LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 8: 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 VIII.	DISTINCTION 8
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 146-149. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 146-149. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
PARS I.	PART I
Cap. I. De veritate ac proprietate divinae essentiae.	Chapter I On the truth and property of the Divine Essence.
Nunc de veritate sive proprietate, et incommutabilitate atque simplicitate divinae naturae vel¹ substantiae sive essentiae agendum est. « Est itaque Deus, ut ait Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate,² sine dubitatione substantia vel, si melius hoc appellatur, essentia, quam Graeci usiam vocant. Sicut enim ab eo quod est sapere dicta est sapientia, et ab eo quod est scire dicta est scientia; ita ab eo quod est esse dicta est essentia. Et quis magis est quam ille, qui in Exodi tertio³ dixit famulo suo Moysi: Ego sum qui sum. Et dices filiis Israel: Qui est misit me ad vos ». Ipse vere ac proprie dicitur essentia, cuius essentia non novit praeteritum vel futurum. Unde Hieronymus ad Marcellam⁴ scribens ait: « Deus solus, qui exordium non habet, verae essentiae nomen tenuit, quia in eius comparatione, qui vere est, quia incommutabilis est, quasi non sunt quae mutabilia sunt. De quo enim dicitur fuit, non est; et de quo dicitur erit, nondum est. Deus autem tantum est, qui non novit fuisse vel futurum esse. Solus ergo Deus vere est, cuius essentiae comparatum nostrum esse non est ».	Now one must deal with the truth or property, and the incommutability and simplicity of the Divine Nature and/or¹ Substance or Essence. « And thus God is », as (St.) Augustine says in (his) fifth book On the Trinity,² « without doubt a substance and/or, if this be better named, an “essence”, which the Greeks call an ousios. For just as from that which it is to be wise [sapere], “wisdom” [sapientia] has been said, and from that which it is to know [scire], “knowledge” [scientia] has been said; so from that which it is to be [esse], “essence” [essentia] has been said. And who is more than that One, who in the third (book) of Exodus³ said to his household-servant Moses: I am who am. And you shall say to the sons of Israel: He who is has sent me to you ». He Himself is truly and properly said (to be) “the Essence”, whose Essence knows [novit] no past and/or future. Whence (St.) Jerome writing to Marcella⁴ says: « God alone, who has no starting-forth [exordium], held the name of a true essence, because in comparison to Him, who truly is, because He is incommutable, those which are mutable are as if they are not. For of that which there is said “it was”, there is not; and of that which there is said “it shall be”, there is not yet. But God is the only one, who knows no ‘having been’ [fuisse] and/or a ‘going to be’ [futurum esse]. Therefore God alone truly is, to whose Essence our ‘to be’ [esse] is not compared ».
Hic diligenter advertendum est, quomodo intelligi debeant illa verba Hieronymi, scilicet: « Deus tantum est et non novit fuisse vel futurum esse »,⁵ tanquam non possit dici de Deo fuit, vel erit, sed tantum est, cum de eo scriptum frequenter reperiamus: fuit ab aeterno, fuit semper, et erit in saecula, et huiusmodi; unde videtur, quia non est tantum dicendum de Deo fuit, vel est, vel erit. Si enim diceretur tantum fuit, putaretur, quod desierit esse; si diceretur tantum est, putaretur, quod non semper fuerit, sed esse coeperit; si tantum diceretur erit, putaretur non esse modo. Dicatur ergo, quia semper fuit, est et erit, ut intelligatur, quia nec coepit nec desiit nec desinit⁶ nec desinet esse. De hoc Augustinus super Ioannem⁷ ita ait: « Cum de sempiterna re proprie dicatur est, secundum nos bene dicitur fuit et erit et est: fuit, quia nunquam desiit; erit, quia nunquam deerit; est, quia semper est: non praeteriit, quasi quod non maneat; non orietur,⁸ quasi quod non erat. cum ergo nostra locutio per tempora varietur, de eo vere dicuntur verba cuiuslibet temporis, qui nullo tempore defuit vel deest vel deerit; et ideo non est mirum, si de Spiritu veritatis Veritas loquens dicit per futurum: Quaecumque audiet loquetur;⁹ audiet, scilicet ab eo a quo procedit. Audire illius est scire, idem etiam¹⁰ esse. A quo ergo est illi essentia, ab illo audientia, id est scientia, quae non est aliud quam essentia. Audiet ergo dixit de eo quod audivit et audit, id est, quod semper scivit, scit et sciet ». Ecce hic dicit Augustinus, verba cuiuslibet temporis dicit de Deo, sed tamen¹¹ proprie est. Illud ergo quod Hieronymus dicit, ita intelligendum est: non novit fuisse vel futurum esse, sed tantum esse, id est, cum dicitur de Deo, quod fuit vel erit, non est intelligendum, quod praeterierit vel futurus sit,¹² sed quod existat simpliciter sine aliquo temporali motu. Licet enim verba substantiva diversorum temporum de Deo dicantur, ut fuit, erit, est, erat, non tamen temporales motus tunc¹³ distinguunt, scilicet praeteritum vel futurum vel praeteritum imperfectum vel praeteritum perfectum vel prateritum plus quam perfectum, sed essentiam sive existentiam divinitatis simpliciter insinuant. Deus ergo solus proprie dicitur essentia vel esse; unde Hilarius in septimo libro de Trinitate¹⁴ ait: « Esse non est accidens Deo, sed subsistens veritas et manens causa et naturalis generis proprietas ».	Here one must diligently advert, in what manner those words of (St.) Jerome ought to be understood, namely: « God is the only one and He knows no ‘having been’ and/or a ‘going to be’ »,⁵ as if there could not be said of God “He was”, and/or “He shall be”, but only “He is”, though we frequently discover written concerning Him: “He was from eternity”, “He always was”, and “He will be unto the ages”, and (words) of this kind; whence, it seems, that there must not only be said of God “He was”, (but) also “He is”, and/or “He shall be”. For if there would be said only “He was”, it would be thought, that He has ceased to be; if there would be said only “He is”, it would be thought, that He was not always, but He undertook to be [esse coeperit]; if there would be said only “He shall be”, it would be thought that He is not now. Therefore let it be said, that He always was, is and shall be, so that there is understood, that He neither undertook nor ceased nor ceases⁶ nor will cease to be. Concerning this (St.) Augustine On John⁷ speaks thus: « Since of the sempiternal Thing there is properly said “It is”, according to us there is well said “It was” and “It shall be” and “It is”: “It was”, because It never ceased; “It shall be”, because It shall never be remiss [deerit]; “It is”, because It always is: “It has not passed by”, as if That which does not remain; “It shall not rise”,⁸ as if (It were) what was not. Therefore since our speech is varied throughout times, of Him there are truly said words of every time, Who at no time was remiss and/or is remiss and/or shall be remiss; and for that reason it is not a wonder, if the Truth speaking of the Spirit of Truth has said by means of the future tense [per futurum]: Whatever He will hear, He shall speak;⁹ He will hear, that is from Him from whom He proceeds. To hear of Him is to know [scire], the same also¹⁰ (is) to be. From whom, therefore, is His Essence, from Him the hearing [audientia], that is the knowledge [scientia], which is not other than the Essence. Therefore He said “He will hear” of Him who has heard, does hear, that is, who always knew, knows and will know ». Behold (St.) Augustine says here, that words of every time are said of God, but nevertheless [tamen]¹¹ properly (speaking) He is. Therefore that which (St.) Jerome says, must be understood thus: He knows not a ‘having been’ and/or a ‘going to be’, but only a ‘being’ [esse], that is, when it is said of God, that He was and/or shall be, it must not be understood, that He has passed by and/or that He is going to be,¹² but that He exists simply without any temporal movement. For though substantive verbs of diverse tenses are said of God, as “was”, “shall be”, “is”, “used to be”, nevertheless [tamen] they do not then¹³ distinguish temporal movements, namely the past [praeteritum] and/or future and/or past imperfect and/or past perfect and/or past pluperfect, but rather they simply hint at the Essence or the existence of the Divinity. Therefore God alone properly is said (to be) an essence and/or to be; whence (St.) Hilary (of Poitiers) in (his) seventh book On the Trinity¹⁴ says: « “To be” is not an accident for God, but a subsistent truth and a remaining cause and the property of (His) natural genus ».
¹ Vat. contra codd. et edd. 1, 3, 8 sive. ² Cap. 2. n. 3. Cfr. etiam XII. de Civ. Dei, c. 2. ³ Vers. 14, ubi Vulgata: Ego sum qui sum. Ait: Sic dices etc. — Immediate ante Vat. contra codd. et edd. 1, 5, 6, 8 omittit Moysi. ⁴ Edd. 6, 7, 8 ad Damasum, attament neutro in loco haec sententia ad verbum invenitur, sed apud Isidorum, VII. Etymolog. c. 1. n. 10-13, ubi in ed. Migne (Patr. lat. tom. 82) recte observatur, locum istum potius conflatum esse ex Augustini et Gregorii variis locis, et primam partem, scil. usque ad non sint, sumtam esse ex August., VIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 11. — Vide etiam Rabanum, Comment. in Exod. libr. I. c. 6. — In ipso textu Vat. cum cod. A et edd. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, tenet loco tenuit, et mox cum edd. 1, 4, 7, quasi non sint pro quasi non sunt. ⁵ Codd. et ed. 1 omittunt vel futurum esse, et paulo infra cod. D cum edd, 1, 8 ponunt de Deo pro de eo. ⁶ In Vat. et cod. D nec non in edd. 4, 5, 6, 7 desiderantur verba nec desinit. ⁷ Tract. 99. n. 45; est tamen aliqua differentia verborum in principio. ⁸ Fide codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 necnon originali consentiente substituimus orietur pro erit. Paulo supra codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10 omittunt contra contextum et est. ⁹ Ioan. 16, 13. ¹⁰ Codd. B C D E est loco etiam; cod. A etiam est. ¹¹ Codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt tamen. ¹² Vat. contra codd. B C D E et fere omnes edd. praeteriit vel futurum sit. ¹³ Vat. cum edd., excepta ed. 1, esse pro tunc. Paulo infra Vat. cum edd., excepta ed. 1, verbo divinitatis praefigit suae. ¹⁴ Num. 11. — Paulo ante Vat. et alie edd., dempta 1, addunt suae post existentiam.	¹ The Vatican text, contrary to the codices and editions 1, 3, and 8, has or [sive]. ² Chapter 2, n. 3. Cf. also The City of God, Bk. XII, ch. 2. ³ Verse 14, where the Vulgate reads: I am who am. He said: Thus you shall say etc.. — Immediately before this the Vatican text, contrary to the codices and editions 1, 5, 6, and 8, omits Moses [Moysi]. ⁴ Editions 6, 7, and 8, read To Damasus, but, nevertheless, in neither place is this sentence literally found, but rather among (St.) Isidore, Etymologies, Bk. VII, ch. 1, n. 10-13, where in the edition of Migne (Patrologia Latina, tome 82) it is rightly observed, that that passage has rather been conflated from various passages of (Sts.) Augustine and Gregory, and the first part, that is up to are not [trans. note: Here the Quaracchi edition reads non sint, which is discordant with the text above, which has non sunt; but which seems to refer to the alternate reading, about to be cited at the end of this footnote], has been taken from (St.) Augustine, City of God, Bk. VIII, ch. 11. — See also (Bl.) Rabanus (Maurus), Commentary on Exodus, Bk. I, ch. 6. — In the quote itself the Vatican text together with codex A and editions 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, reads holds [tenet] in place of held [tenuit], and then together with editions 1, 4 and 7, it has (it is) as if there were not [quasi non sint] in place of (it is) as if there are not [quasi non sunt]. ⁵ The codices and edition 1 omit and/or a ‘going to be’ [vel futurum esse], and a little below this codex D together with editions 1 and 8, puts concerning God [de Deo] in place of concerning Him [de eo]. ⁶ In the Vatican text and codex D, and also in editions 4, 5, 6, and 7, the words nor ceases [nec desinit] are wanting. ⁷ Tract 99, n. 45; there is, however, some difference in wording at the beginning. ⁸ Trusting in the codices and editions 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10, and with the original consenting, we have substituted It shall . . . rise [orietur] in place of It shall . . . be [erit]. A little above this the codices together with editions 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10, omit, contrary to the context, and It is [et est]. ⁹ Jn. 16:13. ¹⁰ Codices B C D and E have is [est] in place of also [etiam]; codex A reads also is [etiam est:]. [Trans. note: here the sense is: to hear of Him is to know of Him and to know of Him is to be from Him.] ¹¹ The codices together with edition 1 omit nevertheless [tamen]. ¹² The Vatican text, contrary to codices B C D and E and nearly all the editions, reads He has passed by and/or that He is going to [praeteriit vel futurum sit]. ¹³ The Vatican text together with the editions, excepting edition 1, reads distinguish that there are temporal movements [temporales motus esse distinguunt] in place of then distinguish temporal movements [temporales motus tunc distinguunt]. A little below this the Vatican text together with the editions, excepting edition 1, has of His own Divinity [suae divinitatis]. ¹⁴ Number 11. — A little before this the Vatican text and the other editions, excepting the first, add His [sua] after the existence of [existentiam].

p. 147

Cap. II.

De incommutabilitate eiusdem.

Chapter II

On the incommutability of the same.

Dei etiam solius essentia proprie incommutabilis dicitur, quia nec mutatur nec mutari potest. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate:¹ « Aliae, inquit, essentiae vel substantiae capiunt accidentia, quibus in eis fiat vel magna vel quantacumque mutatio; Deo autem aliquid huiusmodi accidere non potest; et ideo sola substantia vel essentia, quae est Deus, incommutabilis est, cui profecto maxime ac verissime competit esse. Quod enim mutatur non servat ipsum esse; et quod mutari potest, etiam si non mutetur, potest quod fuerat non esse; ideoque illud solum, quod non tantum non mutatur, verum etiam mutari omnino non potest, verissime dicitur esse », id est substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. Ideoque Apostolus loquens de Deo ait:² Qui solus habet immortalitatem. Ut enim ait Augustinus in libro primo de Trinitate:³ « Cum anima quodam modo immortalis esse dicatur et sit, non diceret Apostolus: solus Deus habet immortalitatem, nisi quia vera immmortalitas incommutabilititas est, quam nulla potest habere creatura, quoniam solius Creatoris est ». Unde Iacobus ait:⁴ Apud quem non est transmutatio nec vicissitudinis obumbratio. Et David: Mutabis ea, et mutabuntur; tu autem idem ipse es. Ideo Augustinus super Genesim⁵ dicit, quod Deus nec per loca nec per tempora movetur, creatura vero per tempora et loca. Et per tempora moveri est per affectiones commutari; Deus autem nec loco nec affectione mutari potest, qui per Prophetam ait:⁶ Ego Deus, et non mutor, qui est immutabilis solus. Unde recte solus dicitur habere immortalitatem. « In omni enim mutabili natura, ut ait Augustinus contra Maximinum,⁷ nonnulla mors est ipsa mutatio, quia facit aliquid in ea non esse, quod erat. Unde et ipsa anima humana, quae ideo dicitur immortalis, quia secundum modum suum nunquam desinit vivere, habe tamen quandam mortem suam; quia si iuste vivebat et peccat, moritur iustitia; si peccatrix erat et iustificatur, moritur peccato, ut alias eius mutationes taceam, de quibus modo longum est disputare. Et creaturarum natura caelestium mori potuit, quia peccare potuit. Nam et Angeli peccaverunt et daemones facti sunt, quorum est diabolus princeps; et qui non peccaverunt, peccare potuerunt; et cuicumque creaturae rationali praestatur, ut peccare non possit, non est hoc naturae propriae, sed Dei gratiae. Et ideo solus Deus, ut ait Apostolus, habet immortalitatem, qui non cuiusquam gratia, sed natura sua nec potuit nec potest aliqua conversione mutari, nec potuit nec poterit aliqua mutatione peccare ». « Proinde, ut ait Augustinus in primo libro de Trinitate,⁸ substantiam Dei sine ulla sui commutatione mutabilia facientem et sine ullo suo temporali motu temporalia creantem intueri et nosse, licet sit difficile, oportet ». Vere ergo ac proprie incommutabilis est sola Divinitatis essentia, quae sine sui mutatione cunctas condidit naturas.

The Essence of God alone is also properly said (to be) “incommutable”, because neither is it changed nor can it be changed. Whence (St.) Augustine in the fifth book On the Trinity¹ says: « Other essences and/or substances take accidents, by which there comes to be in them a great and/or howsoever great mutation; but to God something of this kind cannot happen [accidere]; and for that reason the Substance alone and/or Essence, which is God, is incommutable, for Which indeed [profecto] it is most greatly and most truly suitable [competit] to be. For what is changed does not keep the same to be [non servat ipsum esse]; and what can be changed, even if it is not changed, can (become) what is was not (able) to be; and for that reason that alone, which not only is not changed, but also cannot be entirely changed, is most truly said “to be” », that is the Substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And for that reason the Apostle (Paul) speaking of God says:² Who alone has immortality. For as (St.) Augustine says in the first book On the Trinity:³ « Since the soul in a certain manner is said “to be immortal” and it is, the Apostle would not say: God alone has immortality, unless (is was) because true immortality is the incommutability, which no creature can have, since it belongs to God alone ». Whence (St.) James says:⁴ Among Whom there is not transmutation nor the overshadowing of vicissitude. And (King) David (says): Thou will change them, and they shall be changed; but Thou art the very Same. For that reason (St.) Augustine On Genesis⁵ says, that God is neither moved through places nor through times, but a creature (is), through times and places. And ‘to be moved through times’ is ‘to be commutable [commutari] through affections’; but God cannot be changed, neither in place nor in affection, Who through the Prophet says:⁶ I (am) God, and I am not changed, who alone is incommutable. Whence rightly is He alone said “to have immortality”. « For in every mutable nature », as (St.) Augustine says Against Maximinus,⁷ « not even death is itself a mutation, because it makes something in it not to be, which used to be. Whence even the human soul, which for that reason is said (to be) “immortal”, because according to its own manner it never ceases to live, nevertheless [tamen] has its own certain (kind of) death; because if it used to live justly and sins, it dies for justice; if it used to be a sinner and is justified, it dies for sin, to pass over in silence [ut taceam] its other mutations, of which the disputation [disputare] is long in measure. And the nature of celestial creatures could die, because it could sin. For even the Angels sinned and were made demons, whose prince is the devil; and those who did not sin, could have sinned; and to whatever rational creature it is assured [praestatur], that it cannot sin, this does not belong to its own nature [naturae propriae], but to the grace of God. And for that reason God alone, as the Apostle says, has immortality, Who not by the grace of anyone, but by His own Nature neither could nor can be changed by any conversion, nor could nor will be able to sin by any mutation ». « Hence », as (St.) Augustine says in the first book On the Trinity,⁸ « it is proper, though it be difficult, to intuit and know [nosse] that Substance of God, making mutables without any commutation of Itself and creating temporals without any of Its own temporal movement ». Therefore truly and properly incommutable is the Essence of God alone, which without Its own mutation has founded all other natures.

PARS II.

PART II

Cap. III.

De simplicitate eiusdem

Chapter III

On the simplicity of the same.

Eademque sola proprie ac vere simplex est, ubi nec partium nec accidentium seu⁹ quarumlibet formarum ulla est diversitas sive variatio vel multitudo. Ut autem scias, quomodo simplex sit illa substantia, ut te docet Augustinus in sexto libro de Trinitate,¹⁰ « animadverte primo, quare omnis creatura sit multiplex et nullo modo vere simplex, et primo de corporali, postea de spirituali creatura. Corporalis utique creatura partibus constat, ita ut sit ibi alia pars minor, alia maior, et maius sit totum quam pars quaelibet; et in unoqueque corpore aliud est magnitudo, aliud color, aliud figura. Potest enim, et minuta magnitudine, manere idem color et eadem figura; et colore mutato, manere eadem figura et eadem magnitudo. Ac per hoc multiplex esse convincitur natura corporis simplex autem nullo modo ».

And the Same alone is properly and truly simple, where there is neither of parts nor of accidents or⁹ of whatever forms any diversity or variation and/or multitude. But so that you may know [scias], in what manner that Substance be simple, as (St.) Augustine teaches in the sixth book On the Trinity,¹⁰ « turn your mind first to (this), why every creature is multiple and in no manner is truly simple, and first concerning the corporal creature, afterwards concerning the spiritual. Certainly [utique] the corporal creature is established by parts, such that there one part is lesser, another greater, and the whole is greater than any part; and in any one body the magnitude is one (thing), the color an other, the shape [figura] an other. For it can, even with a lessened [minuta] magnitude, remain the same color and the same shape; and with the color changed, remain the same shape and the same magnitude. And through this the nature of a body is conclusively proven [convincitur] to be multiple, (and to be) moreover in no manner simple ».

Cap. IV.

De corporali et spirituali creatura, quomodo sit multiplex

et non simplex.

Chapter IV

On the corporal and spiritual creature, in what manner it be multiple, and not simple.

Creatura quoque spiritualis, ut est anima, in comparatione quidem corporis est simplex, sine comparatione vero corporis multiplex est, et non simplex. Quae ideo simplex dicitur respectu corporis, quia mole non diffunditur per spatium loci, sed in unoquoque corpore et in toto tota est et in qualibet eius parte tota est. Et ideo, cum fit¹¹ aliquid in quavis exigua particula corporis, quod sentiat anima, quamvis non fiat in toto corpore, illa tamen tota sentit, quia totam non latet. Sed tamen nec in ipsa anima vera simplicitas / est.

A spiritual creature too, as is the soul, in comparison to a body is indeed simple, but apart from [sine] a comparison to a body it is multiple, and not simple. Which (creature) is for that reason is said (to be) “simple” in respect of a body, because (its) mass [mole] is not diffused through the space of a place, but in any one body both the whole (of it) is in the whole (body) and the whole (of it) is in any part of it. And for that reason, when something is done¹¹ in however so tiny [exigua] a particle of a body, which the soul senses, although it is not done in the whole body, nevertheless [tamen] that whole senses, because it does not lay hidden from the whole. But, nevertheless [tamen], neither in the soul itself is there true simplicity.

¹ Cap. 2. n. 3. — In quo textu post non servat ipsum contra originale, codd. et ed. 1 Vat. cum aliis edd. addit verum.
² I. Timoth. 6, 16; idem textus infra bis occurit.
³ Cap. 1. n. 2.
⁴ Cap. 1, 17. Sola Vat. Apud Deum. — Sequens textus est Psalm. 101, 28.
⁵ Super Genes. ad litteram VIII. c. 20. n. 39. secundum sensum; cfr. etiam c. 21. 22. 23. 26.
⁶ Malach. 3, 6. Vulgata: Ego Dominus etc.
⁷ Libr. II. c. 12. n. 1.
⁸ Cap. 1. n. 3.
⁹ Edd., exceptis 1, 8, nec.
¹⁰ Cap. 6. n. 8. — Paulo restituimus ex codd. et edd. 1, 6, 8, ut ante docet Augustinus. In ipso textu ante de corporali Vat. cum aliss edd., exceptis 1, 4, primum pro primo. Deinde ante partibus Vat. cum plurimis edd. et cod. B addit ex. Mox post ibi Vat. ponit aliqua pro alia. Paulo infra ante figura. Potest Vat. cum plurimis edd. adiicit est, et immediate post omissa paritucla et ponit imminuta pro minuta contra codd. B C D et fere omnes edd.; Augustinus diminuta.
¹¹ Codd. A B D E et edd. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 male sit. — Infra Vat. cum paucis edd. non bene addiicit tota legendo in ipsa tota anima vera; et immediate post edd. 2, 3, 7 vere pro vera simplicitas [Trans. Nota: Haec verba corrigata sunt de multiplicem vera, quae in nota editio critica habet, sed quae textus Lombardi non].

¹ Chapter 2, n. 3. — In which text after does not keep the same [non servat ipsum] contrary to the original, to the codices and to edition 1, the Vatican text together with the other editions adds true [verum].
² 1 Tim. 6:16; the same text occurs twice below.
³ Chapter 1, n. 2.
⁴ Chapter 1:17. Only the Vatican text has Among God [Apud Deum]. — The following text is Psalm 101:28.
⁵ On the Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. VIII, ch. 20, n. 39, according to the sense; cf. also chs. 21, 22, 23, and 26.
⁶ Malachi 3:6. The Vulgate reads: I (am) the Lord etc. [Ego Dominus etc.].
⁷ Book II, ch. 12, n. 1.
⁸ Chapter 1, n. 3.
⁹ The editions, excepting 1 and 8, have nor [nec].
¹⁰ Chapter 6, n. 8. — A little before this we have restores from the codices and editions 1, 6 and 8 as [ut] before (St.) Augustine teaches. In which text before concerning the corporal the Vatican text together with the other editions, excepting 1 and 4, has at first [primum] in place of first [primo]. Then before parts [partibus] the Vatican text together with very many editions and codex B adds out of. Then after there [ibi] the Vatican text puts some (part) [aliqua] in place of one [alia]. A little below this before shape [figura] the Vatican text together with very many editions inserts is [est], and immediately after the omitted particle even [et] it puts unlessened [imminuta] in place of lessened [minuta] contrary to codices B C and D and nearly all the editions; (St.) Augustine has diminished [diminuta].

¹¹ Codices A B D E and editions 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 have badly is [sit] in place of is done [fit]. — Below the Vatican text together with a few editions inserts not so well whole [tota] by reading in the whole soul itself (is there) true; and immediately after this editions 2, 3, and 7, read truly [vere] in place of true simplicity [vera simplicitas].

p. 148

est. Cum enim aliud sit artificiosum esse, aliud inertem, aliud acutum, aliud memorem, aliud cupiditas, aliud timor, aliud laetitia, aliud tristitia, possintque haec et alia huiusmodo innumerabilia in animae natura inveniri, et alia sine aliis et alia magis,¹ alia minus, manifestum est, non simplicem, sed multiplicem esse naturam. Nihil enim simplex mutabile est; omnis autem creatura mutabilis est »:² nulla ergo creatura vere simplex est. « Deus vero, etsi multiplex dicatur, vere tamen et summe simplex est. Dicitur enim magnus, bonus, sapiens, beatus, verus et quidquid aliud non indigne dici videtur, sed eadem magnitudo eius est, quae sapientia. Non enim mole magnus est, sed virtute, et eadem bonitas, quae sapientia et magnitudo et veritas; et non est ibi aliud ipsum beatum esse, et aliud magnum aut sapientem aut verum aut bonum esse aut omnino esse ».	For since it is one (thing) to be artificial, another inert, another sharp, another mindful [memorem], another cupidity, another fear, another gladness, another sadness, and (since) these and others of this kind can be found (to be) innumerable in the nature of the soul, both some without others and others more,¹ others less, it is manifest, that (its) nature is not simple, but multiple. For nothing simple is mutable; moreover every creature is mutable »:² therefore no creature is truly simple. « However God, even if he be called multiple, is nevertheless [tamen] truly and most highly simple. For He is called “great”, “good”, “wise”, “blessed”, “true” and whatever other (name) seems to be said in a not unworthy manner, but to Him belongs the same greatness, which (is) wisdom. For not in mass is He great, but in virtue, and (He is) the same goodness, which (is) wisdom and greatness and truth; and There is not One that is Itself blessed There, and Another that is great or wise or true or is good or entirely (any of these) ».
Cap. V. Quod Deus, cum sit simplex, tamen multipliciter dicitur.	Chapter V That God, though He be simple, is nevertheless spoken of in a multiple manner.
Hic diligenter notandum est, cum dicat Augustinus, solum Deum vere simplicem esse, cur dicat, eundem multipliciter dicit. Sed hoc non propter diversitatem accidentium vel partium dicit, sed propter diversitatem ac multitudinem nominum, quae de Deo dicuntur; quae licet multiplicia sint, unum tamen significant, scilicet divinam naturam. Haec enim non ita accipiuntur, cum de illa incommutabili aeternaque substantia incomparabiliter simpliciore, quam est humanus animus, dicuntur, quemadmodum cum de creaturis dicuntur. Unde Augustinus in sexto libro de Trinitate:³ « Deo est hoc esse, quod est fortem esse vel sapientem esse vel iustum esse, et si quid de illa simplici multiplicitate vel multiplici simplicitate dixeris, quo substantia eius significetur. Humano autem animo non est hoc esse, quod est fortem esse aut prudentem aut iustum; potest enim esse animus et nullam istarum habere virtutum ».	Here it must be diligently noted, since (St.) Augustine says, that God alone is truly simple, why he says, that he speaks of the Same in a multiple manner. But this he does not say on account of a diversity of accidents and/or of parts, but on account of a diversity and multitude of names, which are said of God; which though they are multiple, nevertheless [tamen] signify the One, that is the Divine Nature. For these are not accepted thus, when they are said of that incommutable and eternal Substance incomparably more simple than the human spirit, to the extent that they are said of creatures. Whence (St.) Augustine in the sixth book On the Trinity:³ « For God ‘to be’ is that, which it is ‘to be strong’ and/or ‘to be wise’ and/or ‘to be just’, and if you have said anything concerning that simple multiplicity and/or multiple simplicity, by this His substance is signified. Moreover for the human spirit ‘to be’ is not that, which it is ‘to be strong or prudent or just’; for the (human) spirit can be and have none of those virtues ».
Cap. VI. Quod Dei simplicitas nulli praedicamentorum subiicitur.	Chapter VI That the simplicity of God is subject to none of the predicaments.
Quod autem in natura divina nulla sit accidentium diversitas nullaque paenitus mutabilitas, sed perfecta simplicitas, ostendi Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate⁴ dicens: « Intelligamus Deum, quantum possumus, sine qualitate bonum, sine quantitate magnum, sine indigentia creatorem, sine situ praesidentum, sine habitu omnia continentem, sine loco ubique totum, sine tempore sempiternum, sine ulla sui mutatione mutabilia facientem nihilque patientem. Quisquis Deum ita cogitat, etsi non dum potest omnino invenire quid sit, pie tamen caveat, quantum potest, aliquid de illo sentire, quod non sit ». Ecce, si subtiliter intendas, ex his atque praedictis aperitur, illa praedicamenta artis dialecticae Dei naturae minime convenire, quae nullis subiecta est accidentibus.	Moreover that in the Divine Nature there is no diversity of accidents and no mutability throughout [paenitus], but (rather) a perfect simplicity, (St.) Augustine shows in the fifth book On the Trinity⁴ saying: « We understand that God, as much as we can, is the Good without quality, the Great without quantity, the Creator without indigence, the One Presiding without site [situ], the One containing all without having [habitu], the One whole everywhere without place [loco], the One Sempiternal without time, the One making mutables without any mutation of His own and the One suffering nothing. Whoever thus considers [cogitat] God, even if he cannot yet find entirely what He is, nevertheless [tamen] piously let him beware, as much as he can, of thinking [sentire] anything of Him, which He is not ». Behold, if you subtlety understand [intendas], from this and the aforesaid it appears, that those predicaments of the dialectic art convene least (of all) with the Divine Nature, which is subject to none of the accidents.
Cap. VII. Quod Deus abusive dicitur substantia.	Chapter VII That God is abusively said (to be) a “substance”.
Unde nec proprie dicitur substantia, ut Augustinus ostendit in libro septimo de Trinitate:⁵ « Sicut ab eo quod est esse appellatur essentia, ita ab eo quod est subsistere substantiam dicimus, si tamen dignum est, ut Deus dicatur subsistere. Hoc enim de his rebus recte intelligitur, in quibus subiectis sunt ea quae in aliquo subiecto esse dicuntur, sicut in corpore color aut forma. Corpus enim subsistit, et ideo substantia est. Res ergo mutabiles neque simplices proprie dicuntur substantiae. Deus autem, si subsistit, ut substantia proprie dici possit, inest in eo aliquid tanquam in subiecto, et non est simplex. Nefas est autem dicere, ut subsistat Deus et subsit bonitati suae, atque illa bonitas non substantia sit vel potius essentia, neque ipse Deus sit bonitas sua, sed in illo sit tanquam subiecto. Unde manifestum est, Deum abusive substantiam vocari, ut nomine usitatiori intelligatur essentia, quod vere ac proprie dicitur, ita ut fortasse solum Deum dici oporteat essentiam. Est enim vere solus, quia incommuntabilis est ».	Whence neither is He properly said (to be) a “substance”, as (St.) Augustine shows in the seventh book On the Trinity:⁵ « In the same manner as from that which it is ‘to be’ “essence” is named, so from that which is ‘to subsist’ we say “substance”, if, however [tamen], it is worthy, that God be said “to subsist”. For this concerning these things rightly is understood, in which subjects there are those (things) which are said to be in another subject, just as color or form (is) in a body. For a body subsists, and for that reason it is a substance. Therefore mutable things and not simple ones are properly said (to be) “substances”. Moreover God, if He subsists, so that he can properly be said (to be) a “substance”, is in that something as in a subject, and is not simple. Moreover it is wicked [nefas est] to say, that God subsists and is beneath [subsit] His own Goodness, and also that that Goodness is not a substance and/or rather an essence, and that God Himself is not His own Goodness, but (that That) is in Him as in a subject. Whence it is manifest, that God is abusively called a “substance”, as He is by more usual noun understood (to be) an “essence”, which truly and properly He is said (to be), to such an extent that perhaps it is proper [oporteat] that God alone be said (to be) an “essence”. For He is truly Sole [solus], because He is incommutable ».
Cap. VIII. Quod non est in Deo aliquid, quod non sit Deus.	Chapter VIII That there is not in God anything, which is not God.
Huius autem essentiae simplicitas ac sinceritas tanta est, quod non est in ea aliquid, quod non sit ipsa; sed idem est habens et quod habetur. Unde Hilarius in septimo libro de Trinitate⁶ ait: « Non ex compositis Deus, qui vita est, subsistit, neque qui virtus est, ex infirmis continetur, neque qui lux est, ex obscuris coaptatur, neque qui spiritus est, ex disparibus formalis est: totum quod in eo est, unum est ». Idem in octavo libro de Trinitate:⁷ « Non humano modo ex compositis Deus est ut in eo aliud sit / quod ab eo habetur, . . . »	Moreover of this Essence there is so great a simplicity and sincerity, that there is not in It anything, which is not Itself; but the Same is the One having and What is had. Whence (St.) Hilary in the seventh book On the Trinity⁶ says: « Not out of composites does God, who is Life, subsist, nor is He who is Virtue, contained out of infirm (things), nor is He who is Light, fitted together from obscure (things), nor is He who is Spirit, formal from disparate (things): the whole which is in Him, is one ». (He says) the same in the eighth book On the Trinity:⁷ « Not in a human manner is God from composites so that in Him there is one (thing) / which is had from Him, . . . »
¹ Vat. sola repetit hic et nec non minus post manifestum est; eadem cum edd. 2, 6, 8 addit animae; cod. D vero post multiplicem ponit eius. ² Libr. VI. de Trin. c. 6. n. 8. Quae sequuntur sumta sunt ex c. 6 et 7. Circa finem huius textus post eadem bonitas Vat. contra codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 7 adiicit eius est. Denique nonnullae edd. aliud sapientem aliud pro aut sapientem aut. ³ Cap. 4. n. 6. — Vat. et ceterae edd. in principio post Deo addunt inquit. ⁴ Cap. 1. n. 2. — In principio huius cap. pro divina codd. B C D deitatis, A E divinitatis. In ipso textu post situ edd. 4, 8 praesentem loco praesidentem; circa finem eiusdem Vat. et edd. 4, 5, 8, 9 post quid sit addunt ipse. ⁵ Cap. 4. in fine et c. 5. in principio. — In textu ante subiectis Vat. et edd. 4, 9 addunt ut; edd. 1, 6, 8 hic et paulo infra ante subiecto addiciunt ut in contra originale, codd. et ceteras edd. Deinde edd. praeter fidem codd. et originalis post Res ponunt vero pro ergo. ⁶ Num. 27. Non enim ex compositis atque inanimis Deus . . . ex infirmibus continetur . . . ex disparibus formabilis est, ubi cod. A disparibus formatur. Pro formalis in textu Magistri legendum videtur formabilis. Hunc textum explicat S. Bonaventura, hic p. II. dub. 6. ⁷ Num. 43. — In hoc textu Vat. et edd. 4, 8, 9 et cod. B corrupte pro vita est natura legunt una est natura, ubi Hilarius clarius: sed totum, quod est, vita est.	¹ Here the Vatican text alone repeats and [et] and less [minus] after it is manifest [manifestum est]; the same text together with editions 2, 6 and 8, adds of the soul at the end; codex D, however, adds its [eius]. ² On the Trinity, Book VI, ch. 6, n. 8. Those things which follow have been taken from ch. 6 and ch. 7. Near the end of this text after the same goodness [eadem bonitas] the Vatican text, contrary to the codices and editions 1, 2, 3, and 7, adds is His [eius est]. Then not a few editions read Another wise, another [aliud sapientem aliud] in place of or wise or [aut sapientem aut]. ³ Chapter 4, n. 6. — The Vatican text and the rest of the editions at the beginning after To God [Deo] add , he says, [inquit]. ⁴ Chapter 1, n. 2. — At the beginning of this chapter in place of divine [divina] codices B C and D read of the Deity [deitatis], A and E read of the Divinity [divinitatis]. In the same text at site [situ] editions 1 and 8 read the One Present [praesentem] in place of the One Presiding [praesidentem]; near the end of the same the Vatican text and editions 4, 5, 8, and 9, at what He is [quid sit] add Himself [ipse]. ⁵ Chapter 4. at the end and ch. 5 at the beginning. — In the text before subjects [subiectis] the Vatican text and editions 4 and 9 add as [ut]; editions 4, 6, and 8 here and a little below before subject [subiecto] insert as in [ut in] contrary to the original, to the codices and to the rest of the editions. Then the editions, not trusting the codices and the original text, at mutable things [Res . . . mutabiles] put However [vero] in place of Therefore [ergo]. ⁶ Num. 27. (The Text of St. Augustine reads): For not from composites and inanimates is God . . . is He contained from infirm things [infirmibus] . . . is He formable [formabilis] from disparate things; where codex A reads is He formed by disparate things. In place of formal [formalis] in the text of Master (Peter) formable [formabilis] seems to need to be read. St. Bonaventure explains this text, here in p. II. dubium 6. ⁷ Num. 43. — In this text the Vatican text and editions 4, 8 and 8, and codex B, in place of is life, . . . nature [vita est natura] read corruptly is one nature [una est natura], where (St.) Hilary more clearly says: but the whole, which He is, is Life.

p. 149

quod ab eo havetur, et aliud sit ipse qui habeant, sed totum vita est, natura scilicet perfecta et infinita et non ex diparibus constituta, sed vivens ipsa per totum ». De hoc eodem Boethius in primo libro de Trinitate¹ ait: « Quocirca hoc vere unum est, in quo nullus numerus, nullum in eo aliud praeter id quod est; neque enim subiectum fieri potest ». Augustinus quique in libro de Fide et Sumbolo² dicit: « In Dei substantia non est aliquid, quod non sit substantia, quasi aliud sit ibi substantia, aliud quod accidat substantiae. Sed quidquid ibi intelligi potest, substantia est. Verum haec dici possunt facile et credi, videri atuem nisi puro corde omnino non possunt ». Item Augustinus in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate:³ « Sic habetur in natura uiuscuiusque trium, ut qui habet hoc sit, quod habet, sicut immutabilis simplexque substantia ». Unde Isidorus⁴ ait: « Deus simplex dicitur, sive non amittendo quod habet, seu quod aliud non est ipse, at aliud quod in ipso est ». Et cum tantae simplicitatis atque sinceritatis sit natura divina, est tamen in ea personarum Trinitas. Unde Augustinus in libro undecimo de Civitate Dei⁵ ait: « Non propter hoc naturam summi boni simplicem dicimus, quia est Pater in ea solus, aut Filius in ea solus, aut Spiritus sanctus in ea solus, aut quia sola est ista nominum trinitas sine subsistentia personarum, sicut Sabelliani putaverunt: sed ideo simplex dicitur, quia est hoc quod habet, excepto quod relative quaeque persona ad alteram dicitur, nec est ipsa. Nam utique Pater habet Filium, ad quem relative dicitur, nec tamen ipse est Filius; et Filius habet Patrem, nec tamen epse est Pater. In quod vero ad semetipsum dicitur, non ad alterum, hoc est quod habet, sicut ad semetipsum dicitur virvus, habendo vitam, et eadem vita ipse est. Propter hoc itaque⁶ natura haec dicitur simplex, quod non sit aliud habens, et aliud id quod habet, sicut in ceteris rebus est. Non enim habens liquorem liquor est, nec corpus color, nex anima est sapientia ». Ecce, quanta est identitas, quanta est unitas, immutabilitas, simplicitas, puritas divinae substantiae, iuxta infirmitatis nostrae valitudinem assignavimus.

which is had from Him, and another is He Himself who has, but the whole is Life, a Nature namely perfect and infinite and not constituted out of disparates, but living Itself throughout the whole ». Of this Same, (St. Severinus) Boethius in the first book On the Trinity¹ says: « About which It is truly the One, in which (there is) no number, no other in Him besides that which He is; for neither can He be become a subject ». (St.) Augustine also says in (his) book On the Faith and the Creed:² « In the Substance of God there is not anything, which is not the Substance, as if There one thing is the substance, another (is that) which accedes to the substance. But whatever can be understood (to be) There, is the Substance. Truly these (things) can be easily said and believed, on the other hand [autem] they cannot be seen except by an entirely pure heart ». Likewise (St.) Augustine in the fifteenth book On the Trinity³ (says of the Divine Nature): « It is so had in the Nature of each of the Three, that He who has This is, what He has, just as an immutable and simple substance (does) ». Whence (St.) Isidore⁴ says: « God is said (to be) “simple”, either by not admitting that He has, or that there is one thing that is Himself, and another that is in Himself ». And though the Divine Nature is of so great a simplicity and sincerity, It is, nevertheless [tamen] in that Trinity of the Persons. Whence (St.) Augustine in the eleventh book On the City of God⁵ says: « We do not say that the nature of the Most High Good (is) “simple” on account of this, that the Father alone is in It, or the Son alone (is) in It, or the Holy Spirit alone (is) in It, or that Trinity of Names alone is without a subsistence of persons, just as the Sabellians thought: but He is said (to be) “simple” for this reason, that He is this which He has, except that whatever Person is said relatively in regard to an Other, nor is it the very (Other). For certainly [utique] the Father has a Son, in regard to whom He is relatively said (to be “the Father”), nor however [tamen] is He Himself the Son; and the Son has a Father, nor however is He Himself the Father. In which (sense) there is said in regard to His very self, not in regard to an Other, This is what He has, just as in regard to His very self He is said (to be) “living”, by having life, and the same Life is Himself. And so⁶ on account of this, the Nature is said (to be) “simple”, because there is not one having, and another that which It has, just as it is among all other things. For a liquid [liquor] is not one having liquid, nor (is) color a body, nor is the soul wisdom ». Behold, how great is the Identity, how great is the Unity, the Immutability, the Simplicity, the Purity of the Divine Substance, (which) we according to the strength [valitudinem] of our infirmity have expressed with signs [assignavimus].

¹ Cap. 2. — In quo textu Vat. post praeter id quod addit in eo, contradicentibus omnibus codd., edd. 1, 6 et originali.
² Cap. 9. n. 20. — Mss. et edd. 2, 3, 5, 7 citant falso de Fide ad Petrum. — In quo textu codd. B C cum omnibus aliis edd. non bene ponunt accidit pro accidat.
³ Cap. 17. n. 28. — In quo textu contra originale, codd. et edd. 1, 6, 8 Vat. ponit quod pro ut. Mox post sicut cod. A addit est et deinde ponit natura loco substantia.
⁴ Libr. VII. Etymolog. c. 1; idem occurit libr. I. Sent. c. 1. — Ipse Isidorus loc. cit. legit: seu quia non aliud est; edd. vero 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 seu non aliud habet quod non est, et ed. 2 insuper addit quia post seu.
⁵ Cap. 10. n. 1. et 2. — Vat. et edd. 4, 5 omittunt ait post Civitate Dei. In hoc textu omnes codd. et ed. 1 post Spiritus sanctus omittunt in ea; et immediate post codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 pro aut ponunt id est, contradicente originali. Insuper edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 substantia pro subsistentia, et loco sine edd. omnes cum codd. C E exhibent sive, sed falso et contra originale et codd. A B D. [Trans. nota: in textu criticalis originalis super perperam substantia pro subsistentia.]
⁶ Vat. utique contra omnes codd. et edd. 2, 6.

¹ Chapter 2. — In which text the Vatican text after besides that which adds in Him, contradicting all the codices, editions 1 and 6, and the original.
² Chapter 9, n. 20. — The manuscripts and editions 2, 3, 5 and 7, cite falsely the On Faith to Peter. — In which text codices B and C together with all the other editions put not so well the indicative for accedes [accidit].
³ Chapter 17, n. 28. — In which text, contrary to the original, to the codices and to editions 1, 6 and 8, the Vatican text puts that [quod] in place of that [ut]. Then after just as [sicut] codex A adds He is [est] and then puts nature in place of substance.
⁴ Etymologies, Bk. VII, ch. 1; the same occurs in Sent., Bk. I, ch. 1. — (St.) Isidore himself, loc. cit., writes: or because there is no other; however editions 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, read or (that) no other has what He is not, and edition 2 moreover adds that [quia] after or [seu].
⁵ Chapter 10, n. 1 and 2. — The Vatican text and editions 4 and 5, omit says [ait] after City of God. In this text all the codices and edition 1 after Holy Spirit omit in It [in ea]; and immediately after this the codices and editions 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 put that is [id est] in place of or [aut], contradicting the original. Moreover editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 have substance [substantia] in place of subsistence [subsistentia], and in place of without [sine] all the editions together with codices C and E exhibit or [sive], but falsely and contrary to the original and codices A B and D. [Trans. note: Here, contrary to custom, the note takes a contrary approach to the textual variant of substance/subsistence in regard to the text of Master Peter: sine substantia personarum as quoted above; if the Latin text of the Quaracchi edition is followed, there results a seeming non sequitur, for there would be a trinity of names without a underlying substance, which is not what the Sabellians held. The English translation assumes the note is correct and the text in the body erroneous, viz. that the latter should read subsistentia.]
⁶ The Vatican text has certainly [utique] contrary to all the codices and editions 2 and 6.

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.

Sententiarum Quatuor Libri

The Four Books of Sentences