LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 34: 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 XXXIV.	DISTINCTION 34
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 582-584. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 582-584. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
Cap. I. De verbis Hilarii, quibus secundum pravorum intelligentiam videtur dicere, non idem esse divinam naturam et rem naturae, et non idem esse Deum et quod Dei est.	Chapter I. On the words of (St.) Hilary, by which he seems, according to the intelligence of the depraved, to say, that the Divine Nature and the Thing of the Nature is not the Same, and that God and what God is, is not the Same.
Praedictis est adiiciendum, quod quidam perversi sensus homines in tantam prosilierunt insaniam, ut dicerent, non idem esse naturam Dei et personam sive hypostasim, dicentes, eandem essentiam non posse esse Patrem, et Filium sine personarum confusione. Si enim, inquiunt, ea essentia, quae Pater est, Filius est, idem sibi Pater est et Filius. Si hanc rem dicis esse Patrem, aliam quaere, quam dicas esse Filium. Si vero aliam non quaesieris, sed eandem dixeris; idem genuit et genitus est. Propter haec et huiusmodi inter naturam et personam dividunt, ita ut non recipiant unam deitatis naturam et simplicem esse tres personas. Idque testimonio Hilarii defendere nituntur, qui in octavo libro de Trinitate¹ quaerens, utrum Apostolus, nominans spiritum Dei et spiritum Christi, idem significaverit utroque verbo, inquit ita: « Gentium praedicator, volens naturae unitatem in Patre et Filio docere, ait: Spiritus Dei in vobis est. Si quis autem spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius. Si autem spiritus eius, qui suscitavit Iesum etc. Spirituales omnes sumus, si in nobis est spiritus Dei, sed et hic spiritus Dei est et spiritus Christi. Et cum Christi spiritus in nobis est, eius spiritus in nobis est, qui suscitavit Christum. Et cum eius qui suscitavit Christum in nobis est spiritus, et spiritus in nobis est Christi; nec tamen non Dei est spiritus, qui in nobis est. Discerne igitur, o haeretice, spiritum Christi a spiritu Dei, et excitati a mortuis spiritum Christi a spiritu Dei Christum a mortuis excitantis; cum qui habitat in nobis spiritus Christi spiritus Dei sit, et spiritus Christi a mortuis excitati spiritus Dei tantum sit Christum a mortuis excitantis. Et quaero nunc, in spiritu Dei utrum naturam, an rem naturae significatam existimes. Non est enim idem natura quod res naturae, sicut non idem est homo et quod hominis est; nec idem est ignis et quod ipsius ignis est: et secundum hoc non idem est Deus et quod Dei est ». — Huius dicti occasione praefati haeretici dogmatizaverunt, non idem esse personam et naturam Dei, asserentes, naturam Dei non esse tres personas, intelligentes in his praemissis verbis Hilarii per rem naturae personam, et nomine naturae divinam naturam. Et ideo dicunt, Hilarium interrogasse haereticum, utrum per spiritum Dei putaret significatam esse naturam, an rem naturae, ut sic ostenderet, distinguendum esse inter naturam et rem naturae, id est personam.	To the aforesaid it must be added, that certain men of a perverse sense leapt forth into so great an insanity, as to say, that the Nature of God and a Person or Hypostasis is not the Same, saying, that the same Essence cannot be the Father, and the Son without a confusion of Persons. For if, they say, that Essence, which the Father is, is the Son, the Same is Its own Father and Son. If you say that this Thing is the Father, ask what (is) the other, which you say is the Son. If, however, you do not ask (what) the other (is), but say that (it is) the same; (then) the same begot and was begotten. On account of these (those) of this kind divide between the Nature and a Person, so that they do not receive that the one and simple Nature of the Divinity is the Three Persons. And this they strive to defend by the testimony of (St.) Hilary, who in eighth book On the Trinity, seeking whether the Apostle, naming “the spirit of God” and “the spirit of Christ”, signified the same with each word, said thus: « The Preacher of the Gentiles, wanting to teach the Unity of the Nature in the Father and the Son, says: The spirit of God is in you. If, however, anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. But if the spirit of Him, who raised Jesus etc.. We are all spiritual, if there is in us the spirit of God, but this is both the spirit of God and the spirit of Christ. And when the spirit of Christ is in us, the spirit of Him, who raised Christ, is in us. And when the spirit of Him who raised Christ is in us, the spirit of Christ is also in us; nor, however, is it not the spirit of God, who is in us. Discern, therefore, o heretic, the spirit of Christ from the spirit of God, and the spirit of Christ roused from the dead from the spirit of God rousing Christ from the dead; which spirit of Christ, when it dwells in us, is the spirit of God, and the spirit of Christ roused from the dead is only the spirit of God rousing Christ from the dead. And I ask now, whether in the spirit of God you estimate (to be) signified a nature, or a thing of nature. For a nature [natura] is not the same as a thing of nature [res naturae], just as a man also is not the same as what is of a man; nor a fire also the same as that which is of the fire itself: and according to this God is also not the same as what is of God ». — By the occasion of such a saying the aforesaid heretics taught the dogma [dogmatizaverunt], that a Person and the Nature of God is not the Same, asserting, that the Nature of God is not the Three Persons, understanding in these aforementioned words of (St.) Hilary through “the thing of the nature” a Person, and by the name of “nature” the Divine Nature. And for that reason they say, that (St.) Hilary asked the heretic, whether through “the spirit of God” he thought there was signified the Nature, or the Thing of the Nature, so as to show, that one must distinguish between the Nature and a Thing of the Nature, that is a Person.
Hoc quidem dicunt, non intelligentes pia diligentia Scripturae circumstantiam, qua considerata, perscipi potest, quomodo praemissa dixerit Hilarius. Subsequenter enim in eadem serie² ostendit, in spiritu Dei aliquando significari Patrem, ut cum dicitur:³ Spiritus Domini super me; aliquando significari Filium, ut cum dicitur: In spiritu Dei eiicio daemonia, naturae suae potestate se daemones eiicere demonstrans; aliquando Spiritum sanctum, ut ibi: Effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem. Quod dicit consummatum fuisse, cum Apostoli, Spiritu sancto misso, omnibus linguis locuti sunt. Deinde, quare hanc distinctionem fecerit, et quod in superioribus verbis Apostoli idem Spiritus significatus sit, et quod ipse sit res unius naturae Patris et Filii, aperte ostendit inquiens ita:⁴ « Haec idcirco sunt demonstrata, ut quacumque parte haeretica falsitas se contulisset, finibus veritatis concluderetur. Habitat enim in nobis Christus, quo habitante habitat Deus, et cum habitat in nobis spiritus Christi, non alius tamen⁵ habitat quam spiritus Dei. Quodsi per Spiritum Sanctum Christus in nobis intelligitur esse, hunc tamen ita spiritum Dei ut spiritum Christi esse noscendum est. Et cum per naturam Dei natura ipsa habitet in nobis, indifferens natura Filii creditur esse a Patre, cum Spiritus sanctus, qui est spiritus Christi, et Spiritus Dei res naturae demonstretur unius. Quaero nunc igitur, quomodo non ex natura unum sunt. A Patre procedit Spiritus veritatis, a Filio mittitur et a Filio accipit. Sed omnia quae habet Pater, Filii sunt; et idcirco qui ab eo accipit Dei spiritus est, et idem spiritus Christi est. Res naturae Filii est, sed et eadem res et naturae Patris est, et Dei excitantis Christum a mortuis spiritus est, et idem spiritus Christi est a mortuis excitati. In aliquo differt Christi et Dei natura, ne eadem sit, si praestari potest, ut spiritus, qui Dei est, non sit et Christi ». « Est ergo in nobis spiritus Dei, et est in nobis spiritus Christi; et cum spiritus Christi inest, inest spiritus Dei. Ita cum quod Dei est et Christi est, et quod Christi est Dei est; non potest quid aliud diversum Christus esse, quam Deus est. Deus igitur Christus est unus cum Deo spiritus », « se- / -cundum . . .	This, indeed, they say, not understanding by pious diligence the circumstance of the Scripture, with which considered, one can thoroughly see, in what manner (St.) Hilary said the aforementioned (words). For subsequently, in the same series,² he shows, that in “the spirit of God” there is sometimes signified the Father, as when there is said:³ The spirit of the Lord is upon me”; there is sometimes signified the Son, as when there is said: In the spirit of God I cast out demons, demonstrating that He casts out demons by the power of His own Nature; sometimes the Holy Spirit, as there (where it is written): I shall pour forth of My spirit upon all flesh. Which He says had been consummated, when the Apostles, with the Holy Spirit sent, spoke in all tongues. Then he shows openly, for what reason he made this distinction, and that in the words above of the Apostle the same Spirit was signified, and that He Himself is a Thing of the one Nature of the Father and the Son, saying thus:⁴ « These have been demonstrated for this purpose [idcirco], that by whatsoever heretical part of falsehood one is born off, one might be enclosed by the borders of truth. For in us dwells Christ, with whom dwelling there dwells God, and when there dwells in us the spirit of Christ, there yet dwells no other⁵ than the spirit of God. Wherefore if through the Holy Spirit Christ is understood to be in us, yet this spirit of God is to be known as “the spirit of Christ”. And since through the Nature of God the Nature itself dwells in us, the nature of the Son is believed to be undiffering from the Father, since the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of God is demonstrated (to be) a Thing of the One Nature. I now, therefore, ask, in what manner They are not out of nature one [unum]. From the Father proceeds the Spirit of Truth, from the Son He is sent and from the Son He accepts. But all which the Father has, are the Son’s; and for that reason He who accepts from Him, is the spirit of God, and the same is the spirit of Christ. He is a Thing of the Nature of the Son, but also the same Thing and of the Nature of the Father, and He is the spirit of God rousing Christ from the dead, and He is the same spirit of Christ roused from the dead. In something the nature of Christ and of God differ, so as not to be the same, if it can be presented, that the spirit, which is of God, is not of Christ ». « There is, therefore, in us the spirit of God, and there is in us the spirit of Christ; and when the spirit of Christ is in (us), the spirit of God is in (us). Thus, when that which is of God, is also of Christ, and that which is of Christ is of God; Christ cannot be another diverse something, than God is. Therefore the God Christ is one spirit with God », « according / to . . .
¹ Num. 21. 22. — Locus s. Scripturae est Rom. 8, 9-11. ² Ibid. n. 25. — Paulo ante cod. C bene non intendentes pro non intelligentes. ³ Isai. 61, 1; secundus locus est Matth. 12, 28; tertius Ioel 2, 28; denique alluditur ad Act. 2, 17. — Deinde pro superioribus verbis Vat. et aliae edd. superioribus per verba, refragantibus codd. et ed. 1. ⁴ Ibid. n. 26. In hoc textu respicitur ad Ephes. 3, 17: Christum habitare per fidem in cordibus vestris; et I. Cor. 3, 16: Et Spiritus Dei habitat in vobis. ⁵ Vat. cum plurimis edd. aliud tamen pro alius tamen, contradicentibus originali, codd. et edd. 1, 5. Hilarii pro per naturam Dei habet per naturam rei.	¹ Numbers 21 and 22. — The passage from Sacred Scripture is Rm. 8:9-11. [Trans. note: In this and the subsequent paragraph, the English translation renders “the spirit of God” [spiritum Dei] and “the spirit of Christ”[spiritum Christi] according to the habit of capitalization of the Latin, rather than that employed throughout this translation (in which names supposing for a Divine Person or Divine Perfection are always capitalized), so as to not forejudge the discussion of Master Peter, who through this ambiguity leads the reader to understand that both are said properly of the Holy Spirit.] ² Ibid., n. 25. — A little before this codex C has rightly not understanding [non intendentes] for not understanding [non intelligentes]. ³ Isiah 61:1; the second passage is Mt. 12:28; the third Joel 2:28; then there is an allusion to Acts 2:17. — Next for in the words above [in superioribus verbis] the Vatican edition and other editions, breaking with the codices and edition 1, have in the above through the words [in superioribus per verba]. ⁴ Ibid., n. 26. In this text there is a reference to Eph. 3:17: that Christ dwell through faith in your hearts [Christum habitare per fidem in cordibus vestris]; and 1 Cor. 3:16: And the Spirit of God dwells in you [Et Spiritus Dei habitat in vobus]. ⁵ The Vatican edition, together with very many editions, has nothing other [non aliud] for no other (Person) [non alius], with the original, the codices, and editions 1 and 4 contradicting it. (St.) Hilary has through the nature of the Thing [per naturam rei] for through the Nature of God [per naturam Dei].

p. 583

se- / -cundum illud: Ego et Pater unum sumus. In quod docet Veritas, unitatem esse naturae, non solitudinem unionis ».¹ — Ecce, si haec verba diligenter attendas, invenis, Spiritum sanctum rem naturae dici Patris et Filii, et eundem dici esse naturam Dei, ubi dicitur: « per naturam Dei natura ipsa habitat in nobis, si per Spiritum sanctum Christus est in nobis ».* Itaque in Trinitate non ita distinguendum est inter naturam et rem naturae, sicut in rebus creatis, quia, ut ait Hilarius:² « comparatio terrenorum ad Deum nulla est; et si qua comparationum exempla interdum afferuntur, nemo ea existimet absolute in se rationis perfectionem continere ». « Non enim humano sensu de Deo loquendum est ».	according / to that (verse): I and the Father are one [unum]. In which the Truth teaches, that there is a unity of nature, not a solitude of union ».¹ — Behold, if you diligently attend to these words, you find, that the Holy Spirit is said (to be) a Thing of the Nature of the Father and the Son, and that the same is said to be the Nature of God, where there is said: « through the Nature of God the Nature itself dwells in us, if through the Holy Spirit Christ is in us ».* And so in the Trinity one must thus not distinguish between the Nature and a Thing of the Nature, as among created things, because, as (St.) Hilary says:² « there is no comparison of earthly (things) to God, and if sometimes they are brought forward as examples of comparisons, no one esteems them to contain absolutely in themselves the perfection of (such) a reckoning ». « For not according to human sense is one to speak of God ».
Ad naturam ergo rerum creatarum respiciens inquit:³ « Non idem est natura quod res naturae », subiiciens exempla de ipsis creaturis. Inde ostendens, errorem esse, sub mensura creaturarum metiri Creatorem, addit: Et secundum hoc « non idem est Deus, et quod Dei est », ac si diceret: si ad instar creaturarum de Creatore sentis, cogeris fateri, quia non idem est Deus et quod Dei est; quod dicere impium est, cum Spiritus Dei Deus sit, et Dei Filius sit Deus.	Therefore, looking back to the nature of created things, he says: ³ « A nature is not the same as a thing of the nature », subjoining examples from creatures themselves. Showing from this, that it is an error, to measure the Creator under the measure of creatures, he adds: And according to this « God, and what God is, is not the same », as if to say: “you sense the likeness [instar] of creatures from the Creator, you are driven to say, that God and what is God is not the same; which is an impious (thing) to say, since the Spirit of God is God, and the Son of God is God.”
Non ergo secundum corporales modos, ut in eadem serie subdit, accipienda sunt haec quae de Deo dicuntur. Ubi evacuans opinionem eorum qui ita putant aliud esse Deum, et aliud quod Dei est, aliudque naturam Dei et rem naturae, ut est in creaturis, aperte docet, non aliud esse Deum⁴ et quae sua sunt, ita ut insint illi, sic dicens:⁵ « Homo aut aliquid ei simile, cum alicubi erit, alibi non erit, quia id quod est, illic continetur, ubi fuerit in forma, ut non ubique sit qui insistens alicubi sit. Deus autem immensae virtutis, vivens potestas, quae nusquam non adsit nec desit usquam, se omnem per sua edocet, et sua non aliud quam se esse significat, ut ubi sua insint, ipse esse per sua intelligatur. Non autem corporali modo, cum alicubi sit, non etiam ubique esse credatur, cum per sua in omnibus esse non desinat. Non aliud autem sint, quam quod est ipse, quae sua sunt. Et haec propter naturae intelligentiam dicta sunt ». His verbis aperte significat — si tamen intelligis, haeretice — quia divina natura non aliud est ab his quae sua sunt, ita ut insint, et per illa in omnibus est suis, quae non insunt. Sua enim sunt etiam quae non insunt, id est omnes creaturae; et sua sunt quae insunt, ut tres personae, quae sunt eiusdem naturae et eadem natura, sicut supra Augustini⁶ testimonio firmavimus dicentis: « tres personae esse eiusdem essentiae vel eandem essentiam, sed non ex eadem essentia, ne aliud intelligatur essentia, aliud persona ».* — Non tamen diffitemur, aliquam distinctionem habendam fore secundum intelligentiae rationem, cum dicitur hypostasis, et cum dicitur essentia; quia ibi significatur quod est commune tribus, hic vero non. Est tamen hypostasis essentia, et e converso. Fateamur ergo, unum atque idem esse tres personas secundum essentiam, differentes autem proprietatibus. Unde Augustinus super locum praetaxatum Psalmi⁷ ait: « Quaeris, quid sit Pater? Respondetur: Deus. Quaeris, quid sit Filius? Respondetur: Deus. Quaeris, quid sit Pater et Filius? Respondetur: Deus. De singulis interrogatus, Deum responde. De utroque interrogatus, non deos, sed Deum responde. Non sic in hominibus. Tanta enim ibi est substantiae unitas, ut aequalitatem admittat, pluralitatem non admittat. Si ergo tibi dictum fuerit, cum dicis, Filium esse quod Pater est: profecto Filius Pater est; responde: secundum substantiam tibi dixi hoc esse Filium quod Pater est, non secundum id quod ad aliud dicitur. Ad se enim dicitur Deus, ad Patrem Filius dicitur. Rursumque Pater ad se dicitur Deus, ad Filium dicitur Pater. Quod dicitur ad Filium Pater, non est Filius; quod dicitur Filius ad Patrem, non est Pater; quod dicitur Pater ad se et Filius ad se, hoc est Pater et Filius, id est Deus ».	Therefore, not according to corporal standards of measure, as he subjoins in the same series, are those which are said of God to be accepted. Where, emptying the opinion of those, who thus think that ‘to be God’ is one (thing),⁴ and ‘what is of God’ another, and another the Nature of God and a Thing of the Nature, as is it among creatures, he openly teaches, that ‘to be God’ and what are His (are) not an other, thus that they are in Him, saying thus:⁵ « A man or something similar to him, when it will be somewhere, it will not be elsewhere, because that which it is, is contained therein, where it was in form, so that that which stands still in some place, is not everywhere. But the God of immense virtue, the living Power, which is never not present nor is ever lacking, teaches that He (is) All through His own, and He signifies that His own is not other than Himself, so that where His own are, He Himself is understood to be through His own. However, not in a corporal manner, when He is somewhere, is He believed not also to be everywhere, since He does not cease to be in all through His own. Moreover, those which are His own, would not be other, than what He Himself is. And these (words) have been said on account of the understanding of the Nature ». With these words he openly signifies — if you, yet, understand, o heretic — that the Divine Nature is not other than those which are Its own, thus that they are in (It), and through them It is in all Its own, which are not in (It). For they are also Its own, which are not in (It), that is all creatures; and They are Its own which are in (It), as the Three Persons, which are of the same Nature and (are) the same Nature, just as confirmed [firmamivus] above by the testimony of (St.) Augustine,⁶ saying: « that the Three Persons are of the same Essence and/or (are) the same Essence, but (are) not out of the same Essence, lest the Essence be understood (to be) one (thing), a Person another ».* — Yet we do not disavow [diffitemur], that some distinction will have to be made according to the reckoning of the intelligence, when there is said “Hypostasis”, and when there is said “Essence”; because in the Latter there is signified what is common to the Three, in the Former not (so). Yet a Hypostasis is the Essence, and vice versa. Therefore we say, that the Three Persons are one and the same according to essence, but differing by properties. Whence (St.) Augustine on the passage from the Psalm touched upon beforehand [praetaxatam]⁷ says: « Ask, “What is the Father?” The response is: “God.” Ask, “What is the Son?” The response is: “God.” Ask, “What is the Father and the Son?” The response is: “God.” Interrogated concerning each one, respond “God.” Interrogated concerning both, respond, not “gods”, but “God”. Not so (is it) among men. For so great is there a unity of Substance There, that it admits an equality, it does not admit a plurality. If, therefore, there were said to you, when you say, that the Son is what the Father is: “in a word the Son is the Father”, respond: “I have said to you, according to substance, that the Son is what the Father is, not according to that which is said regarding another.” For regarding Himself He is said (to be) “God”, regarding the Father He is said (to be) “the Son”. And again the Father regarding Himself is said (to be) “God”, regarding the Son He is said (to be) “the Father”. What is said regarding the Son (to be) “the Father”, is not the Son; what is said (to be) “the Son” regarding the Father, is not the Father; what is said (to be) “the Father” regarding Himself and “the Son” regarding Himself, this is the Father and the Son, that is, God ».
Cap. II. Utrum ita possit dici unus Deus trium personarum, ut dicitur una essentia trium personarum, et tres personae unius Dei, ut tres personae unius essentiae.	Chapter II. Whether there can be said, “one God of three Persons”, as there is said, “one essence of three Persons”, and (whether there can be said) “three Persons of one God”, as (there is said) “three Persons of one essence”.
Hic considerandum est, cum Deus sit divina essentia, et ita dicatur unus Deus esse tres personae, sicut una essentia dicitur tres personae, utrum ita valeat sane dici, unus Deus trium personarum, vel tres personae unius Dei, sicut dicitur una essentia trium personarum, et tres personae unius essentiae. — In his locutionibus Scripturae usus nobis aemulandus videtur, ubi frequenter reperitur ita dictum: una est essentia trium personarum, et tres sunt personae unius essentiae; nusquam autem occurrit legisse, unum Deum trium personarum,⁸ vel tres personas unius Dei. Quod ideo puto sanctos doctores vitasse, ne ita forte acciperetur in divinis personis, ut accipitur, cum de creaturis simile quid dicitur. Dicitur enim Deus Abraham, Isaac et Iacob,⁹ et Deus omnis creaturae. Quod utique dicitur propter principium creationis vel gratiae¹⁰ privilegium, et creaturae subiectionem vel servitutem. Cum ergo in Trinitate nihil sit creatum vel serviens vel subiectum, non admisit fides in Trinitate talem . . .	Here there must be considered, since God is the Divine Essence, and thus the One God is said to be three Persons, just as the One Essence is said (to be) three Persons, whether thus one prevails to say sanely, “one God of three Persons”, and/or “three Persons of one God”, just as there is said “one essence of three Persons”, and “three Persons of one essence.” — In these expressions it seems that the usage [usus] of Scripture is to be emulated by us, where there is frequently found (to be) said thus: “one is the Essence of the Three Persons”, and “the Three Persons are of one essence”; but it never happens that one has read, that (there is) “one God of three Persons”,⁸ and/or “three Persons of one God”. Which I think the holy Doctors avoided for this reason, lest thus perhaps there be accepted among the Divine Persons, as it is accepted, when something similar is said of creatures. For there is said, “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”,⁹ and “the God of every creature”. Which indeed is said on account of the Principle of creation and/or the privilege of grace,¹⁰ and the subjection and/or servitude of the creature. Since, therefore, in the Trinity there is nothing created and/or serving and/or subjected, the Faith has not admitted such . . .
¹ Quae praecedunt inveniuntur ibid. n. 27. et 28. — Locus s. Scripturae est Ioan. 10, 30. ² Libr. I. de Trin. n. 19. Ultima propositio est VIII. de Trin. n. 14. ³ De hoc et sequenti loco vide supra pag. 582, nota 1. ⁴ Vat. et edd. 4, 6 addunt glossema: et aliud, quod Dei est, aliudque naturam Dei, refragantibus omnibus codd. et aliis edd. ⁵ Ibid. n. 24. In quo textu pro fuerit in forma, ut ed. Hilarii fuerit; infirma ad id natura eius, ut. Deinde Vat. cum plurimis edd. addit quae post desit usquam, sed contra originale, codd. et ed. 1. In fine contra codd. Vat. cum aliis edd., excepta 8, autem aliud sunt pri aliud autem sint. ⁶ Libr. VII. de Trin. c. 6. n. 11. Cfr. d. V. c. 2. pag. 110, nota 7, et d. XXV. c. 1. pag. 432, nota 5. ⁷ Ennarat. in Psalm. 68, sermo 1 n. 5. Cfr. d. XXXIII. c. 2. ⁸ Codd. et edd. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 omittunt personarum. ⁹ Exod. 3, 6; alius locus est Iudith 9, 17. ¹⁰ Sola Vat. gloriae.	¹ Those which precede this are found ibid., nn. 27 and 28. — The passage from Sacred Scripture is Jn. 10:30. ² On the Trinity, Bk. I, n. 19. The last proposition is from Bk. VIII, n. 14. ³ On this and the following passage, see the preceding page, footnote 1. ⁴ The Vatican edition and editions 4 and 6 add the gloss: and what is of God another, and the Nature of God another [et aliud, quod Dei est, aliudque naturam Dei], breaking with all the codices and the other editions. ⁵ Ibid., n. 24. In which text for it was in form, so that [fuerit in forma, ut] the edition of (St.) Hilary’s (works) has it was; its nature infirm for this, that [fuerit; infirma ad id natura eius, ut]. Then the Vatican edition, together with very many editions adds which [quae] after is every lacking [desit usquam], but contrary to the original, the codices, and edition 1. At the end, contrary to the codices, the Vatican edition, together with the other editions, except edition 8, has are not other [autem aliud sunt] for would not be other [aliud autem sint]. ⁶ On the Trinity, Bk. VII, ch. 6, n. 11. Cf. Distinction V, ch. 2, p. 110, footnote 7, and d. XXV, ch. 1, p. 432, footnote 5. ⁷ Ennarations on the Psalms, Ps. 68, sermon 1, n. 5. Cf. Distinction XXXIII, ch. 2. ⁸ The codices and editions 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9, omit Persons [personarum]. ⁹ Ex. 3:6; the other passage is Judith 9:17. ¹⁰ The Vatican edition alone has of glory [gloriae].
* [Trans. nota: Hic textus criticalis omittit perperam « » circa haec loca S. Hilarii et S. Augustini, contra suam consuetudinem.]	* [Trans. note: Here the critical edition faultily omits the « » about these passages from St. Hilary and St. Augustine, contrary to its own custom.]

p. 584

locutionis modum. Ita etiam e converso non dicitur de Dei essentia, quod ipsa sit essentiae Abraham, Isaac et Iacob vel alicuius creaturae, ne Creatoris et creaturae naturam confundere videamur.	a manner of expression. Thus, too, there is not said, the other way around, of the Essence of God, that It Itself is of the essence of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and/or of any creature, lest we seem to confound the nature of the Creator and of the creature.
Cap. III. Quod potentia, sapientia, bonitas in Scriptura interdum ad personas distincte referuntur.	Chapter III. That power, wisdom, (and) goodness are sometimes referred in Scripture to the Persons distinctly.
Ex praedictis¹ constat, quod sicut essentia, ita potentia, sapientia, bonitas de Deo dicuntur secundum substantiam. Quae autem secundum substantiam de Deo dicuntur tribus personis pariter conveniunt. Una est ergo potentia, sapientia, bonitas Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, et hi tres eadem potentia, eadem sapientia, eadem bonitas. Unde aperitur in Trinitate summa esse perfectio. Si enim ibi deesset potentia vel sapientia vel bonitas, non esset summum bonum. Sed quia ibi est perfecta potentia, infinita sapientia, incomprehensibilis bonitas, recte dicitur et creditur summum bonum. Cumque unum et idem penitus sit in Deo potentia, sapientia, bonitas; in sacra tamen Scriptura frequenter solent haec nomina distincte ad personas referri, ut Patri potentia, Filio sapientia, Spiritui sancto bonitas attribuatur. Quod quare fiat, non est otiosum inquirere.	From the aforesaid¹ it is established, that just as “essence”, so “power”, “wisdom”, and “goodness” are said of God according to substance. Moreover, what are said of God according to substance, befits the Three Persons equally. Therefore there is one Power, Wisdom, (and) Goodness of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and these Three (are) the same Power, the same Wisdom, (and) the same Goodness. Whence there appears to be a most high perfection in the Trinity. For if, there were lacking There power and/or wisdom and/or goodness, He would not be the Most High Good [summum bonum]. But because there is There a perfect Power, an infinite Wisdom, (and) an incomprehensible Goodness, He is rightly said and believed (to be) the Most High Good. And though the Power, Wisdom, (and) Goodness in God is thoroughly one [unum] and the same; yet in Sacred Scripture these names are accustomed to be frequently referred in a distinct manner to the Person, so that “power” is attributed to the Father, “wisdom” to the Son, (and) “goodness” to the Holy Spirit. Wherefore, it is not boring [otiosum] to inquire for what reason this is done.
Cap. IV. Quare Patri potentia, Filio sapientia, Spiritui sancto bonitas tribuatur, cum sit una potentia, sapientia, bonitas trium.	Chapter IV. For what reason is power attributed to the Father, wisdom to the Son, goodness to the Holy Spirit, since there is one Power, Wisdom, (and) Goodness of the Three.
« Id ergo sacri eloquii prudentia facere curavit, ne Dei immensitatem similitudine creaturae metiremur. Dixerat enim Scriptura sacra, quia Deus Pater est, et quod Deus Filius est; et audivit hoc homo, qui hominem patrem viderat, Deum patrem non viderat, et cogitare coepit, ita esse in Creatore, ut viderat esse in creaturis, a quibus haec nomina translata sunt ad Creatorem, in quibus pater est prior filio, filius est posterior patre, et ex antiquitate in patre defectus, ex posteritate in filio imperfectio sensus solet notari. Ideo occurrit Scriptura dicens Patrem potentem, ne videatur prior Filio, et ideo minus potens, et Filium sapientem, ne videatur posterior Patre, et ideo minus sapiens ».²	« Therefore, the prudence of the Sacred Speech took care to do this, lest we measure the immensity of God by the similitude of a creature. For Sacred Scripture had said, that God is the Father, and that God is the Son; and man, who saw man as a father, did not see God as a father, and he began to think, that thus it is in the Creator, as he saw (it) among creatures, from whom these names have been transferred to the Creator, among which a father is prior to a son, a son is posterior to a father, and there is accustomed to be noted a defect from the antiquity in the father, and an imperfection of sense from the posteriority [posteritate] in the son. For that reason Scripture runs against this, saying that the Father (is) powerful, lest He seem (to be) prior to the Son, an for that reason less powerful, and that the Son (is) wise, lest He seem posterior to the Father, and for that reason less wise ».²
« Dictus est etiam Spiritus sanctus Deus, et dictus est habere spiritum Deus; et videbatur hoc quasi nomen inflationis et tumoris — unde humana conscientia ad Deum pro rigore et crudelitate accedere metuit — ideo Scriptura temperavit sermonem suum, spiritum bonum nominans, ne crudelis putaretur qui mitis erat; non quod Pater solus sit potens vel magis potens, et Filius solus sapiens vel magis sapiens, et Spiritus sanctus solus bonus vel magis bonus. Una est ergo potentia, sapientia, bonitas³ trium, sicut una essentia; ideoque, sicut dicitur Filius homoousios, id est consubstantialis Patri, ita et coomnipotens ».	« The Holy Spirit is also said (to be) “God”, and God is said to have “a spirit”; and this used to seem (to be) a quasi name for being puffed-up [inflationis] and of a growing wrath [tumoris] — wherefore the human conscience feared to approach God on account of (His) rigor and cruelty — for that reason Scripture tempered its own speech, naming (Him) “the good spirit”, lest He, who was meek, be thought cruel; not that the Father alone is powerful and/or more powerful, and the Son alone wise and/or more wise, and the Holy Spirit alone good and/or more good. One, therefore, is the Power, Wisdom, (and) Goodness³ of the Three, just as one (is Their) Essence; and for that reason, just as the Son is said (to be) homoousios, that is “consubstantial” to the Father, so also “co-omnipotent” ».
Cap. V. De hoc nomine homoousion, ubi in auctoritate receptum sit, et quid significet.*	Chapter V. On this name homoousion, where is it received in authority, and what does it signify.*
Hic non est praetermittendum, quod Augustinus in libro secundo⁴ contra Maximinum dicit de hoc nomine homoousion, quo Latini tractatores frequenter utuntur. « Pater, inquit, et Filius unius sunt eiusdemque substantiae. Hoc est illud homoousion, quod in concilio Nicaeno adversus haereticos Arianos a catholicis Patribus veritatis auctoritate firmatum est; quod postea in Concilio Ariminensi, propter novitatem verbi, minus quam potuit intellectam — quam tamen fides antiqua pepererat — multis paucorum fraude deceptis, haeretica impietas sub haeretico imperatore Constantio labefactare tentavit. Sed post non longum tempus libertate fidei catholicae praevalente, postquam vis verbi, sicut debuit, intellecta est, homoousion illud catholicae fidei sanitate longe lateque defensum est et diffusum. Quid enim est homoousion nisi unius eiusdemque substantiae? Quid est, inquam, homoousion nisi: Ego et Pater unum sumus? Non ergo inter profanas vocum novitates hoc vitandum est ».	Here there must not be overlooked, what (St.) Augustine in the second⁴ book Against Maximinus says concerning this name homoousion, which Latin writers [tractatores] frequently use. « The Father », he says, « and the Son are of one and the same Substance. This is that homoousion, which was confirmed [firmavit] in the Council of Nicea against the Arian heretics by the Catholic Fathers with the authority of truth; which afterwards in the Council of Rimini, on account of the novelty of the word, understood less than it was able — which, however, the ancient Faith begot — heretical depravity, having deceived many by the fraud of the few, under the heretical emperor, Constantius, tried to cause to totter [labefactare]. But after not a long time with the liberty of the Catholic Faith prevailing, after the force of the word, as was ought, had been understood, this homoousion was defended and diffused fare and wide by the sanity of the Catholic Faith. For what is homoousion except “of one and the same substance”? What is homoousion, I say, except: I and the Father are one [unum]? Therefore, it is not to be shunned among the profane novelties of spoken words ».
Praeterea sciendum est, quod in assignatione distinctionis nominum, inter alia, quae supra diligenter executi sumus, quaedam diximus⁵ translative ac per similitudinem de Deo dici, ut speculum, splendor, character, figura et huiusmodi. De quibus pio lectori breviter trado quod sentio, ut scilicet, ratione similitudinis considerata, ex causis dicendi dictorum intelligentiam assumat, sed catholicam.	Moreover, it must be known, that in the assigning of the distinction of names, among the others, which we have diligently explained [exsecuti], we have said⁵ that certain ones, such as “mirror”, “splendor”, “character”, “figure” and (names) of this kind, are to be said of God in a transferred manner and through a similitude. Concerning which I hand over to the pious reader what I think [sentio], so that, namely, having considered (them) by the reckoning of (their) similitude, he may take up (not only) an understanding of the said (names) from the reasons to be said, but a catholic (understanding of them).
De sacramento Unitatis atque Trinitatis summae et ineffabilis multa iam diximus. Nihil tamen eius ineffabilitate dignum tradidisse profitemur, sed potius ex nobis mirificatam⁶ eius scientiam, nec potuisse nos ad illam pervenire.	Of the sacrament of the Most High and Ineffable Unity and Trinity we have already said much. Yet we profess that we have handed down nothing worthy of His ineffability, but rather that wonderful⁶ knowledge of Him out of ourselves, not even we have been able to reach.
¹ Dist. XXII. c. 4. ² Omnia quae praecedunt, sumta sunt ex Hugone s S. Victore I. de Sacram. p. II. c. 8, paucis a Magistero mutatis vel transpositis. Etiam quae sequuntur ibidem leguntur. ³ Codd. A B C E et ed. 1 benignitas. ⁴ Cap. 14. n. 3. In quo textu ed. Augustini moderna habet oportuit intellectum quod pro potuit intellectam quam; sola Vat. oportuit intellectam. Antiquae edd. August. concordant cum textu nostro. Deinde omnes edd. perperam Constantino pro Constantio, refragantibus codd. Denique pro defensum Vat. et edd. 4, 8 distensum. ⁵ Dist. XXII. c. 1. ⁶ Solummodo Vat. et edd. 2, 3 mirificam. — Respicitur Psalm. 138, 6: Mirabilis facta est scientia tua ex me: confortata est, et non potero ad eam.	¹ Distinction XXII, ch. 4. ² All the preceding has been taken from Hugo of St. Victor, On the Sacraments, Bk. I, p. II, ch. 8, with a few (words) changed and/or transposed by Master (Peter). What follows is also taken from the same place. ³ Codices A B C and E, and edition 1, have Kindness [benignitas]. ⁴ Chapter14, n. 3. In which text the modern edition of (St.) Augustine reads (in reference to “the word”) understood less than was necessary — which [oportuit intellectum quod] for (our reading in reference to “novelty”) understood less than it was able — which [potuit intellectam quam]; the Vatican edition alone follows the modern edition, but omits which [quod]. Ancient editions of (St.) Augustine concord with our text. Then all the editions faultily have Constantine [Constantino] for Constantius [Constantio], breaking with the codices. Next the Vatican editin and editions 4 and 8 have expanded [distensum] for defended [defensum]. ⁵ Distinction XXII, ch. 1. ⁶ Only the Vatican edition and editions 2 and 3 have wonderful [mirificam] for wonderful [mirificatam]. — This is a reference to Psalm 138:6: Wonderful has knowledge of Thee become out of me: it is strengthened, and I was not able for it [Mirabilis facta est scientia tua ex me: confortata est, et non potero ad eam]. [Trans. note: This “wonderful knowledge” of God which is “out of oneself” is the mystical apprehension of the Trinity, which is granted to the Saints and to other souls, sometimes entirely gratuitously, sometimes partly gratuitously and partly meritoriously, and is worked by grace alone, being above the natural powers of the soul. It is said to be “out of oneself” because it is worked in the substance of the soul itself, and is essentially incomprehensible to the powers of sense.]
* [Trans. nota: Hic in titulo originale editionis criticalis, homoousion scriptum est cum litteris cursivis, contra consuetudinem praedictam editionis.]	* [Trans. note: Here in the original title of the Quaracchi edition, the word homoousion was written with italics, contrary to the aforesaid custom of the Quaracchi editors.]

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