether there is only one Wisdom of the Father; which they strive to prove that there is not, in this manner: the Son, they say, is the begotten Wisdom of the Father, by which the Father is not wise: therefore, there is some wisdom of the Father, by which He is not wise; moreover, there is also a unbegotten wisdom of the Father, and by this the Father is wise. therefore, there is a certain wisdom of the Father, by which He is wise, and it is not that Wisdom of the Father, by which He is not wise: there is not, therefore, only one wisdom of the Father. — Likewise, the unbegotten Wisdom is the Wisdom of the Father, and the begotten Wisdom is the Wisdom of the Father; moreover, the unbegotten Wisdom is not the begotten Wisdom: therefore there is not only one Wisdom of the Father. — This and (those) similar to these we reject as sophistries [sophistica] and as far from the truth and as clear to all other experts in theology, adverting to (what are) unworthy of a response [responso],³ yet applying [adiicientes] one, because there is one Wisdom of the Father, but It is not said in one manner. For the Wisdom of the Father is said to be That which He begot, and the Wisdom of the Father is said to be That by which He is wise: therefore the reckoning of the saying is diverse. For the Former is said (to be) of the Father, because He begot It; and the Latter is said (to be) of the Father, because He is wise by It. Yet, there is one Wisdom of the Father, because the begotten Wisdom is the same Wisdom and That by which He is wise, or That by which the Person of the Father, or the Essence of the Father, is understood (to be) wise; because the Person of the Father, which is understood, when there is said “the unbegotten Wisdom”, and the Person of the Won, which is signified, when there is said “the begotten Wisdom”, is the one and same Wisdom, which is understood (to be) the Divine Essence, common to the Three Persons.
Cap. V. Sicut in Trinitate est dilectio, quae est Trinitas, et tamen Spiritus sanctus est dilectio, quae non est Trinitas, nec ideo duae sunt dilectiones; ita et de sapientia.	Chapter V. Just as in the Trinity there is the Love, which is the Trinity, and yet the Holy Spirit is the Love, which is not the Trinity, nor for that reason are there two Loves; so also concerning Wisdom.
Et sicut in Trinitate dilectio est, quae est Pater, Filius et Spiritus sanctus, quae est ipsa essentia deitatis; et tamen Spiritus sanctus dilectio est, quae non est Pater vel Filius, nec ideo duae dilectiones sunt in Trinitate — quia dilectio, quae proprie Spiritus sanctus est, est dilectio, quae Trinitas est, non tamen ipsa Trinitas est; sicut Spiritus sanctus est essentia, quae Trinitas est, non tamen ipse⁴ Trinitas est — ita in Trinitae sapientia est, quae est Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, quae est essentia divina; et tamen Filius est sapientia, quae non est Pater vel Spiritus sanctus. Nec ideo duae sapientiae ibi sunt, quia sapientia, quae proprie est Filius, est sapientia, quae est Trinitas, ipsa tamen non est Trinitas; sicut Filius est essentia, quae est Trinitas, ipse tamen non est Trinitas.	And just as in the Trinity there is a Love [dilectio], which is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is the very Essence of the Deity; and yet the Holy Spirit is the Love, which is not the Father and/or the son, and there are not, for this reason, two Loves in the Trinity — because the Love, which properly is the Holy Spirit, is the Love, which is the Trinity, yet He Himself⁴ is not the Trinity — thus in the Trinity there is a Wisdom, which is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is the Divine Essence; and yet the Son is the Wisdom, which is not the Father and/or the Holy Spirit. And, not for this reason are there two Wisdoms There, because the Wisdom, which properly is the Son, is the Wisdom, which is the Trinity, yet It Itself is not the Trinity; just as the Son is the Essence, which is the Trinity, yet He Himself is not the Trinity.
Cap. VI. Quare Pater non dicitur sapiens sapientia genita, sicut dicitur diligens dilectione, quae ab ipso procedit.	Chapter VI. For what reason is the Father not said (to be) wise by the Begotten Wisdom, just as He is said (to be) loving by the Love, which proceeds from Him.
Praeterea diligenter notandum est, quod ea ratione, qua Pater non dicitur sapiens esse⁵ sapientia, quam genuit, videtur fore dicendum, quod Pater non diligat Filium, vel Filius Patrem ea dilectione, quae ab utroque procedit, scilicet quae proprie Spiritus sanctus est. Sicut enim idem est Deo sapere quod ese, ita idem est ei diligere quod esse. Ideoque, sicut negatur Pater esse sapiens sapientia, quam genuit — quia si ea diceretur sapiens, non ipsa ab eo, sed ipse ab ea intelligeretur esse — ita videtur non debere concedi, quod Pater vel Filius diligat dilectione, quae tantum . . .	Moreover, it must be diligently noted, that for this reason, by which the Father is not said to be wise by the Wisdom,⁵ which He begot, it seems that it will have to be said, that the Father does not love the Son, and/or the Son the Father by that Love, which proceeds from Each, namely, which is properly the Holy Spirit. For just as it is the same for God ‘to be wise’ as (it is) ‘to be’, so it is same for Him ‘to love’ as (it is) ‘to be’. And for that reason, just as the Father is denied to be wise by the Wisdom, which He begot — because if He would be said (to be) wise by That, That would not be understood to be from Him, but He from That — thus it seems that it ought not be conceded, that the Father and/or the Son loves by the Love, which only . . .
¹ Num. 48. Editio habet in principio: Naturae, qui contradicis, haec unitas est. Infra: infirmis sit non a se agendo nisi adeo ipse agit, ut quae agit placeant. — Lectio Magistri magis placet. ² Vat. cum pluribus edd. addit ipse, et paulo ante et post ita. ³ Vat. perperam responsio, cod. D responsione. Paulo post Vat. cum pluribus edd. addit sapientia post ea dicitur. ⁴ Vat. et. edd. 4, 5, 9 ipsa. ⁵ Ita codd.; Vat. cum pluribus edd. ea.	¹ Number 48. The edition of (St. Augustine’s works) has at the beginning: Of the Nature, oh you who contradict, is this Unity [Naturae, qui contradicis, haec unitas est]. Below, it also reads: . . . which are pleasing, He would belong to the infirm by not acting by Himself, unless to this extent He Himself acts, so that (those things) which He does be pleasing [infirmis sit non a se agendo nisi adeo ipse agit, ut quae agit placeant]. — The reading of Master (Peter) is more agreeable. [Trans. note: In the English translation by Himself in this paragraph and throughout this Distinction and St. Bonaventure’s Commentary on it, is not said in the sense of apart from all others, but in the sense of by means of Himself, by his own power or nature or being.] ² The Vatican edition, together with very many editions, adds Himself [ipse], and a little before this after so [ita] it adds also [et]. ³ The Vatican edition faultily reads response [responsio] in the nominative, codex D (has correctly) response [responsione] in the ablative. ⁴ The Vatican edition and editions 4, 5 and 8, have It itself [ipsa]. ⁵ Thus the codices; the Vatican edition, together with very many editions, has (to be) wise by that Wisdom [ea sapientia] for to be wise by the Wisdom [esse sapientia].

p. 555

Spiritus sanctus est; quia si ea diligit Pater vel Filius, non Spiritus sanctus videtur esse a Patre et Filio, sed Pater et Filius a Spiritu sancto, quia idem est ibi diligere quod esse. — At supra¹ dictum est atque auctoritate Augustini sancitum, « quod in Trinitate tria sunt: unus diligens eum qui de illo est, et unus diligens eum de quo est, et ipsa dilectio »; « et non est aliquis duorum, quo genitus a gignente diligitur et genitorem suum diligit ». Quibus verbis aperte significatur, Patrem Filium, et Filium Patrem diligere ea etiam² dilectione, quae non est aliquis eorum, sed tantum Spiritus sanctus. Cum igitur idem sit ibi diligere quod esse, quomodo dicitur Pater vel Filius non esse ea dilectione, qua alter alterum diligit, cum ideo Pater negetur sapere sapientia, quam genuit, ne ea esse intelligatur?

the Holy Spirit is; because if the Father and/or the Son loves by That, the Holy Spirit does not seem to be from [a] the Father and the Son, but the Father and the Son from the Holy Spirit, because it is the same There ‘to love’ as (it is) ‘to be’. — But above¹ it has been said and sanctioned by the authority of (St.) Augustine, « that in the Trinity there are Three: One loving Him who is from [de] Him, and One loving Him from whom He is, and Love Itself »; « and Any of the Two is not, He by whom the Begotten is loved by the One Begetting and loves His own Begetter ». With which words there is openly signified, that the Father loves the Son, and the Son the Father, even² by that Love, which is not Any of Them, but only the Holy Spirit. Therefore, since it is the same There ‘to love’ as (it is) ‘to be’, in what manner is the Father and/or the Son said not to be by that Love, by which the One loves the Other, since for that reason the Father is denied to be wise by the Wisdom, which He begot, lest He be understood to be by It?

Difficilem esse³ mihi fateor hanc quaestionem, praecipue cum ex praedictis oriatur, quae similem videntur habere rationem, quod meae intelligentiae attendens infirmitas turbatur, cupiens magis ex dictis Sanctorum referre quam afferre. « Optimus enim lector est, inquit Hilarius in primo libro de Trinitate,⁴ qui dictorum intelligentiam exspectet ex dictis potius quam imponat, et retulerit magis, quam attulerit, neque cogat id videri dictis contineri, quod ante lectionem praesumserit intelligendum. Cum igitur de rebus Dei sermo est, concedamus Deo sui cognitionem dictisque eius pia veneratione famulemur ». — Investiget ergo diligenter pius lector rationem dictorum, si forte dictorum aliquam valeat reperire causam, qua nota,⁵ praemissa quaestio aliquatenus explicari valeat. Ego autem quaestionem non absolvens, sed errorem excludens profiteor, non ita dictum esse, Patrem diligere Filium, vel Filium Patrem ea dilectione, quae ab utroque procedit, quae non est aliquis eorum, sed tantum⁶ Spiritus sanctus, tanquam ea dilectione Pater sit vel Filius. Sed sic ea Pater diligit Filium, et Filius Patrem, ut etiam Pater per se ea quae ipse est dilectione diligat — sic et Filius — non autem sic, ut Pater per se non diligat et Filius, sed per eam tantum. « Quis haec in illa Trinitate, inquit Augustinus,⁷ opinari vel affirmare praesumat »? — Eam tamen quaestionem lectorum diligentiae plenius diiudicandam atque absolvendam reliquimus, ad hoc minus sufficientes.

I admit [fateor] that this question is difficult for me,³ chiefly since it arises from the aforesaid, which seem to have the same reckoning, which as the infirmity of my intelligence attends to, is troubled, desiring more to report [referre] from the sayings of the Saints than to contribute [afferre] (to them). « For the best reader » as (St.) Hilary says in the book On the Trinity,⁴ « is he who looks forward to the understanding of sayings from sayings, rather than (who) imposes (it), and (who) reported more, than he contributed, and (who) does not think that there seems to be contained in the sayings, what he presumed to understand before (his) reading (of them). Therefore, when there is a discourse [sermo] concerning of the things of God, let us concede to God the understanding [cognitionem] of Himself and serve His sayings with pious veneration ». — Therefore let the pious reader diligently investigate the reason for the sayings, if perchance it is worth while [valeat] to find for the sayings some cause, by which when known,⁵ the aforementioned question might be able to be explained to some extent. But I, not resolving [absolvens] the question, but excluding error, profess, that thus it has not been said, that the Father loves the Son, and/or the Son the Father by that Love, which proceeds from Each, which is not Any of Them, but only⁶ the Holy Spirit, as if the Father and/or the Son is by that Love. But thus does the Father loves the Son by This, and the Son the Father, that the Father also loves through Himself by that Love, which He Himself is — so also the Son — but not in this manner, that the Father does not love through Himself and the Son (likewise), but only through That. « Who presumes to opine and/or affirm, » says (St.) Augustine,⁷ « these (things) in that Trinity »? — Yet this question, we, being less sufficient for this, leave to the diligence of the readers, to more fully adjudicate and resolve [diiudicandam atque absolvendam].

¹ Hic c. 1. Locus Augustini est VI. de Trin. c. 5. n. 7.

² Vat. cum pluribus edd. scilicet.

³ Vat. Difficillimam mihi; codd. B E cum ed. 1 Difficile est mihi fateor hanc quaestionem solvere; cod. C Difficile esse mihi etc.; cod. D cum edd. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Difficilem mihi hanc fateor quaestionem.

⁴ Num. 18.

⁵ Codd. B E cognita. Vat. cum pluribus edd. addit ipsa ante praemissa, et deinde hanc ante quaestionem.

⁶ Vat. et ed. 2 tamen; paulo ante eadem Vat. cum paucis edd. omittit ita ante dictum.

⁷ Libr. XV. de Trin. c. 7. n. 12.

¹ Here in ch. 1. The passage from (St.) Augustine is On the Trinity, Bk. VI, ch. 5, n. 7.

² The Vatican edition, together with very many editions, has that is [scilicet].

³ The Vatican edition reads (is) a most difficult one for me [difficillimam mihi]; codices B and E, together with edition 1, read It is difficult for me, I admit, to solve this question [Difficile est mihi fateor hanc quaestionem solvere]; codex C has I admit, that it is difficult for me, this question [Difficile esse mihi fateor hanc quaestionem]; codex D, together with editions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, has I admit, that this question (is) difficult for me [Difficilem mihi hanc fateor quaestionem].

⁴ Number 18.

⁵ Codices B and E has by which when cognized [qua cognita]. The Vatican edition, together with very many editions, has the aforesaid question itself [ipsa praemissa quaestio], and then this question [hanc quaestionem].

⁶ The Vatican edition and edition 1 have yet [tamen]; a little before this the same Vatican edition, together with a few editions, omits thus [ita] before it has not been said [dictum esse].

⁷ On the Trinity, Bk. XV, ch. 7, n. 12.

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