LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 33: 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 XXXIII.	DISTINCTION 33
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 567-569. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 567-569. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
Cap. I. Utrum proprietates personarum sint ipsae personae, vel divina usia.	Chapter I. Whether the properties of the Persons are the Persons Themselves, and/or the Divine Ousia.
Post supradicta interius considerari atque subtiliter inquiri oportet, utrum proprietates personarum, quibus ipsae personae determinatur, sint ipsae personae et sint Deus, id est divina essentia, an ita sint in personis, ut non sint personae, ac per hoc nec divina essentia. — Quod enim in personis sint proprietates, nemo inficiari audet, cum aperte clamet auctoritas, quod « in personis est proprietas, et in essentia unitas ». Superius quoque multis Sanctorum testimoniis astruximus, per- / -sonas . . .	After the abovesaid, one is bound to more interiorly consider and subtly inquire, whether the properties of the Persons, by which the Persons Themselves are determined, are the Persons Themselves and are God, that is, the Divine Essence, or whether they are in the Persons, such that they are not the Persons, and through this neither the Divine Essence. — For that the properties are in the Persons, no one dares to cast any doubt [inficiari], since authority openly shouts, that « in the Persons is the property, and in the Essence the Unity ». We have also constructed above with many testimonies of the Saints, that the / persons . . .

p. 568

per- / -sonas proprietatibus distingui atque determinari, ipsasque proprietates, tres scilicet, propriis expressimus vocabulis.¹ Cum ergo proprietates ipsae ab aeterno fuerint, quibus ipsae personae determinantur et differunt; quomodo essent, si in eis non essent; et quomodo in eis essent, et ipsae personae non essent, quin ibi esset multiplicitas? Quocirca sicut proprietates esse in personis, ita et eas esse personas confitemur, sicut supra² auctoritate Hieronymi, ut non pigeat revocare ad mentem, protestati sumus, in expositione fidei ita dicentis: « Sabelii haeresim declinantes, tres personas expressas sub proprietate distinguimus. Non enim nomina tantummodo, sed etiam nominum proprietates, id est personas vel, ut Graeci exprimunt, hypostases, hoc est subsistentias, confitemur ». — Ecce aperte dicit, personas proprietatibus distingui, et ipsas proprietates esse personas; cuius hic verba perstringimus, quia supra latius posuimus.	the / persons are distinguished and determined by properties, and we express the properties themselves, namely, three (of them), with their own terms [propriis vocabulis].¹ Therefore, since the very properties, by which the Persons Themselves are determined and differ, are from eternity; in what manner are they, if they are not in Them; and in what manner are they in Them, and are not the Persons Themselves, so that there is no multiplicity There? About which, we confess that just as the properties are in the Persons, so also are they the Persons, just as we have protested above by the authority of (St.) Jerome,² thus saying — so that recalling it to mind may not be noisome [pigeat] — in the exposition of the Faith: « Turning aside from the heresy of Sabellius, we distinguish the Three Persons expressed under a property. For we confess not only the Names, but also the properties of the Names, that is, the Persons and/or, as the Greeks express (it), the Hypostases, that is, the Subsistences ». — Behold he openly says, that the Persons are distinguished by the properties, and that the properties themselves are the Persons; the words of whom we here touch upon, because above we have cited them without comment [latius posuimus].
Cumque de simplicitate deitatis supra³ dissereremus, auctoritatibus Sanctorum, scilicet Augustini, Hilarii, Isidori nec non et Boethii, evidenter monstravimus, Deum hoc esse omnino quod in se habet, excepto quod Pater habet Filium, nec est Filius, et Filius habet Patrem, nec est Pater; et sic esse in natura trium, ut qui habet hoc sit quod habet, et totum, quod ibi est, unum esse, unam vitam esse; quae modo non iteramus, ne fastidium lectori ingeramus. Si ergo proprietates ibi sunt, singula earum est id in quo est, et unum eademque vita singulae sunt. Fateamur ergo, et proprietates esse in tribus personis, et ipsas esse personas atque divinam essentiam.	And since we spoke above³ in an orderly manner of the Simplicity of the Deity, by the authority of the Saints, namely, of Augustine, of Hilary, of Isidore and also even of (St. Severinus) Boethius, we evidently demonstrated, that God is entirely that which He has in Himself, except that the Father has a Son, nor is He the Son, and the Son has a Father, nor is He the Father; and that in this manner (God) is in Nature of the Three, so that He who has This is what He has, and that the Whole is One, is the One Life; which we do not repeat now, lest we disgust the reader. If, therefore, there are properties There, each one of them is That in whom it is, and they are one [unum] and the same Life of each One. We say, therefore, both that the properties are in the Three Persons, and that they are the Persons and the Divine Essence.
Quod enim proprietas etiam divina natura sit, ostendit Hilarius dicens, nativitatem Filii esse naturam. Unde in libro septimo de Trinitate⁴ ait: « Utriusque natura non differt: unum sunt Pater et Filius. Habet igitur hoc sacramenti nativitas, ut complectatur in se et nomen et naturam et potestatem, quia nativitas non potest non esse ea natura, unde nascatur Filius ». Idem in sexto:⁵ « Nativitas, proprietas est, veritas est ». Idem in septimo dicit, « quod naturae nativitas sit intelligenda esse in natura Dei ». Supra⁶ etiam dicit, « quod proprium Patris est, quod semper Pater est, et proprium Filii, quod semper Filius est », significans quod proprietas Patris est Pater, et proprietas Filii est Filius. — His aliisque pluribus auctoritatibus aperte significari videtur, quod proprietas Filii filius sit, sic et Deus; ita et proprietas Patris et proprietas Spiritus sancti.	For that a property is also the Divine Nature, (St.) Hilary shows, saying, that the nativity of the Son is the Nature. Whence in the seventh book On the Trinity⁴ he says: « The Nature of Each does not differ: the Father and the Son are One [unum]. Therefore by this sacrament the nativity has, that it embraces in itself both the Name and the Nature and the Power (of the Person), because the nativity cannot not be this Nature, whence the Son is born ». Likewise in the sixth (book he says):⁵ « The nativity, is a property, is the Truth ». Likewise in the seventh (book) he says, « that the nativity of the Nature is to be understood to be in the Nature of God ». Above⁶ he also says, « that it is proper to the Father, that He is always the Father, and proper to the Son, that He always is the Son », signifying that the property of the Father is the Father, and the property of the Son is the Son. — There seem to be openly signified, by this and very many other authorities, that the property of the Son is a son, and thus (is) God; thus (it is) also the property of the Father and the property of the Holy Spirit.
Hoc autem aliqui negant dicentes, quidem proprietates in personis esse, sed non esse personas ipsas, quia ita dicunt⁷ esse in personis vel in essentia divina, ut non sint interius, sicut ea sunt quae secundum substantiam de Deo dicuntur, ut bonitas, iustitia, sed extrinsecus affixae sunt. Atque ita esse rationibus probare contendunt. Si enim, inquiunt, proprietates sunt personae, non eis personae determinantur. — Contra quod dicimus, quia etiam se ipsis personae differunt, sicut supra⁸ Hieronymus loquens de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto dicit: « Substantia unum sunt, sed personis ac nominibus distinguuntur ». — Sed iterum addunt: Si proprietates ipsae divina essentia sunt, cum essentia non differant tres personae, nec proprietatibus differunt. Quomodo enim differt Pater a Filio, eo quod divina essentia est, cum in essentia unum sint?	But some deny this, saying, that indeed the properties are in the Persons, but they are not the Persons Themselves, because thus they say that they are⁷ in the Persons and/or in the Divine Essence, so that they are not within, just as those (names) which are said (to be) of God according to substance, such as goodness, justice, but have been affixed extrinsically. And that they are thus, they strive to prove by reasons. For if, they say, the properties are the Persons, the Persons are not determined by them. — Against which we say, that the Persons also differ by Themselves, just as (St.) Jerome says above,⁸ speaking of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: « They are one [unum] according to substance, but they are distinguished according to Persons and Names ». — But again they add: If the properties themselves are the Divine Essence, since the Three Persons do not differ according to essence, neither do They differ according to properties. For in what manner does the Father differ from the Son, by this, since They are in essence the One, which is the Divine Essence?
Horum doctrinis novis et humanis commentis verbo Hilarii⁹ respondeo: « Immensum est quod exigitur et incomprehensibile: extra significantiam est sermonis, extra sensus intentionem; non enuntiatur, non attingitur, non tenetur; verborum significantiam rei ipsius natura consumit; sensus contemplationem imperspicabile lumen obcaecat; intelligentiae capacitatem quod fine nullo continetur excedit. Mihi ergo in sensu labes est, in intelligentia stupor est, in sermone vero non iam infirmitatem, sed silentium confitebor; periculosum nimis est de rebus tantis ac tam reconditis aliquid ultra praescriptum caeleste proferre, ut ultra praefinitionem Dei sermo de Deo sit. Forma fidei certa est. Non ergo aliquid addendum est, sed modus constituendus audaciae; quidquid ultra quaeritur, non intelligitur ».	To their new and human doctrines I respond with the word of (St.) Hilary:⁹ « Immense is that which is required and incomprehensible: it is outside the signification [significantiam] of speech, outside the intention of sense; it is not enunciated, not attained, not held; the nature of the thing itself consumes the significance of words; there blinds the contemplation of sense a Light which cannot be looked through [imperspicabile lumen]; (a Light) which is contained by no limit [fine nullo], exceeds the capacity of the intelligence. For me, therefore, it is in sense a stain, it is in understanding a stupor, but in speech I confess not now an infirmity, but a silence; exceedingly perilous is it to proffer anything concerning things so great and so recondite beyond the celestial Prescript, so that there be a discourse concerning God beyond God’s fore-determination [praefinitionem]. The form of the Faith is certain. Therefore nothing is to be added, but a measure (is) to be established against audacity [constituendus audaciae]; whatever further is asked, is not understood ».
Ceterum haereticorum improbitas, instinctu diabolicae fraudulentiae excitata, nondum quiescit, sed in tanta rerum quaestione addit: si paternitas et filiatio in Deo, sive in divina essentia sunt, eadem igitur res sibi Pater est et Filius. Nam in quo paternitas est, Pater est; et in quo filiatio, Filius est. Si igitur una eademque res habet in se paternitatem et filiationem, ipsa et generat et generatur; quod dicentes in Sabellianam haeresim pertrahuntur, extendentes Patrem in Filium, cum ipsum sibi Filium proponant et Patrem. Si vero negaverint, in una Dei essentia paternitatem esse et filiationem, quomodo ergo dicunt esse Deum? — His atque aliis argumentorum aculeis utuntur in suae opinionis assertionem, ut veritatis formam disecent.	The depravity of all the other heretics, excited by the instinct of diabolic fraudulence, has not yet quieted, but in so great a questioning of things it adds: if the paternity and the filiation are in God, or in the Divine Essence, therefore the same Thing is its own Father and Son. For (He) in whom the paternity is, is the Father, and (He) in whom the filiation (is), is the Son. If, therefore, one and the same Thing has in Itself the paternity and the filiation, It also generates and is generated; which saying, they were drawn into [per trahuntur] the Sabellian heresy, extending the Father into the Son, since the propose the Same (to be) Its own Son and Father. However, if they denied, that the paternity and the filiation are in the one Essence of God, in what manner, therefore, do they say that they are God? — These and other cutting remarks [aculeis] of arguments do they use in the assertion of their opinion, to dissect the form of the Truth.
Quorum audaciae resistentes atque ignorantiae providentes, audebimus aliquid super hoc loqui. Paternitas et filiatio non ita esse omnino dicuntur in divina substantia, sicut in ipsis hypostasibus, in quibus ita sunt, quod eas determinant, ut ait Ioannes Damascenus:¹⁰ « Characteristica idiomata sunt, id est determinativae proprietates hypostaseos, et non naturae; etenim hypostasim determinant et non naturam ». Ideoque, licet paternitas et filiatio sint in divina essentia, cum eam non determinent; non ideo potest dici, quod divina essentia et generet et generetur, vel quod eadem res sit ibi¹¹ Pater et Filius. Ita enim proprietas deter- / -minant . . .	Whose audacity resisting and ignorance foreseeing, we dare to say something about this. The paternity and filiation are not said to be thus in the Divine Substance, as in the Hypostases Themselves, in which they are thus, that they determine Them, as (St.) John Damascene says:¹⁰ « They are proper [idiomata] characteristics, that is determinative properties of the Hypostases, and not of the Nature; for they do indeed determine the Hypostases and not the Nature ». And for that reason, though the paternity and filiation are in the Divine Essence, since they do not determine It; it cannot for that reason be said, that the Divine Essence both generates and is generated, and/or that the same Thing is There¹¹ the Father and the Son. For thus the properties deter- / -mine . . .
¹ Cfr. d. XXVI. c. 2, et d. XXVII. c. 1. ² Dist. XXV. c. 3. in fine. — Infra codd. A B E aperte ostendit pro aperte dicit. ³ Dist. VIII. pars II. ⁴ Num. 21. ⁵ Num. 40. Sequens locus VII. n. 22. ⁶ Dist. XXVI. c. 3. Locus Hilarii est XII. de Trin. n. 23. — Vat. Supra enim dixit pro Supra etiam dicit. ⁷ Codd. C D dicuntur. Paulo inferius codd. A B D E et edd. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 affixa sunt pro affixae sunt. ⁸ Dist. XXV. c. ult. ⁹ Libr. II. de Trin. n. 5, sed nonnullis a Magistro omissis, transpositis et mutatis. ¹⁰ De Fide orth. III. c. 6. Vide supra d. XXVII. p. I. c. 3. ¹¹ Ita codd. C D et ed. 1, in ceteris sibi.	¹ Cf. Distinction XXVI, ch. 2, and d. XXVII, ch. 1. ² Distinction XXV, ch. 3, at the end. — Below this, codices A B and E have he openly shows [aperte ostendit] for he openly says [aperte dicit]. ³ Distinction VIII, part II. ⁴ Number 21. ⁵ Number 40. The passage following this is Bk. VII, n. 22. ⁶ Distinction XXVI, ch. 3. The passage from (St.) Hilary, is taken from On the Trinity, Bk. XII, n. 23. — The Vatican edition has For above he said [Supra enim dixit] for Above he also says [Supra etiam dicit]. ⁷ Codices C and D read they are said to be [dicuntur esse] for they say that they are [dicunt esse]. A little below this codices A B D and E, and editions 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9 have (which names) have been affixed [affixa sunt] for (which properties) have been affixed [affixae sunt]. ⁸ Distinction XXV, last chapter. ⁹ On the Trinity, Bk .II, n. 5, but with not a few (words) omitted, transposed and changed by Master (Peter). ¹⁰ On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. III, ch. 6. See above in d. XXVII, p. I, ch. 3. ¹¹ Thus codices C and D, and edition 1, in all the others there is read is Its own Father and Son [sit sibi Pater et Filius] for is There the Father and the Son [sit ibi Pater et Filius].

p. 569

deter- / -minant personam, ut hac proprietate hypostasis sit generans, et illa alia hypostasis sit genita, et ita non idem generat et generatur, sed alter alterum.	deter- / -mine a Person, that by this property a Hypostasis is generating, and by that another Hypostasis is begotten, and thus not the Same generates and is generated, but a different One of the Two [alter alterum].
Cap. II. Quodmodo proprietates possint esse in natura Dei, nec eam determinent.	Chapter II. In what manner can the properties be in the Nature of God, and not determine It.
Sed forte quaeres, cum hae proprietates non possint esse in personis, quin eas determinent, quomodo in essentia divina esse possint, ita ut non eam determinent. — Respondeo tibi et hic cum Hilario:¹ « Ego nescio, non requiro, et consolabor me tamen: Archangeli nesciunt, Angeli non audierunt, saecula non tenent, Propheta non sensit, Apostolus non interrogavit, Filius ipse non edidit. Cesset ergo dolor quaerelarum; non putet homo sua intelligentia generationis sacramentum posse consequi. Absolute tamen intelligendus est Pater et Filius », et Spiritus sanctus. « Stat in hoc fine intelligentia verborum: est Filius a Patre, qui est unigenitus ab ingenito, progenies a parente, vivus a vivo, non natura deitatis alia et alia, quia ambo unum ». « Hoc credendo incipe, percurre, persiste; etsi non perventurum sciam, tamen gratulabor profecturum. Qui enim pie infinita prosequitur, etsi non contingat, aliquando tamen proficiet prodeundo. Sed ne te inseras in illud secretum et arcanum inopinabilis nativitatis, ne te immergas, summam intelligentiae comprehendere praesumens; sed intellige incomprehensibilia esse ». His aliisque multis evidenter ostenditur, nobis nullatenus licere maiestatem perscrutari,² ius ponere potestati, modum circumscribere infinito.	But perhaps you ask, since these properties cannot be in the Persons, and not determine Them, in what manner can they be in the Divine Essence, so that they do not determine It. — I respond to you here too with (St.) Hilary:¹ « I do not know (it), I do not inquire after (it), and yet I shall console myself: the Archangels do not know (it), the Angels have not heard (it), the ages do not hold (it), the Prophet has not sensed (it), the Apostle has not questioned (it), the Son Himself has not spoken of [edidit] (it). Therefore, let the pain of quarrels cease; let man not think by his own intelligence that he is able to follow after the sacrament of the generation. Yet, in an absolute manner, is the Father, and the Son », and the Holy Spirit « to be understood ». « The understanding of the words stands on this boundary [in hoc fine]: from the Father is the Son, who is the Only-Begotten from the Unbegotten, the Progeny from the Parent, the Living One from the Living One, not according to the Nature of the Deity One and Another, because Both (are) the One ». « By believing this, begin, run the course, persist; even if I do not know that I am going to arrive, yet shall I congratulate (myself) for setting out. For who seeks after the infinite in a pious manner, even if he does not attain it, nevertheless sometimes makes progress by going forward. But do not insert yourself into that hidden and enclosed (sacrament) of the unsearchable [inopinabilis] nativity, lest you submerge [immergas] yourself, presuming to comprehend the Height of intelligence; but understand that they are incomprehensible ». With these and many others there is evidently shown, that it is to no extent licit for us to thoroughly scrutinize Majesty,² to posit a right to Power, to circumscribe a measure for the Infinite.
Verumtamen nondum desistunt impatientiae spiritu agitati, sed opinionem suam etiam Sanctorum auctoritatibus munire conantur, quibus ostendere volunt, proprietatem, qua Pater est Pater, et proprietatem, qua Filius est Filius, non esse Deum, ad hoc inducentes verba Augustini super illum locum Psalmi: Et non est substantia, ita dicentis:³ « Deus est quaedam substantia. Unde etiam in fide catholica sic aedificamur, ut dicamus, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum unius esse substantiae. Quid est unius substantiae? Quidquid est Pater, quod Deus est, hoc est Filius, hoc est Spiritus sanctus. Cum autem Pater est, non illud est quod⁴ est. Pater enim non ad se, sed ad Filium dicitur; ad se autem Deus dicitur. Eo ergo quod vel quo Deus est, substantia est. Et quia eiusdem substantiae est Filius, proculdubio et Filius est Deus. At vero quod Pater est, quia non substantiae nomen est, sed refertur ad Filium, non sic dicimus, Filium Patrem esse, sicut dicimus, Filium Deum esse ». — Ex his verbis significari dicunt, quod proprietas Patris vel proprietas Filii non sit Deus vel essentia divina. Cum enim dicit: Eo quod Deus est, substantia est, sed quod Pater est, substantia⁵ non est; aperte, inquiunt, ostendit, id esse substantiam, quo Deus est; id vero quo Pater est, non esse substantiam. Item cum ait: Pater non illud est quod est, ostendit, cum non esse Patrem, eo quod substantia est. Non enim simpliciter dixit: Pater non illud est quod est, sed ait: cum Pater est, non est illud quod est, significans, quo Pater est non esse illud quo est, id est essentiam. Haec illi ita exponentes, sua commenta simplicibus et incautis vera videre faciunt. — Nos autem aliter fore ista intelligenda dicimus. Dicens enim: eo quod Deus est, substantia est; sed quod Pater est, substantia non est, hoc intelligi voluit, quia essentia Deus est et deitate substantia est. Eo enim substantia est, quo Deus est, et e converso, cuius ea est deitas, quae est substantia, et substantia, quae deitas; sed quod Pater est, non est substantia,⁶ id est, non quo Pater est, eo substantia est, quia proprietate generationis Pater est, qua substantia non est. Ipsam tamen proprietatem substantiam esse non negavit. Ita etiam illud intelligendum est quod ait: Cum Pater est, non illud est quod est, id est, non illo Pater est, quod vel quo ipse est, id est essentia, sed notione.	Nevertheless, agitated by the spirit of impatience they still do not desist, but strive even to fortify their own opinion with the authorities of the Saints, by which they wish to show, that the property, by which the Father is the Father, and the property, by which the Son is the Son, are not God, bringing forward for this the words of (St.) Augustine on that passage of the Psalm: And there is no substance, thus says:³ « God is a certain substance. Whence we are also thus edified in the Catholic Faith, to say, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the One Substance. What is of the One Substance? Whatever is the Father, what God is, this is the Son, this is the Holy Spirit. But when He is the Father, He is not that which⁴ He is. For he is said (to be) “the Father” not regarding Himself, but regarding the Son; but regarding Himself He is said (to be) “God”. Therefore, by this, that He is God, and/or whereby (He is God), He is the Substance. And because the Son is of the same Substance, without doubt [procul dubio] the Son is also God. But, on the other hand, because that which is “the Father”, is not a Name for the Substance, but is referred to the Son, we do not say thus, that the Son is the Father, as we say, that the Son is God ». — From this words they say it is signified, that the property of the Father and/or the property of the Son is not God and/or the Divine Essence. For when he says: “By this, that He is God, He is the Substance, but that which the Father is, is not the substance”;⁵ he openly shows, they say, that that by which He is God, is the Substance; but that by which He is the Father, is not the Substance. Likewise when he says: “the Father is not that which He is”, he shows, that when by that whereby He is the Substance, He is not the Father. For He did not simply say: “the Father is not that which He is”, but said: “when He is the Father, He is not that which He is”, signifying, that (that) by which He is the Father is not That by which He is, that is, the Essence. These thus expounding this, make their comments seem true to the simple and incautious. — However, we say that these are to be understood in another manner. For saying: “by this, that He is God, He is the Substance; but that which the Father is, is not the Substance”, he wanted that this be understood, that by the Essence He is God and by the Deity He is the Substance. For He is the Substance by that, by which He is God, and vice versa, whose Deity is that, which is the Substance, and the Substance, that which (is) the Deity; but that which is the Father, it not the Substance,⁶ that is, that by which He is the Father, is not that by which He is the Substance, because the property of the generation, by which He is not the Substance, He is the Father. However, he did not deny that the property is the Substance. That which he says must also be understood thus: “When He is the Father, He is not that which He is”, that is, He is not the Father by that, which and/or by which He Himself is, that is the Essence, but by the notion.
Item illis verbis Augustini vehementer insistunt superius⁷ positis, scilicet Verbum, secundum quod sapientia est et essentia, hoc est quod Pater; secundum quod verbum, non hoc est quod Pater. Si, inquiunt, Verbum non est hoc quod Pater, secundum quod est verbum, id ergo, quod⁸ verbum est, non est illud quod Pater est: proprietas igitur, qua verbum est, non est id quod Pater est, non est igitur divina essentia. — Ad quod dicimus, quia licet secundum quod verbum non sit hoc quod Pater est, ea tamen proprietas, qua verbum est, est id quod Pater est, id est divina essentia, sed non est hypostasis Patris.	Likewise, by these words of (St.) Augustine, posited above,⁷ they vehemently insist, namely, that the Word, according to which He is Wisdom, (is) also the Essence, that is what the Father (is); according to which (He is) a word, is not that, which the Father (is). If, they say, the Word is not that which the Father (is), according to which He is a word, that, therefore, which⁸ a word is, is not that which the Father is: therefore the property by which He is a word, is not that which the Father is, is not, therefore, the Divine Essence. — To which we say, that, though according to which (He is) a word, He is not that which the Father is, yet that property, by which He is a word, is that which the Father is, that is the Divine Essence, but is not the Hypostasis of the Father.
¹ Libr. II. de Trin. n. 9. 10. 11, sed plurimis a Magistro omissis et transpositis. ² Respicitur Prov. 25, 27: Qui scrutator est maiestatis, oprimetur a gloria. ³ August. Ennaratio in Psalm. 68, 3, sermo I. n. 5. ⁴ Vat. et aliae edd., excepta 1, addunt vel quo, refragantibus codd. et originali. Paulo inferius pro quod vel quo Deus est orignale habet: quod Deus est, hoc ipso. Post non substantiae codd. contra Vat., edd. 6, 8 orignale omittunt nomen. ⁵ Codd. A B C E et ed. 1 substantiae: paulo post cod. D quod Deus pro quo Deus, et quod Pater pro quo Pater. ⁶ Codd. et edd. 3, 7 substantiae, quod repetunt infra ante id est. ⁷ Dist. XXVII. p. II. c. 3. ⁸ Ita codd. A C D E et ed. 1, cod. B et aliae edd. quo.	¹ On the Trinity, Bk. II, nn. 9, 10, and 11, but with very many (words) omitted and transposed by Master (Peter). ² A reference to Prov. 25:27: He who is a scrutinizer of Majesty, will be oppressed by Glory. ³ (St.) Augustine, Ennarations on the Psalms, Ps. 68:3, sermon I, n. 5. ⁴ The Vatican edition and the other editions, except ed. 1, add and/or whereby [vel quo], breaking with the codices and the original. A little below this, for that He is God and/or whereby (He is God) [quod vel quo Deus est] the original has: that He is God, by this [quod Deus est, hoc ipso]. After this, for is not a Name for the Substance [non substantiae nomen est] the codices, contrary to the Vatican edition and to editions 6 and 8, and the original, have does not belong to the Substance [non substantiae est]. ⁵ Codices A B C and E and edition 1 read does not belong to the Substance [substantiae non est] for is not the Substance [substantia non est]. A little after this codex D has twice that which [quod] for that by which He [quo]. ⁶ The codices and editions 3 and 7 have does not belong to the Substance [non est substantiae] for is not the Substance [non est substantia], and below they have He is not that which belongs to the Substance [non illud est quod est substantiae] for He is not that which He is [non illud est quod est]. ⁷ Distinction XXVII, p. II, ch. 3. ⁸ Thus codices A C D and E and edition 1; codex B and the other editions have by which [quo].

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