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 IV.

DISTINCTION 4

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 95-96.
Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi.

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 95-96.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

Cap. I.

 

Utrum Deus Pater se Deum genuerit.

Chapter I

 

Whether God the Father begot Himself God.

Hic oritur quaestio satis necessaria.  Constat enim et irrefragabiliter verum est, quod Deus Pater genuit Filium.  Ideo quaeritur, utrum concedendum sit, quod Deus genuit Deum.  Si enim Deus genuit Deum, videtur quod aut se Deum, aut alium1 genuerit.  Si vero alium Deum genuit, non est tantum unus Deus; si autem se ipsum Deum genuit, aliqua res se ipsam genuit.

Here there arises a sufficiently necessary question.  For it is established and is irrefragably true, that God the Father begot the Son.  For that reason it is asked, whether it must be conceded, that God begot God.  For if God begot God, it seems that either He begot Himself God [se Deum], or an other.1  However [vero] if He begot an other God, there is not only one God; moreover [autem] if He begot His very self God [se ipsum Deum], some thing begot its very self [se ipsam].

Ad quod respondentes dicimus, sane et2 catholice concedi, quod unus unum genuit, et quod Deus Deum genuit, quia Deus Pater Deum Filium genuit.  In Symbolo quoque scriptum est:  « Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero ».  Quod vero additur:  ergo genuit se Deum vel alium Deum, neutrum concedendum esse dicimus.  Quod alium Deum non genuit,3 manifestum est, quia unus tantum Deus est.  Quod autem se ipsum non genuit, ostendit Augustinus in primo libro de Trinitate4 dicens:  « Qui putant eius potentiae esse Deum, ut se ipsum ipse genuerit, eo plus errant, quod non solum Deus ita non est, sed nec spiritualis neque corporalis creatura.  Nulla enim res est, quae se ipsam gignat, ut sit »; et ideo non est credendum vel dicendum, quod Deus genuit se.

Responding to which, we say, that sanely and2 in a catholic manner it is conceded, that One begot One, and that God begot God, because God the Father begot God the Son.  In the Symbol it has also been written:  « Light from Light, true God from true God ».  However because there is added:  therefore He begot Himself God and/or an other God, we say, that neither must be conceded.  That He did not beget an other God,3 is manifest, because there is only one God.  Moreover that He did not beget His very self, (St.) Augustine shows in the first book On the Trinity4 saying:  « Those who think that (it belongs) to His power to be God, so that He Himself begot His very self, for this reason err the more, because not only is God not thus (in origin), but neither (is) a spiritual nor corporal creature.  For there is no thing, which begets its very self, to be »; and for that reason it must not be believed or said, that God begot Himself.

Sed adhuc oppununt garruli ratiocinatores dicentes:  si Deus Pater genuit Deum, aut genuit Deum, qui est Deus Pater, aut Deum, qui non est Deus Pater.  Si genuit Deum, qui non est Deus Pater:  ergo Deus est qui non est Deus Pater:  non ergo unus tantum Deus est.  Si vero genuit Deum, qui est Deus Pater:  ergo genuit se ipsum.

But still do the garrulous reasoners oppose (this) saying:  if God the Father begot God, either He begot the God, who is God the Father, or a God, who is not God the Father.  If he begot the God, who is not God the Father:  therefore there is a God who is not God the Father:  therefore there is not only one God.  However if He begot the God, who is God the Father:  therefore He begot His very self.

Ad quod respondemus determinantes istam5 propositionem, quam sic proponunt:  si Deus Pater genuit Deum, aut Deum, qui est Deus Pater, aut Deum, qui non est Deus Pater.  Hoc enim sane et prave intelligi potest; et ideo respondendum est ita:  Deus Pater genuit Deum, qui est ipse Pater, hoc dicimus esse falsum; et concedimus alteram,6 scilicet genuit Deum, qui non est Pater; nec tamen genuit alterum Deum, nec ille qui genitus est, alius Deus est quam Pater, sed unus Deus cum Patre.  Si vero additur:  genuit Deum, qui non est Deus Pater, hic7 distinguimus, quia dupliciter potest intelligi:  genuit Deum, qui non est Deus Pater, scilicet Deum Filium, qui Filius non est Pater, qui Deus est; hic sensus verus est.  Si vero intelligatur sic:  genuit Deum, qui non est Deus Pater, id est, qui non est Deus, qui Pater est; hic sensus falsus est.  Unus enim et idem Deus est Pater et8 Filius et Spiritus sanctus; et e converso Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus unus est Deus.

To which we respond, determining that5 proposition of theirs, which they thus propose:  “if God the Father begot God, either the God, who is God the Father, or a God, who is not God the Father”.  For this can be understood (both) sanely and in a depraved manner [prave]; and for that reason it must be responded to thus:  “God the Father begot the God, who is Himself the Father”, this we say is false; and we concede the other (proposition),6 that is that “He begot a God, who is not the Father”; neither, however, did He beget an other God, nor is the One, who has been begotten, a God other than the Father, but (rather He is) one God with the Father.  However [vero] if there is added:  “He begot a God, who is not God the Father”, here7 we distinguish, because it can be understood in a twofold manner:  “He begot a God, who is not God the Father, that is God the Son, who (as) Son is not the Father, who is God”; here the sense is true.  However if it is understood in this manner:  “He begot a God, who is not God the Father, that is, who is not the God, who is the Father”; this sense is false.  For one and the same God is the Father and8 the Son and the Holy Spirit; and conversely the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is the One God.

Cap. II.

 

Utrum Trinitas de uno Deo praedicetur, sicut unus Deus de tribus personis.

Chapter II

 

Whether the Trinity is predicated of the one God, as the one God (is) of the Three Persons.

Quidam tamen veritatis adversarii concedunt, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum sive tres personas esse unum Deum, unam substantiam, sed9 nolunt concedere, unum Deum sive unam substantiam esse tres personas, dicentes, substantiam divinam praedicari de tribus personis, non tres personas de substantia divina.  Fides autem catholica tenet ac praedicat, et tres personas esse unum Deum,10 unam substantiam sive essentiam sive naturam divinam, et unum Deum sive essentiam divinam esse tres pesonas.  Unde Augustinus in primo libro de Trinitate11 ita ait:  « Recte ipse Deus Trinitas intelligitur, beatus et solus potens ».  Ecce, quam expresse dixit ipse Deus Trinitas, ut ostenderet, et ipsum Deum esse Trinitatem et Trinitatem ipsum Deum.  Item in eodem:  « In verbis, in quit, illis Apostoli, quibus de adventu Christi agens dicit:12  Quem ostendet beatus et solus potens, Rex regum et Dominus dominantium, qui solus habet immortalitatem etc., nec Pater proprie nominatus est nec Filius nec Spiritus sanctus, sed beatus et solus potens, id est unus et solus Deus verus, qui est ipsa Trinitas ».  Ecce et hic aperte dicit, unum solum verum Deum esse ipsam Trinitatem; et si unus Deus Trinitas est, ergo unus Deus est tres personae.  Item in libro quinto de Trinitate:13  « Non tres deos, sed unum Deum dicimus esse ipsam praestantissimam Trinitatem ».  Item in libro, qui dicitur Enchyridion ad Laurentium, capitulo nono:  « Satis est christiano, rerum creatarum causam visibilium sive invisibilium non nisi bonitatem credere Creatoris, qui est Deus unus et verus, nullamque esse naturam, quae non aut ipse sit, aut ab ipso, eumque esse Trinitatem, Patrem scilicet et Filium et Spiritum santum ».  Item Augustinus in sermone de Fide:14 « Credimus, unum Deum unam esse divini nominis / Trinitatem ».

However certain adversaries of the truth concede, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit or the Three Persons are one God, one Substance, but9 do not want to concede, that the one God or one Substance is the Three Persons, saying, that the Divine Substance is predicated of the Three Persons, not the Three Persons of the Divine Substance.  But the Catholic Faith holds and predicates, both that the Three Persons are the One God,10 the one Substance or Essence or Divine Nature, and that the One God or Divine Essence is the Three Persons.  Whence (St.) Augustine in the first book On the Trinity11 thus says:  « Rightly is God itself understood (to be) the Trinity, the blessed and only Powerful One ».  Behold, how he expressly said “God itself . . . the Trinity”, to show both that God itself is the Trinity and the Trinity God itself.  Likewise in the same (book he says):  « Dealing with those words », he says, « of the Apostle, which concern the advent of Christ he says:12  Whom He shall show, the blessed and only Powerful One, the King of kings and the Lord of lords, who alone has immortality etc., neither has the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit been properly named, but (rather) the blessed and only Powerful One, that is the One and Only True god, who is the Trinity itself ».  Behold here also he openly says, that the One Only True God is the Trinity itself; and if the One God is the Trinity, therefore the One God is the Three Persons.  Likewise in the fifth book On the Trinity:13  « Not three gods, but the One God we say is the most outstanding Trinity itself ».  Likewise in the book, which is called the Enchiridion to Lawrence, in the ninth chapter:  « It is enough for the Christian, to believe that the cause of created things, visible and invisible, is not but the goodness of the Creator, who is the One and True God, and that there is no nature, which is not either He, or from Him, and that He is the Trinity, that is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit ».  Likewise (St.) Augustine in the sermon on Faith:14  « We believe, that the One God, the One Trinity belongs to the Divine Name ».

1  Vat. hic addit Deum.
2  Vat. male omittit et.
3  Solummodo codd. B C D E genuerit, quod ponendum videretur, nisi paulo infra iidem codd. posuissent genuit.
4  Cap. 2. n. 1, ubi pro putant et errant legitur in singulari putant etc., et codd. B C pro eius potentiae male legunt eiusdem potentiae.
5  Omnes codd. illam.
6  Sola Vat. male alterum.
7  Edd. 2, 3, 7, 8 hoc.
8  Codd. B C omittunt hic et mox post Pater particulam et.
9  Codd. D E et edd. omnes, exceptis 1, 8, adiiciunt tamen.
10  Vat. et ed. 4 addunt et; mox codd. C D unam essentiam pro sive essentiam.
11  Cap. 6. n. 10, ubi et proximus locus, sed nonnullis omissis et mutatis.
12  I. Tim. 6, 15:  Quem suis temporibus ostendet beatus etc.  Apud Augustinum:  Quem temporibus proriis ostendet Pater beatus etc.  Perperam mss. D E cum edd. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 ostendit loco ostendet.
13  Cap. 8. n. 9.  Proximi loci citatio in omnibus mss. et edd., demptis Vat. et ed. 4, ita fertur:  Item in libro de Fide ad Petrum in expositione Symboli; at perperam, cum verba subsequentia non in eo, sed in Enchyridion legantur.
14  Serm. 233. de Fide Cathol. n. 1, sed paulo aliter, nempe:  Credimus in unum Deum . . . Hunc unum Deum et hanc unam esse divini nominis Trinitatem.

1  The Vatican edition here adds God [Deum].
2  The Vatican edition badly omits and [et].
3  Only codices B C D E have the subjunctive begot [genuerit], which seems must be posited, if a little below this the same codices had not put the indicative begot [genuit].
4  Chapter 1, n. 1, where in place of think [putant] and err [errant] there are the singular forms of the verb, and codices B and C in place of to His power [eius potentiae] badly reads to the Same's power [eiusdem potentiae].
5  All the codices read that [illam] instead of that . . . of theirs [istam].
6  Only the Vatican edition badly reads neuter the other (one) [alterum].
7  Editions 2, 3, 7 and 8 have this [hoc].
8  Codices B and C omit here and just after the Father [Pater] the particle and [et].
9  Codices D and E and all the editions, except 1 & 8, add however [tamen].

10 The Vatican edition and edition 4 add and [et]; then codices C and D read one essence [unam essentiam] in place of or essence [sive essentiam].
11  Chapter 6, n. 10, where here and in the next quote not a few things have been omitted and changed.
12  1 Tim. 6:15:  Whom in His own time He shall show, the blessed etc. [Quem suis temporibus ostendet beatus et.].  In (St.) Augustine's (writings it reads):  Whom at proper times the Father shall show, the blessed etc. [Quem temporibus proriis ostendet Pater beatus]. Manuscripts D and E and editions 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9, have the erroneous He shows [ostendit] in place of He shall show [ostendet].
13  Chapter 8, n. 9.  The citation of the next quote in all the manuscripts and editions, excepting the Vatican edition and edition 4, is thus:  Likewise in the book On the Faith to Peter in the exposition of the Creed [Item in libro de Fide ad Petrum in expositione Sumboli]; but faultily, since the following words are not read in this (work) it, but (rather in) the Enchiridion.
14  Sermon 233, On the Catholic Faith, n. 1, but in a slightly different manner, namely:  We believe in one God . . . That this one God and this one Trinity belong to the Divine Name [Credimus in unum Deum . . . Hunc unum Deum et hanc unam esse divini nominis Trinitatem].

 

p. 96

 

Trinitatem ». Idem in sexto libro de Trinitate:1  « Dicimus, Deum solum esse ipsam Trinitatem ».  Ecce, his et aliis pluribus auctoritatibus evidenter ostenditur, dicendum esse et credendeum, quod unus Deus est Trinitas, et una substantia tres personae; sicut e converso Trinitas dicitur esse unus Deus, et tres personae dicuntur esse una substantia.

(He says) the same in the sixth book On the Trinity:1  « We say, that the only God is the Trinity itself ».  Behold, by these and very many other authorities there is evidently shown, that it must be said and believed, that the One God is the Trinity, and the One Substance the Three Persons; just as conversely the Trinity is said to be “the One God”, and the Three Persons are said to be the “One Substance”.

Nunc ad praemissam quaestionem revertamur, ubi quaerebatur, an Deus Pater genuerit se Deum, an alium Deum.  Ad quod dicimus, neutrum fore concedendum.  Dicit tamen Augustinus in Epistola ad Maximum,2 quod Deus Pater se alterum genuit, his verbis:  « Pater, ut haberet Filium de se ipso, non minuit se ipsum, sed ita genuit de se alterum se, ut totus maneret in se et esset in Filio tantus, quantus et solus ».  Quod ita intelligi potest, id est, de se alterum a se genuit, non utique alterum Deum, sed alteram personam; vel genuit se alterum, id est, genuit alterum, qui hoc est quod ipse.  Nam etsi alius sit Pater quam Filius, non est tamen aliud quam Filius, sed unum.

Now let us turn back to the aforementioned question, where there was asked, whether God the Father begot Himself God, or whether (He begot) an other God.  To which we say, neither is to be conceded.  However (St.) Augustine says in the Letter to Maximus,2 that God the Father begot Himself the other [se alterum], with these words:  « The Father, so that He would have a Son from His very self, did not diminish His very self, but so begot from Himself the other-Himself [alterum se], so that He remains whole in Himself and is as much in the Son, as He also (is) alone ».  Which can thus be understood, that is, that from Himself He begot the Other than [a] Himself, not indeed the other God, but the other Person; and/or He begot Himself the other, that is, He begot the Other, who is this which He Himself (is).  For even if the Father is other than the Son, He is not, however, an other thing [aliud] than the Son, but one [unum] (with Him).

1  Cap. 7. n. 9.  —  Immediate ante Vat. et edd. 1, 2 habent item pro idem; mox post Ecce Vat. et ed. 4 addunt et.  Deinde codd. A B C D et edd. 1, 8 concedendum pro credendum, sed non bene nec congrue ad dua testimonia Augustini, qui loquitur tum de interiore fide (Credimus), tum de confesione fidei (Dicimus).
2  Epistola 170. ad Maximum medicum, n. 5.  —  Paulo infra in explicatione verborum Augustini Vat. male omittit a post de se alterum.

1  Chapter 7, n. 9.  —  Immediately before this the Vatican edition and editions 1 & 2 have likewise [item] in place of the same [idem]; then after Behold [Ecce] the Vatican edition and edition 1 add also [et].  Then codices A B C D and editions 1 & 8 have conceded [concedendum] in place of believed [credendum], but not well, nor congruous to the two testimonies of (St.) Augustine, who speaks both of interior faith (We believe) and of the confession of the faith (We say).
2  Letter 170 to Maximus the doctor, n. 5.  —  A little below this in the explanation of the words of (St.) Augustine, the Vatican edition badly omits by [a] after from Himself . . . the Other [de se alterum].

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 that 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.