LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 9: 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 IX.	DISTINCTION 9
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 176-179. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 176-179. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
Cap. I. De distinctione trium personarum.	Chapter I On the distinction of the Three Persons.
Nunc ad distinctionem trium personarum accedamus. « Teneamus igitur, ut docet Augustinus in libro de Fide ad Petrum,¹ Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum unum esse Deum naturaliter, nec tamen ipsum Patrem esse qui Filius est, nec Filium esse ipsum qui Pater est, nec Spiritum sanctum esse ipsum qui Pater est aut Filius. Una enim est essentia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, in qua non est aliud Pater, aliud Filius, aliud Spiritus sanctus, quamvis personaliter alius sit Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus sanctus ».²	Now let us proceed [accedamus] to the distinction of the Three Persons. « We are bound, therefore », as (St.) Augustine teaches in the book On the Faith to Peter,¹ « that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the One God naturally, nor, however, that the Father Himself is He who the Son is, nor that the Son is He Himself who the Father is, nor that the Holy Spirit is He Himself who the Father is, or the Son. For one [una] is the Essence of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in which one thing [aliud] is not the Father, another thing the Son, another thing the Holy Spirit, although personally One [alius] is the Father, another One the Son, another One the Holy Spirit ».²
Cap. II. De coaeternitate Patris et Filii.	Chapter II On the coeternity of the Father and of the Son.
Genitus est enim a Patre Filius, et ideo alius, nec tamen ante fuit Pater quam Filius; coaeternae enim sibi sunt tres personae. Sed contra hoc inquit haereticus, ut refert Ambrosius in libro primo de Trinitate:³ « Omne quod natum est, principium habet; et ideo, quia Filius est, principium habet et esse coepit; quod haereticorum ore sic dictum est ». « Nam ipse Arius, ut meminit Augustinus in sexto libro de Trinitate,⁴ dixisse fertur: Si Filius est, natus est; si natus est, erat, quando non erat Filius ».	For the Son is begotten by [a] the Father, and for that reason Another, nor, however, was the Father before [ante quam] the Son; for the Three Persons are coeternal to Themselves. But against this the heretic says, as (St.) Ambrose reports in his first book On the Trinity:³ « Everything which is born, has a principle; and for that reason, because He is the Son, He has a beginning and undertook to be; which by the mouth of heretics is said in this manner ». « For Arius himself, as (St.) Augustine remembered in his sixth book On the Trinity,⁴ is reported to have said: “If He is the Son, He has been born; if He has been born, there was (a time), when the Son was not” ».
Qui hoc dicit « non intelligit, etiam natum esse de Deo sempiternum esse, ut sit coaeternus Patri Filius, sicut splendor, qui gignitur ab igne atque diffunditur, coaevus est illi, et esset coaeternus, si ignis est aeternus ».⁵	Who says this « does not understand, that to have been born of [de] God is also to be sempiternal, so that the Son is coeternal to the Father [Patri], just as the splendor, which is begotten by [a] fire and is diffused (with it), is co-eval to it, and would be coeternal, if the fire is eternal ».⁵
Item: « Si Dei Filius, inquit Augustinus, virtus et sapientia Dei est, nec unquam fuit Deus sine virtute et sapientia, coaeternus est Deo Patri Filius. Dicit autem Apostolus:⁶ Christum esse Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam; aut ergo non fuit, quando non fuit Filius, aut aliquando Deus non habuit virtutem et sapientiam, quod dementis est dicere ». Constat enim, quia semper habuit sapientiam, semper ergo habuit Filium.	Likewise: « If the Son of God », says (St.) Augustine, « is the Virtue and Wisdom of God, and God was not ever without virtue and wisdom, (then) coeternal to the God the Father is the Son. Moreover the Apostles says:⁶ that Christ is the Virtue of God and the Wisdom of God; therefore, either there was not a ‘when there was not a Son’, or at sometime God did not have virtue and wisdom, which belongs to the demented to say ». For it is established, that He always had wisdom, therefore He always had the Son.
Eidem quoque Arianicae quaestioni Ambrosius⁷ in hunc modum respondet: « Ego, inquam, Filium esse natum confiteor; quod reliquum est impietatis hor- / -resco ».	To the same question of Arius (St.) Ambrose ⁷ also responds in this manner: « I, I say, do confess that the Son has been born; because the rest belongs to impiety I am / horrified ».
¹ Cap. 1. n. 5. — In principio distinctionis omnes codd. omittunt trium. ² Vat. huic capitulo addit verba seqentis cap. Genitus est usque alius. ³ Cap. 11. n. 73. — Solummodo Vat. et edd. 4, 6, 8 citant hunc librum sub nomine de Fide ad Gratianum; cfr. supra Dis. II. c. 4. In textu contra originale et codd. nostros Vat. cum ceteris edd. post Filius addit natus. ⁴ Cap. 1. n. 1, unde et duae auctoritates, quae sequuntur, sumtae sunt. In primo textu solummodo Vat. et edd. 4, 6 cum originali Augustini ante quando addunt tempus. Sed notum adagium Arii est: Erat quando non erat (hn pote, ote oux hn). ⁵ Sola Vat. perperam omittit aeternus. ⁶ I. Cor. 1, 24; sed in Vulgata et Augustino deest esse. Paulo ante post coaeternus Vat. et edd. 4, 9 addunt ergo. ⁷ Loc. cit. — Ex eodem libro c. 8. n. 55 proximus huius capituli locus sumtus est, secundus et tertius ex c. 9. n. 58. et 59, quartus ex eodem cap. n. 60.	¹ Chapter 1, n. 5. — In the beginning of the distinction all the codices omit three [trium]. ² The Vatican text adds to this chapter the words of the following chapter, For the Son is begotten [Genitus est enim] upto Another [alius]. ³ Chapter 11, n. 73. — Only the Vatican text and editions 4, 6 and 8 cite this book under the name On the Faith to Gratian; cf. above D. II, ch. 4. In the text, contrary to the ordinal and our codices, the Vatican text with the rest of the editions read If He was born the Son [Si Filius natus est]. ⁴ Chapter 1, n. 1, whence also the two quotes, which follow, are taken. In the first text only the Vatican text and edition 4 and 6, together with the original of (St.) Augustine, add time [tempus] before when [quando]. But the noted adage of Arius is: There was a, when He was not (hn pote, ote oux hn). ⁵ The Vatican text alone, wrongly, omits eternal [aeternus]. ⁶ 1 Cor. 1:24; but in the Vulgate and (St.) Augustine there is lacking the is [esse]. A little before this at coeternal [coaeternus] the Vatican text and editions 4 and 9 add therefore [ergo]. ⁷ Loc. cit.. — From the same book ch. 8, n. 55, the next passage is taken from this chapter, the second and third from ch. 9, n. 58 and 59, the fourth from the same chapter n. 60.

p. 177

hor- / -resco ». « Scriptum est enim in veteri Testamento,¹ ut vel unum e pluribus dicam: Ante me non fuit alius Deus, et post me non erit. Quis ergo hoc dicit? Pater an Filius? Si Filius, ante me, inquit, non erit: hic priorem, ille posteriorem non habet. Invicem enim in se et Pater in Filio, et Filius in Patre cognoscitur.² Cum enim Patrem dixeris, eius etiam Filium designasti, quia nemo ipse sibi pater est; cum Filium nominas, etiam Patrem fateris, quia nemo ipse sibi filius est. Itaque nec Filius sine Patre, nec Pater potest esse sine Filio: semper igitur Patre, semper et Filius est ».	I am / horrified ». « For it was written in the Old Testament,¹ to speak even of one of many (passages): Before Me there was no other God, and after Me there shall not be (another). Who therefore says this? The Father, or the Son? If the Son, before Me, He says, there shall not be (another): This One (has not) one before (him), That One has not one after. For mutually in Themselves, both the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father are cognized.² For when you say “the Father”, you have also designated His Son, because no one is a father to himself; when you name the Son, you also say [fateris] the Father, because no one is a son to himself. And so neither can the Son be without the Father, nor the Father without the Son: therefore Father (is) always, and the Son is always ».
Item: « Dic, inquam, mihi haeretice, fuitne, quando omnipotens Deus Pater non erat, et Deus erat? Nam si Pater esse coepit, Deus ergo primo erat et postea Pater factus est. Quomodo ergo immutabilis Deus est? Si enim ante Deus, postea Pater fuit, utique generationis accessione mutatus est ». « Sed avertat Deus hanc amentiam ».³	Likewise: « Tell me, I say, (you) heretic, was there a, when God the Father omnipotent was not, and God was? For if the Father undertook to be, therefore first there was God and afterwards the Father was made. In what manner, therefore, is God immutable? For if before there was God, afterwards the Father, He has indeed been changed by an accession of generation ». « But may God turn (us) from such mindlessness! »³
Cap. III. De ineffabili et intelligibili generationis modo.	Chapter III On the ineffable and intelligible manner of the generation.
« Sed quaeris a me, inquit Ambrosius,⁴ quomodo, si Filius sit, non priorem habeat Patrem? Quaero item abs te, quando vel quomodo Filium putes esse generatum? Mihi enim impossibile est generationis scire secretum. Mens deficit, vox silet, non mea tantum, sed et Angelorum; supra potestates et supra Angelos et supra Cherubim et supra Seraphim et supra omnem sensum est, quia scriptum est:⁵ Pax Christi supra omnem sensum est. Et si pax Christi supra omnem sensum est, quomodo non est supra omnem sensum tanta generatio? » « Tu ergo ori manum advove; scrutari non licet superna mysteria. Licet scire, quod natus sit, non licet discutere, quomodo natus sit. Illud negare mihi non licet, hoc quaerere metus est ». Ineffabilis enim est illa generatio; unde Isaias:⁶ Generationem eius quis enarrabit?	« But you seek from me », says (St.) Ambrose,⁴ « how, if He is the Son, does He not have a prior Father? I seek, likewise, from you, when and/or in what manner do you think the Son has been begotten? For to me it is impossible to know the secret of (that) generation. The mind fails, the voice is silent: not mine only, but even (those) of the Angels; it is above the powers (of man) and above Angels, and above the Cherubim and above the Seraphim and above every sense, because it has been written:⁵ The peace of Christ is above every sense. And if the peace of Christ is above every sense, in what manner is so great a generation not above every sense? » « You, therefore, put your hand upon your mouth; it is not licit to scrutinize the supernal mysteries. It is licit to know [scire], that He has been born, it is not licit to discuss, in what manner He has been born. The former is not licit for me to deny, the latter I have feared to question ». For ineffable is that generation; whence Isaiah (says):⁶ His generation, who shall tell it forth?
Quidam tamen de ingenio suo praesumentes dicunt, illam generationem posse intelligi et alia huiusmodi, inhaerentes illi auctoritati Hieronymi super Ecclesiasten:⁷ « In sacris Scripturis quis saepissime non pro impossibili, sed pro difficili ponitur, ut ibi: Generationem eius quis enarrabit »? Sed hoc non dixit⁸ Hieronymus ideo, quod generatio Filii aeterna plene intelligi vel explicari possit a quoquam mortalium, sed quia de ea aliquid intelligi vel dici potest. Quidam tamen hoc accipiunt dictum de temporali Christi generatione.	Certain ones, however, presuming from their own ingenuity say, that that generation can be understood and other (things) of this kind, adhering [inhaerentes] to that authority from (St.) Jerome on Ecclesiastes:⁷ « In the Sacred Scriptures who most often is not posited for the impossible, but for the difficult, as there (where it says): His generation who can tell it forth »? But by this (St.) Jerome did not say,⁸ for this reason [ideo], that the eternal generation of the Son can be “fully understood and/or explained” by any of mortals, but that of it [de ea] something can be understood and/or said. Certain ones, however, accept this saying of the temporal generation of Christ.
Cap. IV. Utrum debeat dici: semper gignitur Deus, vel semper genitus est.	Chapter IV Whether there ought to be said: God always is begotten, and/or always has been begotten.
Hic quaeri potest, cum generatio Filii a Patre nec principium habeat nec finem, quia aeterna est, utrum debeat dicit: Filius semper gignitur, vel semper genitus est, vel semper gignetur. De hoc Gregorius super Iob⁹ ait: « Dominus Deus Iesus in eo, quod virtus et sapientia Dei est, de Patre ante tempora natus est, vel potius, quia nec coepit nasci nec desiit, dicamus verius semper natus; non autem possumus dicere semper nascitur, ne imperfectus esse videatur. At vero, ut aeternus designari valeat et perfectus, semper dicamus et natus, quatenus et natus ad perfectionem pertineat et semper ad aeternitatem; quamvis per hoc ipsum, quod perfectum dicimus, multum ab illius veritatis expressione deviamus, quia quod factum non est, non potest dici proprie perfectum »; sed balbutiendo, ut possumus, excelsa Dei resonamus. « Et Dominus, nostrae infirmitatis verbis condescendens, Estote, inquit, perfecti, sicut et Pater verster caelestis perfectus est ».¹⁰ Super illum locum etiam Psalmi: Ego hodie genui te, de hac generatione Filii ita loquitur Augustinus:¹¹ « Quamquam per hoc, quod dicit hodie, possit etiam intelligi dies ille, quo Christus secundum hominem natus est; tamen quia hodie praesentiam significat, atque in aeternitate neque praeteritum quidquam est, quasi esse desierit, neque futurum, quasi nondum sit, sed praesens tantum, quia quidquid aeternum est, semper est; divinius tamen accipitur de sempiterna generatione sapientiae Dei ».¹² Ecce, his verbis ostendit Augustinus, quod generatio Filii semper est nec praeterit nec futura est, quia aeterna est. Ideo enim¹³ dixit genui, ne novum putaretur, scilicet ne videretur incepisse; hodie dixit, ne praeterita generatio videretur. « Ex his ergo verbis Prophetae, ut ait Ioannes Chrysostomus,¹⁴ nihil aliud manifestatur, nisi quia ex ipsa essentia Patris semper genitus est Filius ».	Here it can be asked, since the generation of the Son by [a] the Father has neither a beginning nor an end, because it is eternal, “Whether there ought to be said: “the Son is always begotten”, and/or “always has been begotten”, and/or “always will be begotten”?” Concerning this (St.) Gregory on Job⁹ says: « The Lord God, Jesus, in this, that He is the Virtue and the Wisdom of God, has been born of [de] the Father before (all) times, and/or rather, because He neither undertook to be born nor failed (to be), let us say more truly “always born”; moreover we cannot say “always is born”, lest He seem to be imperfect. But, on the other hand [vero], that He prevail to be designated as eternal and perfect, let us say “always” and “born”, to the extent that both “born” pertains to perfection and “always” to eternity; although through this very (thing), because we call (Him) the “Perfect One”, we deviate much from the expression of that truth, because what is not made [factum], cannot properly said to be a “perfect one” »; but by stuttering, as we can, we echo the highest (things) of God. « And the Lord, condescending to our infirmity in words, said, Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect ».¹⁰ Also, on this passage of the Psalm: I today have begotten Thee, (St.) Augustine speaks thus of this generation:¹¹ « And yet [quamquam], through this, that he says, “today” [hodie], there can also be understood that day, in which Christ according to man was begotten; however because “today” signifies the present [praesentiam], and (because) in eternity there is nothing past, as if it had failed [desierit] to be, nor a future, as if it were not yet, but only a present [praesens], because whatever is eternal, always is; it is more divinely accepted of the sempiternal generation of the Wisdom of God ».¹² Behold, with these words (St.) Augustine shows, that the generation of the Son always is, and (that) it is not past, nor is it future, because it is eternal. For¹³ for this reason [ideo] he said “I have begotten”, lest He be reputed new, that is, lest He seem to have commenced [incepisse]: he said “today”, lest the generation seem past. « From these words, therefore, of the Prophet », as (St.) John Chrysostom says,¹⁴ « nothing other is manifested, except that from the Essence Itself of the Father the Son has always been begotten ».
¹ Isai. 43, 10. [Tr. — In ed. critic. subito ante Scriptum deficit «.] ² Respicitur illud Ioan. 14, 9. et 10. — Paulo supra post priorem Vat contra orginale, codd. et edd. 1, 8 adiicit et. ³ Codd. C E et A (in margine) cum edd. 1, 8 hic addunt: quia semper habuit sapientiam, semper habuit Filium, quae verba, quia non levi carent interpolationis suspicione, in textum non recepimus. ⁴ Libr. I. de Fide ad Gratian. c. 10. n. 64. et 65. — In principio huius loci sola Vat. habet pro habeat. Mox in codd. B C D E et ed. 1 deest quando vel, quod tamen est in originali. ⁵ Philip. 4, 7. Verba, quae infra sequuntur: ori manum admove et scrutari non licet, respiciunt Eccli. 5, 14. et 3, 22. ⁶ Cap. 53, 8. ⁷ Cap. 3. ⁸ Vat. cum paucis edd. dicit. ⁹ Libr. XXIX. Moral. c. 1. in principio. Etiam verba, quae sequuntur post resonamus, ibidem inveniuntur. In principio primi loci codd. A B D E et edd. 1, 8 omittunt Iesus. ¹⁰ Matth. 5, 48. — Paulo ante Vat. ed ed.. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 resonemus pro resonamus . ¹¹ Expos. in Psalm. 2. v. 6. — Paulo ante VAt. perperam Psalmista. Eadem Vat. et ed. 4 omittunt etiam ante intelligi. ¹² Codd. A C E ad marginem et edd. 1, 5, 9 in textu haec addiciunt: Unde etiam Augustinus in libro LXXXIII quaest. de semper nato (q. 37.) disserens ait: melior est natus, quam qui semper nascitur, quia qui semper nascitur nondum natus et nunquam natus est aut natus erit, si semper nascitur. Aliud est enim nasci, aliud natum esse, ac per hoc nunquam Filius est, si nunquam natus est; Filius autem est, quia natus, et semper Filius, quia aeternus, semper ergo natus. [Trans. nota: In locum ipsum ed. crit. legit finalis et sine italicitione]. ¹³ Vat. contra codd. et edd. 1, 8 omittit enim. ¹⁴ Homil. 2. in Epist. ad Hebr. n. 3.	¹ Isaiah 43:10. [Trans. note: In the critical edition, there was lacking a », which is corrected here.] ² A reference to John 14:9,10. — A little above this after one before [priorem] the Vatican text, contrary to the original, the codices and editions 1 and 8, adds and [et]. ³ Codices C E and A (in the margin) together with editions 1 and 8 add: because He always had wisdom, He always had the Son, which words, because they carry not a light suspicious of being an interpolation, we have not received into the text. ⁴ On the Faith to Gratian, Bk. I, ch. 10, nn. 64 and 65. — In the beginning of this passage the Vatican text alone reads has [habet] in the indicative. Then in codices B C D E and edition 1 there is lacking when and/or [quando vel], which however is in the original. ⁵ Philippians 4:7. The words, which follow below this: put your hand upon your mouth and it is not licit to scrutinize, refer to Eccli. 5:14 and 3:22. [Trams. note: here the Latin for sense [sensum] means both sense and the act of sensing and being sensed]. ⁶ Chapter 53:8. ⁷ Chapter 2. ⁸ The Vatican text with a few editions reads does not say [non dicit]. ⁹ Morals, Bk. 29, ch. 1 at the beginning. The word, which follow after we echo the highest (things) of God [excelsa Dei resonamus], are also found in the same place. In the beginning of the first passage codices A B D E and editions 1 and 8 omit Jesus [Iesus]. [Tr. Note: toward the end of this passage, the equivocity in the Latin perfectum, which means both perfect and perfected, does not exist in English, where the adjective perfect and the past participle, perfected are distinct.] ¹⁰ Mt. 5:48. — A little before this the Vatican text and editions 3, 4, 7 and 9 reads let us echo [resonemus] for we echo [resonamus]. [Trans. note: the equivocation here of perfecti and perfectus is paralleled in the Greek by teleioi and teleios. Although English translations are divided on this, and though it is more metaphysically correct to distinguish the perfected from the perfect in this passage, in which Christ calls not only for perfection in action, and this by means of an initial, whole, and perfect faith, but also in being, which can be attained only by sanctifying grace; nevertheless the equivocity is itself part of the inspired text, and thus ought to be retained in translation. And this appears very suitable, since it is by means of sanctifying grace that the Christian is perfected; and since this grace is itself a supernatural, created participation in the uncreated, Essence of God, who is the One and the Perfect, there is a consimilarity and unity of these two orders of perfection, which is manifested by this use of equivocal terms.] ¹¹ Expositions on Psalms, Ps. 2:6. — A little before this the Vatican text wrongly reads Psalmist [Psalmista]. The same Vatican text and edition 4 omitt also [etiam] before be understood [intelligi]. ¹² Codices A C and E at the margin and editions 1, 5, and 9 in the text insert these words: Whence even (St.) Augustine in the book On 83 Questions speaking in an orderly manner [disserens] of the always born (q. 37) says: it is better (to say) "born”, than "He who is always being born” [nascitur], because He is is always being born is not yet born and never has been born or will be born [natus erit], if He is always being born. For it is one (thing) to be born, another to have been born, and through this (line of reasoning) the Son never is, if He never has been born; but the Son is, because He is born, and He always is the Son, because He is eternal, therefore always born." [Tr. Note: we shall see in the following paragraphs this equivocity of nascitur: “is born” and “is being born”, since Latin lacks the present progressive. ¹³ The Vatican text, contrary to the codices and editions 1 and 8, omits For [enim]. ¹⁴ On the Epistle to the Hebrews, Homily 2, n. 3.

p. 178

Origenes vero super Ieremiam¹ dicit, quod Filius semper generatur a Patre, his verbis: « Salvator noster est sapientia Dei; sapientia vero splendor est aeternae lucis: Salvator ergo noster est splendor claritatis. Splendor autem non semel nascitur et desinit, sed quoties ortum fuerit lumen, ex quo splendor oritur, toties oritur etiam splendor claritatis: sic ergo Salvator semper nascitur. Unde ait in libro Sapientis:² Ante omnes colles generat me Dominus, non, ut quidam male legunt, generavit ». His verbis aperte ostendit Origenes sane dici posse et debere: Filius semper nascitur, quod videtur contrarium illi verbo Gregorii praemisso, scilicet, « non possumus dicere: semper nascitur ».	On the other hand [vero], Origin On Jeremiah¹ says, that the Son is always generated from [a] the Father, with these words: « Our Savior is the Wisdom of God; however the Wisdom is the Splendor of the eternal Light: therefore Our Savior is the Splendor of the Clarity. Moreover splendor is not born once and stops [desinit], but as many times a light has risen, from which splendor rises, so often does the splendor of its clarity rise: in the same manner, therefore, the Savior is always born. Whence it says in the book of the Wise Man:² Before all the hills the Lord generates me, not, as certain ones badly read it, “generated” ». With these words Origin openly shows that sanely it can and ought be said: “The Son is always born [nascitur]”, which seems contrary to that aforesaid word of (St.) Gregory, namely, « we cannot say: “He is always born” ».
Sed ne tanti auctores sibi contradicere in re tanta videantur, illa³ verba Gregorii benigne interpretemur. « Dominus, inquit, Iesus ante tempora de Patre natus est, vel potius, quia nec coepit nasci nec desiit, dicamus verius: semper natus ». Sed quomodo verius dicitur hoc, scilicet quod Filius sempre natus est, quam illud, scilicet quod de Patre ante tempora natus est? Illud enim sincera et catholica fides tenet ac praedicat ut istud. Quare ergo ait: « Dicamus verius », cum utrumque pariter sit verum, nisi⁴ quia volebat intelligi, hoc ad maiorem evidentiam et expressionem veritatis dici quam illud? His etenim verbis omnis calumniandi versutis haereticis obstruitur aditus, quibus Christi secundum deitatem generatio sine initio et sine fine esse ac perfecta monstratur. Non autem adeo aperte⁵ manifestatur veritas, cum dicitur: Filius ante tempora genitus est de Patre, vel Filius semper nascitur de Patre. Et ideo dicit Gregorius, quod « non possumus dicere, semper nascitur »; non, inquam, ita convenienter, non ita congrue ad explanationem veritatis; potest tamen dici, si sane intelligatur. « Semper enim nascitur Filius de Patre », ut ait Origenes; non quod quotidie iteretur illa generatio, sed quia semper est. Semper ergo nascitur, id est, nativitas eius sempiterna est.	But lest such great authors seem to contradict themselves in such a great matter [re], let us interpret those³ words of (St.) Gregory in a benign manner [benige]. « The Lord Jesus », he says, « has been born before (all) times of the Father, and/or or rather [potius], because He neither undertook to be born nor failed (to be), let us say more truly: “always born” ». But in what manner can there be more truly said this, namely that the Son has been always born, than that, namely that of the Father before (all) times He has been born? For that does the sincere and catholic Faith hold and preach as its own [istud]. For what reason [quare], therefore, does he say: « Let us say more truly », since each be equally [pariter] true, except⁴ that he wanted it to be understood, that this is aid for a greater evidence and expression of the truth than that (other saying)? For indeed by these words every access to the heretic, wilily (enough) to calumniate it, is obstructed, by which the generation of Christ according to (His) Deity is shown to be without a start and without an end, and perfect. Moreover, the truth is not manifested so [adeo] openly⁵, when there is said: “The Son before (all) times has been begotten of the Father, and/or the Son is always born of the Father.” And for that reason (St.) Gregory says, that « we cannot say, “He is always born” »; not, I say, in so fitting a manner [ita convenienter], not in so congruous a manner for the explanation of the truth; however it can be said, if it is understood in a sane manner. « For the Son is always born of the Father », as Origin says; not that every day that generation is iterated, but that it always is. Therefore He is always born, that is, His nativity is sempiternal.
Hilarius quoque dicit, Filium nasci ex Patre, in libro septimo de Trinitate⁶ his verbis: « Vivens Deus et naturae aeternae viventis potestas est; et quod cum sacramento scientiae suae ex eo nascitur, non potuit aliud esse quam vivens. Nam cum ait: Sicut misit me vivens Pater, et ego vivo propter Patrem, docuit, vitam in se per viventem Patrem inesse ». Ecce hic habes, quia⁷ Filius nascitur ex Patre. Item in eodem:⁸ « Cum dicit Christus: Sicut Pater habet vitam in se, sic et Filio dedit vitam habere in semetipso, omnia viva sua ex vivente testatus est. Quod autem ex vivo vivum natum est habet nativitatis perfectum sine novitate naturae. Non enim novum est quod ex vivo generatur in vivum, quia nec ex nihilo est; et vita, quae nativitatem sumit ex vita, necesse est per naturae unitatem et perfectae nativitatis sacramentum, ut et⁹ in vivente vivat et in se habeat vitam viventem ». Ecce et hic habes, quia generatur ex vivo vivens Filius. Item in eodem:¹⁰ « In Deo totum quod est vivit; Deus enim vita est, et ex vita non potest quidquam esse nisi vivum; neque ex derivatione, sed ex virtute nativitas est. Ac sic, dum totum quod est vivit, et dum totum quod ex eo nascitur virtus est, habet nativitatem Filius, non demutationem ». Et hic dicit, quia nascitur. Item in nono libro de Trinitate:¹¹ « Donat Pater Filio tantum esse, quantum est ipse, cui innascibilitatis esse imaginem sacramento nativitatis impertit, quem ex se in forma sua generat ». Hic dicit, quia generat Pater Filium.	(St.) Hilary also says, that the Son is born out of [ex] the Father, in the seventh book On the Trinity⁶ with these words: « The living God is also the Power of an eternal living Nature; and because He is born of Him with the sacrament of His Knowledge [cum sacramento scientiae suae], He could not be other than living. For when He says: Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live on account of the Father, He taught, that Life was in Himself [in se inesse] through the living Father ». Behold here you have, that⁷ the Son is born out of the Father. Likewise in the same (passage):⁸ « When Christ says: Just as the Father has life in Himself, in the same manner too He gives to the Son to have life in His very self [semetipso], He has testified that all things living in Himself are out of One living [omnia viva sua ex vivente]. Moreover, because a living thing [vivum] has been born out of a living thing; it has (something) perfect belonging to its nativity without a newness of nature. For (something) is not new, which is generated out of (something) alive into (something) alive, because neither is it out of nothing; and a life, which takes a nativity out of life, is necessary through a unity of nature and a sacrament of a perfect nativity, so that it too⁹ lives in One living and has in Itself a living Life ». Behold here you also have, that the living Son is generated out of One alive [vivo]. Likewise in the same(chapter):¹⁰ « In God the whole which is lives; for God is Life, and out of Life no thing [non quidquam] can be except (something) alive; and the Nativity is not out of a derivation, but out of virtue. And in this manner, while the whole which is lives, and while the whole which is born out of Him is Virtue, the Son has a nativity, not a de-mutation ». And here he says, that He is born. Likewise in the ninth book On the Trinity:¹¹ « The Father grants to the Son to be as much as [tantum quantum] He Himself is, to Whom He imparts [impertit] by the sacrament of a nativity to be the Image of (His own) innascibility, Whom He generates in His own form ». Here he says, that the Father generates the Son.
Dicamus ergo, Filium natum de Patre ante tempora et semper nasci de Patre, sed congruentius semper natum; et eundem fateamur ab aeterno esse et Patri coaeternum, id est auctori. Pater enim generatione auctor Filii est, ut in sequenti¹² ostendetur. Ut ergo Pater est aeternus, ita et Filius aeternus est, sed Pater sine auctore, Filius vero non, quia Pater innascibilis, Filius natus. Et ut ait Hilarius in duodecimo libro de Trinitate:¹³ « Aliud est sine auctore semper esse aeternum, aliud Patri, id est auctori, esse coaeternum. Ubi autem Pater auctor est, ibi et nativitas est; quia sicut nativitas ab auctore est, ita et ab aeterno auctore aeterna nativitas est. Omne autem, quod semper est, etiam aeternum est; sed tamen non omne, quod aeternum est etiam innatum est; quia quod ab aeterno nascitur habet aeternum esse, quod natum est. Quod autem non natum est, id cum aeternitate non natum est; quod vero ex aeterno natum est, id, si non aeternum natum est, iam non erit et Pater auctor aeternus. Si quid ergo ei, qui ab aeterno Patre natus est, ex aeternitate defuerit, id ipsum auctori non est ambiguum defuisse, quia . . .	Le us say, therefore, that the Son (has) been born of the Father before (all) times and that He is always born of the Father, but more congruently that He always (has) been born; let us say [fateamur] that the Same is both from eternity [ab aeterno] and is coeternal to the Father, that is to (His) author. For the Father by generation is the author of the Son, as will be shown in the following (distinction).¹² Therefore, as the Father is eternal, so also the Son is eternal, but the Father without an author, the Son, on the other hand, non (so), because the Father (is) innascible, the Son born. And as (St.) Hilary says in the twelfth book On the Trinity:¹³ « It is one thing [aliud] to be eternal always without an author, another thing [aliud] to be coeternal to the Father, that is to an author. Moreover where the Father is author, there also is a nativity; because just as a nativity is from [ab] an author, so also from an eternal author there is an eternal nativity. Moreover everything [omne], which always is, is also eternal; but, however, not everything, which is eternal, is also unborn [innatum]; because what is born from eternity [ab aeterno] has an eternal ‘to be’, which has been born. Moreover because it has not been born, on that account [id] it has not been born with eternity [cum aeternitate]; on the other hand [vero] because it has been born out of an eternal [ex aeterno], on that account, if there is not an eternal born, then [iam] there is not even an eternal father-author. Therefore, if anything (pertaining) to Him, who has been born by the eternal Father, failed [defuerit] out of eternity [ex aeternitate], on that account there is no ambiguity that He failed his author [auctori], because . . .
¹ Homil. 6. in c. 11. circa finem, sed non paucis mutatis. ² Prov. 8, 25 secundum Septuag.; Vulgata: ante colles ego parturiebar. — Aliquae edd. sic citant: in libro Sapientiae pro Sapientis, cui errori etiam codd. favent; ed. 9 unde ait in Prov. 8 Sapientia. ³ Sola Vat. omittit illa. ⁴ Mss. B C E addunt forte. ⁵ Vat. et edd. 4, 5, 6, 9 superflue addunt semper; codd. B C omisso aperte legunt semper. Immediate post cod. D et edd. 1, 8 monstratur pro manifestatur. ⁶ Num. 27. — Textus Scripturae, ab Hilario citatus, est Ioan. 6, 58, ubi Hilarius ponit per Patrem loco propter Patrem, quod habet Vulgata. ⁷ Codd. quod loco quia. Postea cod. D et edd. 1, 8 de Patre loco ex Patre. ⁸ Ibid. — Textus Scripturae est Ioan. 5, 26, ubi Vulgata et edd. 1, 2, 5, 9 semetipso pro se. Deinde post ex vivente cod. D addit glossema Patre, et cod. A omnino vitam suam pro omnia viva sua. ⁹ Edd. 1, 8 omittunt et, quod ceterae auctoritates nostrae cum Hilario habent; mox eadem particula et post Ecce omittitur a cod. D et ed. 8. ¹⁰ Loc. cit. n. 28. — Codd. C D E addunt Hilarius, et C E prosequuntur: Attende quod totum pro In Deo totum. Deinde edd. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 contra originale et male legunt ex virtute nativitatis pro ex virtute nativitas. Immediate post Vat. cum pluribus edd. mendose legit si pro sic, quod habetur in originali et edd. 5, 6, 8, 9. ¹¹ Num 54, ubi contra codd., edd. 5, 9 et originale ceterae edd. habent impartit pro impertit. Deinde ed. Maurin. Hilarii legit in formam suam pro in forma sua. ¹² Immediate post, et Dist. XV. circa finem. ¹³ Num. 21. — In hoc textu cira medium pro ex aeterno edd. 1, 8 non bene ab aeterno, et paulo post codd. D E qui Pater pro et Pater.	¹ Homily 6, in ch. 11, near the end, but with not a few changes. ² Prov. 8:25 according the Septuagint; the Vulgate reads: before the hills I desire to be brought forth [parturiebar]. — Some editions cite it thus: in the book of Wisdom for of the Wise Man, which error even the codices favor; edition 9 reads whence in Prov. 8 Wisdom says. ³ The Vatican text alone omits that [illa]. ⁴ Manuscripts B C and E add perchance [forte]. ⁵ The Vatican text and editions 4, 5, 6 and 9 superfluously add always [semper]. Immediately before this codex D and editions 1 and 8 read is shown [monstratur] for is manifested [manifestatur]. ⁶ N. 27. — The text of Scripture, cited by (St.) Hilary, is John 6:58, in which (St.) Hilary puts through the Father [per Patrem] in place of on account of the Father [propter Patrem], as the Vulgate has it. [Tr. Note: just before the scriptural citation, the Latin can be rendered in two manners, as St. Bonaventure does here in dubium VIII, as the translation has it above, or with sacramento rendered as an ablative of means or specification, when (by or according to) the sacrament of His Knowledge He is born of Him, following St. Hilary's similar use at the end of this paragraph.] ⁷ The codices read that [quod] in place of that [quia]. After this codex B and editions 1 and 8 read of the Father [de Patre] in place of out of the Father [ex Patre]. ⁸ Ibid.. — The text of Scripture is John 5:26, in which the Vulgate and editions 1, 2, 5 and 9 read in His very self [semetipso] for in Himself [in se]. Then after the nextout of [ex] codex D reads by glossing the living Father [vivente Patre], and codex A has entirely His own life [omnino vitam suam] for all things living in Himself [omnia viva sua]. ⁹ Editions 1 and 8 omit too [et], which our other authorities have with (St.O HIlary; then also [et] after Behold [Ecce] is omitted by codex D and edition 8. ¹⁰ Loc. cit., n. 28. — Codices C D and E add (St.) Hilary (says) [Hilarius], and C and E proceed: Attend that the whole [Attende quod totum] for In God the whole [In Deo totum]. Then editions 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9, contrary to the original and badly, read it is . . . ut of the virtue of the nativity [ex virtute nativitatis] for the nativity . . . out of virtue [ex virtute nativitas]. Immediately after this the Vatican text, together with very many editions, reads faultily if for in the same manner [sic], which is had in the original and in editions 5, 6, 8, and 9. ¹¹ N. 54, where contrary to the codices, editions 5 and 9 and the original of the rest of the editions have imparts [impartit] for imparts [impertit]. Then the Maruin. edition of (St.) Hilary reads unto His own form [in formam suam] for in His own form [in forma sua]. ¹² Immediately after this one, and in Distinction 15, near the end. ¹³ N. 21. — In this text near the middle in place of out of an eternal [ex aeterno] editions 1 and 8 have not so well from eternity [ab aeterno], and a little after this codices D and E have one who (is) an [qui] for even an [et]. [Tr. Note: Here the Latin aeternum is being used equivocally: it is customarily used for eternity [aeternitas] in the phrases in eternity [in aeternum] and from eternity [ab aeterno] in the sense of the eternal age [aeternum saeculum]; but it can also be used as a substantive an eternal thing [aeternum]. The translation follows the customary usage.]

p. 179

si gignenti est infinitum gignere, et nascenti etiam est infinitum nasci. Medium enim quid inter nativitatem Dei Filii et generationem Dei Patris nec ratio¹ nec sensus admittit, quia et in generatione nativitas est, et in nativitate generatio est, quia sine utroque neutrum est: utrumque ergo sine intervallo sui est ».	if to the one begetting [gignenti] there is an infinite begetting [gignere], there is also to the one being born [nascenti] even an infinite being born [nasci]. For the medium which (is) between the nativity of the Son of God and the generation of God the Father admits neither reckoning¹ nor sensing, because both the nativity is in the generation, and the generation is in the nativity, because without each neither is: therefore each [utrumque] is without an interval to the other [sui] ».
Cap. V. De obiectionibus haereticorum nitentium probare, Filium non esse coaeternum Patri.	Chapter V On the objections of the heretics striving to prove, that the Son is not coeternal to the Father.
« Sed inquiet haereticus: omne quod natum est non fuit semper, quia in id natum est, ut esset. Nemo ambigit, quin ea² quae in rebus humanis nata sunt, aliquando non fuerint. Sed aliud est ex eo nasci, quod semper non fuit, aliud ex eo natum esse, quod semper est. Ibi nec semper fuit, qui pater est, nec semper pater est; et qui non semper pater est, non semper genuit. Ubi autem semper pater est, semper filius est. Quod si semper Deo Patri proprium est, quod semper est Pater, necesse est, semper Filio proprium esse, quod semper est Filius. Quomodo ergo cadet in intelligentiam nostram, ut non fuerit semper cui proprium est, semper esse quod natum est?³ Natum ergo unigenitum Deum confitemur, sed natum ante tempora, nec ante esse quam natum, nec ante natum quam esse; quia nasci quod erat, iam non nasci est, sed se ipsum demutare nascendo. Hoc autem humanum sensum et intelligentiam mundi excedit. Non hoc capit ratio humanae intelligentiae, sed prudentiae fidelis professio est ».⁴	« But the heretic will say: “Everything [omne] which has been born was not always, because it was born unto something [in id], that it might be.” No one is doubtful [ambigit], that those things [ea]² which have been born in human affairs [rebus], were not at some time. But it is one thing [aliud] to be born out of that, which was not always, another thing [aliud] to have been born out of that, which is always. In this [ibi] there was not always, one who is father, nor is he a father always; and who is not always a father, has not always begotten. Moreover where there is always a father, there is always a son. Because if it is always proper to God the Father, that He is always the Father, it is necessary, that it is always proper to the Son, that He is always the Son. In what manner, therefore, does it fall unto our understanding, that there was not always the One to Whom it is proper, to be always that which has been born?³ Therefore we confess that the Only-Begotten God (has) been born, but born before (all) times, neither that He is before [ante quam] being born, nor that (He has) been born before being; because what was a ‘to be born’, is presently not a ‘to be born’, but a ‘to de-mutate one's very self by being born’. Moreover this exceeds human sense [sensus] and understanding. This the reckoning of human understanding does not grasp, but is it the profession of the foresight of faith [prudentiae fidelis] ».⁴
¹ Codd. et plurimae edd. contra originale et Vat. omittunt nec ratio; et deinde ante in generatione Vat. cum paucis edd. omittit et. ² In codd. et Hilario deest ea. — Paulo post, ante ex eo natum Vat. cum paucis edd. est. ³ Apud Hilar. (ed. Maurin.) natus est, ubi in calce dicitur, plures codd. lectionem natum exhibere, quam mss. nostri et edd. habent. — Mox codd. C D E post iam non addunt tantum. [Tr. — In ed. criticali hac nota portat perperam numerum 4 in loco 3.] ⁴ Totum hoc cap. excerptum est ex Hilario loc. cit. n. 22-26, sed plurimis omissis.	¹ The codices and very many of the editions, contrary to the original and Vatican texts, omits neither a reckoning [nec ratio]; and then before in the generation [in generatione] the Vatican text with a few of the editions omtis both [et]. ² In the codices and (St.) Hilary there is lacking those things [ea]. — A little after this, before another thing [aliud] the Vatican text and a few other editions read it is [aliud est]. ³ In the text of (St.) Hilary, Marin. edition, there is because He has been born [quod natus est], where it is said in the footnotes, that very many codices exhibit the reading that which has been born [quod natum est], which our manuscripts and editions have. — Then codices C D and E after already not [iam non] add only [tantum]. [Tr. Note: In the critical edition, this footnote is wrongly numbered as 4 instead of 3 ⁴ The whole of this chapter has been excerpted from (St.) Hilary loc. cit., nn. 22-26, but with very many things omitted.

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