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 XXXVI.

DISTINCTION 36

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 617-618.
Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 617-618.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

Cap. I.

 

Utrum omnia debeant dici esse in Dei essentia, ut in Dei cognitione vel praescientia esse dicuntur.

Chapter I.

Whether all ought to be said to be in the God’s Essence, as they are said to be in God’s Cognition and/or foreknowledge.

Solet hic quaeri, cum omnia dicantur esse in Dei cognitione seu praescientia1 vel in Deo per cognitionem, et eius cognitio vel praescientia sit divina essentia, utrum concedendum sit, omnia esse in divina essentia vel in Deo per essentiam.  —  Ad quod dicimus, quia Dei cognitio eius utique essentia est, et eius praescientia, in qua sunt omnia, ipsius cognitio est, nec tamen omnia, quae sunt in eius praescientia vel cognitione, in eius essentia esse dici debent.  Si enim hoc diceretur, intelligerentur esse eiusdem cum Deo2 essentiae.  In Deo enim dicitur esse per essentiam, quod est divina essentia, quod est Deus.  Habet ergo Deus apud se in praescientia sua quae non habet in sui natura.  Unde Augustinus de verbis Apostoli3 ita ait:  « Elegit nos ante mundi constitutionem.  Quis sufficit hoc explicare?  Eliguntur qui non sunt, nec errat qui eligit, nec vane eligit; eligit tamen et habet electos quos creaturus est eligendos, quos habet apud semetipsum non in natura sua, sed in praescientia sua ».  Nondum erant quibus promittebatur,4 sed et ipsi promissi sunt, quibus promittebatur.  —  Ecce hic aperte dicit, Deum apud semetipsum habere electos ante mundum, non in natura sua, sed in praescientia sua, cum tamen eius praescientia non sit aliud quam eius natura, quia ipsius praescientia est eius notitia.  Potest tamen ad electos referri, cum ait:  in natura sua, id est illorum.  Illos quippe habuit ab aeterno apud se, non in natura sua,5 id est illorum qui nondum erant, sed in sua praescientia, quia eos ita novit, ac si essent.

Here there is customarily asked, since all are said to be in God’s Cognition or foreknowledge1 and/or in God through cognition, and His cognition and/or foreknowledge is the Divine Essence, whether it must be conceded, that all are in the Divine Essence and/or in God through essence.  —  To which we say, that God’s Cognition is indeed His Essence, and His foreknowledge, in which are all (things), is His Cognition, and yet not all, which are in His foreknowledge and/or Cognition, ought be said to be in His Essence.  For if this would be said, they would be understood to belong to the same Essence with God.2  For in God there is said to be through essence, that which is the Divine Essence, which is God.  Therefore God has with Himself in His own foreknowledge those which He does not have in His own Nature.  Whence (St.) Augustine thus says of the words of the Apostle:3  « He has elected us before the constitution of the world.  Who is sufficient to explain this?  They are elected, who are not, nor does He err, who elects, nor does He elect in vain; yet He elects and has as elected, those whom He is going to create to be elected, which He has with His very self, not in His own Nature [in natura sua], but in His own foreknowledge ».  They were not yet, those to whom He promised (the Kingdom),4 but they too have been promised, they to whom He has promised.  —  Behold he openly says, that God has the elect with Himself before the world, not in His own Nature, but in His foreknowledge, yet though His foreknowledge is not other than His Nature, because His foreknowledge is His Knowledge [notitia].  Yet it can be referred to the elect, when he says:  in natura sua, that is, (in) their (nature).*  Indeed He had them from eternity with Himself, not in their own nature [in natura sua],5 that is, (in that) of them, who were not yet, but in the foreknowledge of them [in sua praescientia], because He thus knew [novit] them, as if they were.

Cap. II.

Qua ratione bona dicantur esse in Deo, et non mala.

Chapter II.

By what reckoning are good (things) said to be in God, and not evil ones.

Post praedicta quaeritur, cum omnia dicantur esse in Deo, non per essentiam naturae, sed per cognitionem scientiae, et Deus sciat bona et mala, utrum concedendum sit simpliciter, male esse in Deo, sive esse in Deo per cognitionem.  Scit enim Deus et scivit semper omnia, tam bona quam mala, etiam antequam fierent, et praescivit ab aeterno ea futura.  Ideoque cum omnia bona dixerimus esse in Deo propter praescientiam cognitionis, eadem ratione videtur dicendum, omnia mala esse in eo, cum ea semper noverit, et per cognitionem ei praesentia fuerint.  Praecognovit enim Deus ab aeterno quosdam futuros malos et eorum malitiam, ut ait Augustinus,6 praescivit, sed non praeparavit.  Cum ergo peccata omnium sciat, nunquid intelligendum est, ea includi in illa generalitate locutionis, qua dixit Apostolus,7 omnia esse in Deo?  Ex ipso, inquit, et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia.  —  Sed quis, nisi insanus dixerit, mala esse in Deo?  Illa enim esse in Deo intelliguntur, quae ex ipso et per ipsum sunt; ea vero per ipsum sunt et ex ipso, quorum auctor est; sed non est auctor nisi bonorum.  Non ergo ex ipso et per ipsum sunt nisi bona; ita ergo non in ipso sunt nisi bona:  non ergo mala in Deo sunt, quia, licet ea noscat, non tamen ita omnino noscit, ut bona.  Mala quasi de longe cognoscit, ut ait Propheta,8 et alta a longe cognoscit, id est superbiam.  Et alibi ad Deum loquens de malis ait:  De absconditis tuis adimpletus est venter eorum.  Quod exponens Augustinus:  « Abscondita, inquit, peccata sunt, quae a lumine tuae veritatis absconduntur ».  Sed quomodo peccata a lumine veritatis divinae absconduntur, cum a Deo sciantur?  Si enim non sciret, quomodo de illis iudicaret et pro illis malos damnaret?  Alibi Propheta:9  Quia neque ab Oriente, neque ab Occidente deest.  Quod exponens Cassiodorus inquit:  « Neque a bonis, neque a malis deest Deus, sed omnibus praesens et cognitor est ».  Cognoscit ergo Deus et bona et mala per scientiam, sed bona cognoscit etiam per approbationem et per beneplacitum, mala vero non.  Unde Cassiodorus super Psalmum dicit:  « Peccata abscondita Deo sunt, quia non novit, id est non approbat ».  Et ex eo sensu Augustinus dixit ea abscondita a lumine Dei.  Qui etiam in Epistola ad Evodium10 insinuat, cognitionem Dei variis modis accipiendam, inquiens:  « Si ad scientiam . . .

After the aforesaid there is asked, since all are said to be in God, not through the essence of the Nature, but through the cognition of knowledge, and God knows (things) good and evil, whether it must be simply conceded, that there are evil (things) in God, or that they are in God through cognition.  For God knows [scit] and has known always all (things), both good and evil, even before they are made, and He foreknew them as future from eternity.  And for that reason since we said that all goods are in God on account of the foreknowledge of (His) Cognition, for the same reason it seems that there must be said, that all evils are in Him, since He has always known [noverit] them, and they were through cognition present to Him.  For God cognized beforehand from eternity that certain ones (were) going to be wicked and, as (St.) Augustine says,6 He foreknew their malice, but He did not prepare (it).  Therefore since He knows the sins of all, must it not be understood, that these are included in that generality of expression, by which the Apostle said,7 that all are in God?  He says, from Him and through Him and in Him are all.  —  But who, except the insane, has said, that there are evil (things) in God?  For those are understood to be in God, which are from Him and through Him; but these are through Him and from Him, whose Author He is; but He is the Author of naught but the good.  Therefore naught is from Him and through Him, but good (things); thus, therefore, naught are in Him but good (things):  therefore evil (things) are not in God, because, though He knows [noscat] them, yet He does not thus entirely know (them), as good (things).  Evil (things) He cognizes as from afar, as (King David) the Prophet says,8 and the heights He cognizes from afar, that is, pride.  And elsewhere speaking to God of the wicked he says:  Of those hidden from Thee has their belly been filled.  Which (St.) Augustine expounds:  « The hidden things », he says, « are the sins, which are hidden from the Light of Thy Truth ».  But in what manner are sins hidden from the Light of Divine Truth, when they are known [sciantur] by God?  For if He did not know (them), in what manner would He judge of them and damn the wicked for them.  Elsewhere the Prophet (says):9  Because neither from the East, nor from the West is He absent [deest].  Which expounding (Flavius Magnus Aurelius) Cassiodorus says:  « Neither from the good, nor from the wicked is God absent, but He is present to and the cognizer of all ».  Therefore God cognizes both good (things) and evil ones through knowledge, but He also cognizes good (things) through approbation and good pleasure [beneplacitum], but evil ones (He does) not.  Whence Cassiodorus says on the Psalm:  « Sins have been hidden from God, because He knew [novit] (them) not, that is, He does not approve (them) ».  And in this sense (St.) Augustine said that they (have been) hidden from the Light of God.  He who in (his) Epistle to Evodius10 insinuated, that God’s “cognition” is to be accepted various manners, saying:  « If you refer / to (His) knowledge [scientiam] . . .

1  Hic et in toto hoc et sequenti capitulo omnes codd. nostri et edd., exceptis Vat. et edd. 2, 8, pro praescientia ponunt praesentia; quod quidem in se non est falsum, ut explicatur a Magistro, d. XXXV. c. 9, attamen minus congruam.

2  Codd. B D E cum pluribus edd. eo.

3  Ephes. 1, 4; August., sermo 26. c. 4. n. 4.  In quo textu Vat. cum paucis edd. et codd. A B E eligit, nec vane elegit.

4  Codd. B C D E (A in margine) addunt regnum.  Paulo post solummodo Vat. et edd. 4, 6 mundi constitutionem pro mundum.

5  Ita codd. A C D et edd. 2, 3, 5, 7; Vat. cum aliis sui.  Immediate post edd. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 quia pro qui.

6  Libr. I. de Praedest. Sanctorum, c. 10, in sensu.

7  Rom. 11, 36.

8  Psalm. 137, 6; secundus locus est ibid. 16, 14.  Locus August. est Ennarrat. in Psalm. 16. n. 13.

9  Psalm. 74, 7; Cassiodorus, Expositio in Psalterium in hunc locum.  Sequens locus eiusdem est in Psalm. 16, 14.

10  Nostri codd. et edd. libro ad Helvidium, sed revera locus invenitur Epist. 169, n. 2. ad Evod., nonnullis tamen a Magistro omissis.  Paulo ante codd. abscondi a lumine pro abscondita a lumine.

1  Here and this entire chapter and the following, all our codices and editions, except the Vatican edition and editions 2 and 8, for foreknowledge [praescientia] put presence [praesentia]; which in indeed in itself is not false, as is explained by Master (Peter) in Distinction XXXV, ch. 9, even though it is less congruous.

2  Codices B C and E, together with very many editions have Him [eo] for God [Deo].

3  Eph. 1:4; (St.) Augustine’s 26th Sermon, ch. 4, n. 4.  In which text the Vatican edition, together with a few editions and codices A B and E, has elects, nor did He elect in vain [eligit, nec vane elegit] for elects, nor does He elect in vain [eligit, nec vane eligit].

4  Codices B C D and E (A in the margin) add the Kingdom [regnum].  A little after this only the Vatican edition and editions 4 and 5 have the constitution of the world [mundi consitutionem] for the world [mundum].

5  Thus codices A C and D and editions 2, 3, 5, and 7; the Vatican edition, together with others, has there own [sui] for there own [sua].  Immediately after this editions 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 have because they [quia] for who [qui].

6  On the Predestination of the Saints, Bk. I, ch. 10, according to sense.

7  Rm. 11:36.

8  Ps. 137:6; the second citation is Ps. 16:14.  The citation from (St.) Augustine is Ennarations on the Psalms., Ps. 16, n. 13.

9  Ps. 74:7; Cassiodorus, Exposition on the Psalter, on this passage:  The following citation of the same (author) is Ps. 16:14.

10  Our codices and editions have book to Helvidius [libro ad Helvidium], but in truth the passage is found in his Epistles., 169, n. 2 “to Evodius”, with not a few (words) omitted, however, by Master (Peter).  A little before this the codices have are hidden from the Light [abscondi a lumine] for (have been) hidden from the Light [abscondita a lumine].

 

* [Trans. note:  In accord with Master Peter assertion, which distorts the plain sense of the text, that in natura sua can be construed as referring to the elect, rather than to God, in natura sua is rendered here as in their own nature, and then in sua praescientia as in the foreknowledge of them. — Master Peter seemingly does this to reconcile two truths, namely that the elect pre-exist in some manner in God prior to creation, and yet the elect are not God; and he uses St. Augustine’s denial of their identity with the Divine Nature and his affirmation of their existence in God’s foreknowledge, understanding, since the Divine foreknowledge is the Divine Nature, so that St. Augustine can be understood to use sua not in reference to God, as he plainly is, but in reference to the elect.  This problematic interpretation proposed by Master Peter is addressed more properly by St. Bonaventure in his own tract on divine ideas in the preceding Distinction, for it involves the foreknowing of something by God in God, which is not God according to His Essence in itself, but in some sense is the Essence in relation to creatures, inasmuch as they are known by God from eternity.  And this, it seems, is the reason for the Seraphic Doctor placing his tract on divine ideas, which is unique among the ancient Scholastics, here in the prior Distinction.]

 

p. 618

 

referas, non ignorat Deus aliquos vel aliqua, qui tamen in iudicio quibusdam dicet:  Non novi vos,1 sed eorum improbatio hoc verbo insinuata est ».  —  Ecce non cognoscere dicitur Deus quae2 non approbat, quae ei non placent.  Apparet itaque, verum esse quod diximus, scilicet quia quodam modo cognoscit Deus bona, quo non cognoscit mala.  Pariter quidem utraque eodemque modo noscit quantum ad notitiam, sed bona etiam approbatione et beneplacito cognoscit.

you refer / to (His) knowledge [scientiam], God is not ignorant of some and/or some (things), who, however, says to certain ones in judgment:  I have not known you [non novis vos],1 but (rather) by this verse their disapproval is insinuated ».  —  Behold, God is said not to cognize those which2 He does not approve, which are not pleasing to Him.  And thus it appears, that what we said is true, namely, that in a certain manner God cognizes good (things), in which (manner) He does not cognize evil ones.  Indeed He knows [noscit] each equally and in the same manner as much as regards being known [notitiam], but He cognizes good (things) also by approbation and good pleasure.

Et inde est, quod bona tantum dicuntur esse in Deo, non mala, et illa propre, haec longe, quia licet in Deo aliqua dicantur esse propter cognitionis praesentiam, et Deus bona et mala cognoscat, mala tamen non cognoscit nisi per notitiam, bona vero non solum per scientiam, sed etiam per approbationem et beneplacitum.  Et ob talem cognitionem aliqua dicuntur esse in Deo, scilicet quia ita ea scit, ut etiam approbet, et placeant, id est, ita scit, ut eorum sit auctor.

And hence it is, that good (things) are only said to be in God, not evil ones, and the former from up close [prope], the latter from afar [longe], because though somethings are said to be in God on account of the presence of cognition, and (since) God cognizes good (things) and evil ones, yet He does not cognize evil ones except through (their) being known [notitiam], but good ones not only through knowledge [scientiam], but also through approbation and good pleasure.  And because of such a cognition some are said to be in God, that is, because He thus knows [scit] them, as to also approve them, and they are pleasing, that is, He thus knows [scit] (them), that He is their Author.

Cap. III.

Utrum idem sit omnia esse ex Deo et per ipsum et in ipso.

Chapter III.

 Whether it is the same that all are “from God” and “through Him” and “in Him”.

Proinde si diligenter inspiciamus, idem videtur esse ex Deo et per ipsum et in ipso.  Unde Ambrosius in tertio libro de Spiritu sancto:3  « Haec tria:  ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso, omnia unum esse, supra diximus.  Cum dicit, per ipsum esse omnia, non negavit, in ipso esse omnia.  Eandem vim habent omnia haec, scilicet cum ipso et in ipso et per ipsum, et unum in his atque consimile, non contrarium intelligitur ».  —  Ecce habes, quia ex eadem intelligentia Scriptura dicit, omnia esse in ipso et per ipsum et ex ipso vel cum ipso.  Cum ergo ex ea4 ratione omnia dicantur esse ex Deo vel per ipsum, non solum quia scit, sed etiam quia auctor est eorum; consequitur, ut eadem ratione ea esse in Deo dicantur, scilicet quia scit5 et eorum auctor est:  dicitur, quia in illo vivimus et movemur et sumus, quia eo auctore sumus, moveamur et vivimus.  Cum ergo non sit auctor nisi bonorum, merito sola bona in eo esse dicuntur, sicut ex ipso et per ipsum.  Cum igitur in eius cognitione vel praescientia sint omnia, scilicet bona et mala, in eo tamen non dicuntur esse nisi bona, quorum auctor est.  Unde Augustinus in libro de Natura boni:6  « Cum audimus, inquit, ex Deo et per ipsum et in ipso esse omnia, omnes utique naturas intelligere debemus, et omnia quae naturaliter sunt.  Neque enim ex ipso sunt peccata, quae naturam non servant, sed vitiant, quae ex voluntate peccantium nascuntur ».  —  Hic aperte dicitur, quod in illa generalitate locutionis bona tantum continentur.

Consequently if we diligently look into (it), “from God” [ex Deo] and “through Him” [per ipsum] and “in Him” [in ipso] seems to be the same.  Whence (St.) Ambrose in the third book On the Holy Spirit (says):3  « We have said above, that these three:  “from God” and “through Him” and “in Him”, are all one [unum].  When (St. Paul) says, that all are “through Him”, he did not deny, that all are “in Him”.  All these have the same force, namely “with Him” [cum ipso] and “in Him” and “through Him”, and one among them is also understood to be completely similar (the others), not contrary (to them) ».  —  Behold you have it, that from the same understanding Scripture says, that all are “in Him” and “through Him” and “from Him” and/or “with Him”.  Therefore, since on account of this4 reckoning all are said to be “from God” and/or “through Him”, not only because He knows [scit] (them), but also because He is their Author; it entirely follows [consequitur], that they are said “to be in God” according to the same reckoning, namely, because He knows5 (them) and He is their Author:  it is said, that in Him we live and are moved and are, because by Him as Author we are, we are moved and we live.  Therefore since He is not the Author but of the good, deservedly are good (things) alone said to be “in Him”, just as (they are said to be) “from Him” and “through Him”.  Therefore since in His Cognition and/or foreknowledge are all, namely (things) good and evil, yet in Him are said to be naught but the good (things), of which He is the Author.  Whence (St.) Augustine in the book On the Nature of the Good (says):6  « When we hear », he says, « that all are “from God” and “through Him” and “in Him”, we indeed ought to understand “all natures”, and “all which are naturally”.  For neither are there from Him the sins, which do not serve nature, but vitiate it, which are born from the will of sinners ».  —  Here he openly says, that in that generality of expression only good (things) are contained.

Cap. IV.

Quod omnia sunt in quolibet trium et per ipsum et in ipso.

Chapter IV.

That all are in Any of the Three both through Him and in Him.

Praeterea sciendum est, quod licet ibi indicetur distinctio personarum, cum dicitur: ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso, omnia tamen ex Patre et per Patrem et in Patre sunt; similiter de Filio et de Spiritu sancto accipiendum est.  Unde Augustinus in libro de Trinitate:7  « Non confuse, inquit, accipiendum est quod ait Apostolus, ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso:  ex ipso dicens propter Patrem, per ipsum propter Filium, in ipso propter Spiritum sanctum ».  Vigilanter autem attende, ne, quia Patrem volens intelligi dixit ex ipso, sic intelligas, omnia esse ex Patre, ut neges, omnia esse ex Filio vel ex Spiritu sancto, cum ex Patre et per Patrem et in Patre omnia esse sane dici possint; similiter et de Filio et de Spiritu sancto dicendum est.

Moreover it must be known, that though the distinction of the Persons is indicated there, when there is said: “from Him” and “through Him” and “in Him”, yet all are from the Father and through the Father and in the Father; similarly it must be accepted concerning the Son and concerning the Holy Spirit.  Whence (St.) Augustine in (his) book On the Trinity (says):7  « One must not », he says, « accept in a confused manner, what the Apostle says, “from Him and through Him and in Him”:  saying “from Him” on account of the Father, “through Him” on account of the Son, “in Him” on account of the Holy Spirit ».  But vigilantly attend, lest, because he said “from Him”, wanting the Father to be understood (thereby), you understand, that all are from the Father, so as to deny, that all are from the Son and/or from the Holy Spirit, since all can sanely be said to be from the Father and through the Father and in the Father; similarly must it be said both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Cap. V.

Quod non omnia quae ex Deo sunt, etiam de ipso sunt.

Chapter V.

That not all which are ex Deo, are also de ipso.

Illud etiam hic annectendum8 est, quod non omnia quae dicuntur esse ex Deo, etiam de ipso esse dici debeant:  « quia, ut ait Augustinus in libro de Natura boni,9 non hoc significat penitus ex ipso, quod de ipso.  Quod enim de ipso est, potest dici esse ex ipso, sed non omne quod ex ipso est, potest dici esse de ipso, quia non est de sua substantia.  Ex ipso enim sunt caelum et terra, quia ipse fecit ea, non autem de ipso, quia non de substantia sua.  Sicut aliquis homo si generat10 filium et facit donum, ex ipso est filius, ex ipso est domus, sed filius de ipso, domus vero de terra et ligno », non de ipso.

This also must be annexed8 here, that not all which are said to be from God [ex Deo], ought to be also said to be of Him [de ipso]:  « because », as (St.) Augustine says in the book On the Nature of the Good,9 « ex ipso does not mean entirely the same (thing) as de ipso.  For that which is of Him, can be said to be from Him, but not everything which is from Him, can be said to be of Him, because it is not of His Substance.  For Heaven and Earth are from Him, because He made them, but not of Him, because (they are not) of His Substance.  Just as any man, if he generates10 a son and makes a house, the son is from him, and the house is from him, but the son (is) of him, however the house is of earth and wood », not of him.

In11 praemissis apertum est, quod in Dei cognitione sive praescientia sunt omnia, scilicet bona et mala, sed non omni modo sunt ibi mala, quo bona; et quod in Deo bona tantum sunt, sicut ex ipso et per ipsum, non mala; et ex quo sensu haec accipienda sint, assignatum est; et quod de ipso non dicitur esse proprie quod aliud est ab ipso:  ex ipso autem esse dicuntur omnia quae eo auctore sunt.

In11 the aforementioned it has been revealed, that in God’s cognition or foreknowledge are all, namely (things) good and evil, but the evil are not there in every manner, in which good (things are); and that in God only good (things) are, as from Him and through Him, not evil ones; and (that) there has been assigned, in what sense these are to be accepted; and that naught is said properly to be of Him which is other than Him:  but all, which are by Him as Author, are said to be from Him.

1  Respicitur Matth. 7, 23:  Nunquam novi vos, et Luc. 13, 27:  Nescio vos.

2  Solummodo Vat. et ed. 2 satis bene qui.  Lectio nostra explicatur ab ed. 8, quae habet approbat vel quae.  Deinde infra fide codd. et ed. 1 restauravimus eodemque pro eodem.

3  Cap. 11. n. 84, sed ordine propositionum immutato.  Locus s. Scripturae est Rom. 11, 36.

4  Contra codd. et ed. 1, Vat. cum aliis edd. eadem.

5  Hic locus in omnibus edd. corruptus esse videtur; Vat. scilicet quia et eorum auctor esse dicitur, quia; aliae edd. scilicet quia scit et eorum auctore esse dicitur, quia.  Nostri codd. ponunt est loco esse.  —  Locus s. Scripturae est Act. 17, 28.

6  Cap. 28.  In fine huius textus Vat. et plurimae edd. addunt omnia contra codd., ed. 1 et originale.

7  Libr. VI. c. 10. n. 12, unde prima verba sumta sunt; alia sunt ex I. c. 6. n. 12.  Originale:  Ex ipso, ex Patre; per ipsum, per Filium; in ipso, in Spiritu sancto.

8  Ita Vat. cum codd. B E et aliis edd. excepta 1, quae habet advertendum, codd. C D attendendum; in divisione textus S. Bonav. animadvertendum.

9  Cap. 27, nonnullis mutatis.

10  Originale gignat — faciat; edd. generat, et deinde, exceptis 3, 7, 8, incongrue faciat.

11  Vat. cum cod. E ex.

1  A reference to Mt. 7:23:  I have never known you; and Lk. 13:17:  I do not know you.

2  Only the Vatican edition and edition 2 have, sufficiently well, He who [qui] for those who [quae].  Our reading is explained by edition 8 which inserts and/or [vel] after approve [approbat].  Then below this, trusting in the codices and edition 1, we have restored and in the same [eodemque] for in the same [eodem].

3  Chapter 11, n. 84, but with the order of the propositions changed.  The passage of Sacred Scripture is Rm. 11:36.

4  Contrary to the codices and edition 1, the Vatican edition, together with the other editions, has the same [eadem] for this [ea].

5  Here the passage seems to be corrupted in all the editions; the Vatican edition has namely because He also is said to be their Author, because [scilicet quia et eorum auctor esse dicitur, quia]; the other editions have namely, because He knows (them) and is said to be their Author, because [scilicet quia scit et eorum auctor esse dicitur, quia].  Our codices put is [est] in place of to be [esse].  —  The passage from Sacred Scripture is Acts 17:28.

6  Chapter 28.  At the end of this text (after which in the English) the Vatican edition and very many editions add all [omnia], contrary to the codices, edition 1 and to the original.

7  Book VI, ch. 10, n. 12, whence are taken the first words; the others are from Bk. I, ch. 6, n. 12.  The original reads:  “From Him”, from the Father; “through Him”, through the Son; “in Him”, in the Holy Spirit.

8  Thus the Vatican edition, together with codices B and E and the other editions, except edition 1, which has must be averted to [advertendum] for must be annexed [annectendum], codices C and D have must be attended to [attendendeum]; in the Division of the Text St. Bonaventure as one must turn his attention to [adnimadvertendum].

9  Chapter 27, with not a few things changed.

10  The original has begets [gignat] for generates [generat] and then makes [faciat] for makes [facit]; the editions have generates [generat] and then, with the exception of editions 3, 7 and 8, they incongruously read makes [faciat].

11  The Vatican edition, together with codex E, has From [ex].

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.