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 XII.

DISTINCTION 12

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 218-219.
Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 218-219.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

Cap. I.

 

Utrum Spiritus sanctus prius vel plenius procedat a Patre quam a Filio.

Chapter I

 

Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds before and/or more fully from the Father than from the Son.

Item quaeritur, cum Spiritus sanctus procedat a Patre et1 Filio, utrum prius vel magis processerit a Patre quam a Filio; quod nititur haereticus ostendere ita dicens:  si processit Spiritus sanctus a Patre, processit utique aut nato iam Filio, ante non nato Filio.  Si vero iam nato Filio processit, ante natus est Filius, quam processerit Spiritus sanctus:  praecessit igitur nativitas Filii processionem Spiritus sancti.  Si autem processit a Patre non genito Filio, ante processit, quam Filius genitus fuerit.

Likewise it is asked, “Since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and1 the Son, whether He proceeded before and/or more from the Father than from the Son?”; which the heretic strives to show thus, saying:  “if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, He proceeds indeed either with the Son already born, (or) before the Son (was) not yet born.  However, if He proceeded with the Son already born, the Son was born before [ante . . . quam] the Holy Spirit proceeded:  therefore the Nativity of the Son preceded the Procession of the Holy Spirit.  But if He proceeds from the Father with the Son not begotten, He proceeds before the Son had been begotten.”

His et huiusmodi quaestionibus magis laboriosis quam fructuosis respondet Augustinus in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate2 dicens:  « In illa summa Trinitate, quae Deus est, intervalla temporum nulla sunt, per quae possit ostendi aut saltem requiri, utrum prius de Patre natus sit Filius, et postea de ambobus processerit Spiritus sanctus ».  « Nunquid ergo possumus quaerere, utrum iam processerat de Patre Spiritus sanctus, quando natus est Filius, an nondum processerat et, illo nato, de utroque processit?  Non possunt prorsus ista ibi quaeri, ubi nihil ex tempore inchoatur, ut consequenti3 perficiatur in tempore.  Ideo qui potest intelligere sine tempore generationem Filii de Patre, intelligat sine tempore processionem Spiritus sancti de utroque ».

To these and questions of this kind more laborious than fruitful (St.) Augustine responds in the fifteenth book On the Trinity,2 saying:  « In that Most High Trinity, which is God, there are no intervals of times, through which it could be shown or at least enquired after, whether the Son be born from [de] the Father beforehand, and afterwards the Holy Spirit proceeded from Them both ».  « Therefore we cannot ask, whether the Holy Spirit had already proceeded from [de] the Father, when the Son was born, or whether He had not yet proceeded and, with the latter born, He proceeded from [de] Both?  In a word [prorsus], these cannot be asked There, where nothing is begun on account of time, to be perfected in a consequent3 time.  For that reason, let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand without time the Procession of the Holy Spirit from Both ».

Cap. II.

 Quod Spiritus sanctus principaliter et proprie dicitur
procedere a Patre.

Chapter II

 That the Holy Spirit is said principally and properly
to proceed from the Father.

Nunc tractandum est quod secundo quaerebatur, scilicet an plenius vel4 magis procedat Spiritus sanctus a Patre quam a Filio.  Ad quod dicimus, quia sicut non ante procedit a Patre quam a Filio, ita non magis vel plenius procedit a Patre quam a Filio.  Augustinus tamen in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate5 dicit, quod Spiritus sanctus principaliter procedit de Patre.  « Non frustra, inquit, in hac Trinitate non dicitur Verbum Dei nisi Filius, nec Donum Dei nisi Spiritus sanctus, nec de quo genitum est Verbum, et de quo procedit principaliter Spiritus sanctus, nisi Deus Pater ».  Ecce audistis, quia Spiritus sanctus principaliter procedit a Patre.  Sed ne te hoc turbaret, ipse continuo ex quo sensu dixerit aperit, subdens:6  « Ideo addidi principaliter, quia et de Filio Spiritus sanctus procedere reperitur, sed hoc quoque illi Pater dedit, non iam existenti et nondum habenti.  Sed quidquid unigento Verbo dedit, gignendo dedit.  Sic ergo eum genuit, ut etiam de illo Donum commune procederet, et Spiritus sanctus Spirtus esset amborum ».  Ecce exposuit ipsemet, . . .

Now must be treated that which was asked second, that is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds more fully and/or4 more from the Father than from the Son.  To which we say, that just as He does not proceed from the Father before (He does) from the Son, so not more nor [vel] more fully does He proceed from the Father than from the Son.  However, (St.) Augustine in the fifteenth book On the Trinity5 says, that the Holy Spirit does proceed principally from [de] the Father.  « Not as a trick », he says, « is it said in this Trinity that the “Word of God” (is) naught but the Son, or the “Gift of God” naught but the Holy Spirit, or “Him from whom the Word has been begotten”, and “Him from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds”, naught but God the Father ».  Behold you have heard, that the Holy Spirit proceeds “principally from [a] the Father.”  But lest this trouble you, he immediately reveals in which [ex quo . . .aperit] sense he spoke, subjoining:6  « For this reason did I add “principally”, because the Holy Spirit is also found to proceed from [de] the Son, but this the Father also gives Him, not as to one existing but not yet having.  But whatever He gave to the Only-Begotten Word, He gave by begetting.  Thus, therefore, did He beget Him, that the common Gift would proceed even from Him, and the Holy Spirit would belong to Both ».  Behold he himself has expounded, . . .

1  Solummodo edd. omnes repetunt hic a.  Infra post Spiritus sanctus codd. B C D E legunt de loco a.

2  Cap. 26. n. 45; sequens locus ibid. n. 47.  —  Contra nostros codd. et textum Augustini omnes edd. in primo loco posset ostendi pro possit ostendi.

3  Edd. praeter 1 ponunt ex consequenti; sed delendum ex auctoritate omnium codd. et textus Augustini.  Paulo supra nonnulli codd. bis ponunt processerit pro processerat.

4  Vat. cum paucis edd. aut.  In principio propositionis post tractandum est cod. D adiicit de eo.

5  Cap. 17. n. 29.

6  Vat. cum nonnullis edd. dicens, et paulo ante, post sensu addit hoc.

1  Only all the editions repeat from [a] here.  Below after the Holy Spirit codices B C D and E read from [de] in place of from [a].

2  Chapter 26, n. 45; the quote follow is from ibid., n. 47.  —  Contrary to our codices and the text of (St.) Augustine, all the editions have in the first quote could have been shown [posset ostendi] for could be shown [possit ostendi].

3  The editions, excepting edition 1, have out of a consequent in time [ex consequenti . . . in tempore]; but the out of [ex] must be deleted on the authority of all the codices and the text of (St.) Augustine (to arrive at our reading).  A little above this not a few codics twice have proceeded [processerit] for had proceeded [processerat].

4  The Vatican edition, together with a few editions, has or [aut].  At the beginning of this proposition after must be treated [tractandum est] codex D inserts concerning this [de eo].

5  Chapter 17, n. 29.

6  The Vatican edition, together with not a few editions, has saying [dicens], and a little before this, after sense he spoke [sensu] adds this [hoc].

p. 219

quomodo Spiritus principaliter procedat a Patre, non quia prius vel magis procedat a Patre quam a Filio, sed quia, cum procedat a Filio, hoc ipsum habet Filius a Patre.

in what manner the Spirit “principally” proceeds from [a] the Father, not because He proceeds before and/or more from the Father than from the Son, but because, since He does proceed from the Son, this very (thing) does the Son have from the Father.

Ex eodem sensu dicitur etiam proprie procedere de Patre.  Unde Hieronymus in expositione catholicae fidei Nicaenique Symboli1 ait:  « Credimus in Spiritum sanctum, qui de Patre procedit proprie ».  Item:  « Spiritum sanctum verum Deum invenimus in Scriptura, et de Patre proprie esse ».  Et item:  « De Patre Filius, et Spiritus sanctus2 proprie et vere de Patre procedit ».  Ecce aperte dicit, Spiritum sanctum proprie esse de Patre et proprie procedere a Patre.  Quod non ita est intelligendum, tanquam prius vel plenius a Patre procedat quam a Filio, sed quia hoc habet Pater a se, non ab alio, ut de ipso sit et procedat Spiritus sanctus;  Filius autem non a se, sed a Patre hoc habet, ut de ipso3 sit et procedat Spiritus sanctus.

In the same sense He is also said to “properly” proceed from [de] the Father.  Whence (St.) Jerome in (his) exposition of the Catholic Faith and the Nicene Creed1 says:  « We believe in the Holy Spirit, who properly proceeds from the Father ».  Likewise:  « We find in Scripture that the Holy Spirit (is) the True God, and properly is from the Father ».  And likewise:  « From the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit2 properly and truly proceeds from the Father ».  Behold he openly says, that the Holy Spirit “properly” is from the Father” and “properly proceeds from [a] the Father”.  Which thus must not be understood, as if He proceeds before and/or more fully from the Father than from the Son, but that the Father has this from Himself, not from an other, that from Him the Holy Spirit is and does proceed; but the Son has this not from Himself, but from the Father, that from Himself3 the Holy Spirit is and does proceed.

Forte etiam iuxta hanc intelligentiam dicitur Spiritus sanctus4 mitti per Filium et a Patre esse per Filium.  Unde Hilarius ad Deum Patrem de Spiritu sancto et Filio loquens in duodecimo libro de Trinitate5 ait:  « In sancto Spiritu tuo ex te profecto et per eum misso ».  Item:  « Ante tempora Unigentus tuus ex te natus manet, ita quod ex te per eum Spirtus sanctus tuus est; quod etsi sensu non percipiam, tamen teneo conscientia.  In spiritualibus enim rebus tuis hebes sum ».  Item in eodem:  « Conserva hanc, oro, fidei meae religionem, ut quod in regenerationis meae Symbolo professus sum, semper obtineam:  Patrem scilicet te6 et Filium tuum una tecum adorem; sanctum Spiritum tuum, qui ex te per Unigentium tuum est, promerear ».  Ecce aperte dicit, Spiritum sanctum a Patre per Filium et mitti et esse; quod non est intelligendum, quasi a Patre per Filium minorem mittatur vel sit, sed quia ex Patre et Filio est et mittitur ab utroque.  Sed hoc ipsum habet Filius a Patre, ut ab ipso et sit7 et mittatur Spiritus sanctus.  Hoc ergo voluit significare Hilarius, distinctionem faciens in locutione, ut ostenderet in Patre esse auctoritatem.  Inde est etiam, quod Veritas ostendens, Patrem esse auctorem processionis, qua procedit Spiritus sanctus a Filio, dixit in Evangelio:8  De Patre procedit, cum de Patre et Filio procedat Spiritus sanctus.  Unde Augustinus in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate:9  « Si de Patre et Filio procedit Spiritus sanctus, cur Filius dixit:  De Patre procedit ?  Cur putas, nisi quia solet ad eum referre etiam quod ipsius est, de quo et ipse est, sicut ait:10  Mea doctrina non est mea, sed eius, qui misit me ? Si ergo hic intelligitur eius doctrina, quam tamen non dixit suam, sed Patris, quanto magis illic intelligendus est Spiritus sanctus de ipso procedere, ubi sic ait:  De Patre procedit, ut non diceret:  De me non procedit.  A quo autem habet Filius, ut sit Deus — est enim Deus de Deo — ab illo utique habet, ut etiam de illo procedat Spiritus sanctus.  Et ideo Spiritus sanctus, ut etiam de Filio procedat, sicut procedit de Patre, ab ipso habet Patre ».  « Quapropter, qui potest intelligere in eo, quod ait Filius:11 Sicut habet Pater vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et Filio vitam habere in semetipso, non sine vita existenti iam Filio vitam Patrem dedisse, sed ita eum sine tempore genuisse, ut vita, quam Pater Filio gignendo dedit, coaeterna sit vitae Patris, qui dedit; intelligat etiam, sicut habet Pater in semetipso, ut de illo procedat Spiritus sanctus, sic dedisse Filio, ut etiam de isto procedat idem Spiritus sanctus, et utrumque sine tempore.  Ita ergo dictum est, Spiritum sanctum de Patre procedere, ut intelligatur, quod etiam procedit de Filio de Patre esse Filio.12  Si enim quidquid habet, de Patre habet Filius, de Patre habet utique, ut et de illo procedat Spiritus sanctus.  Sed nulla ibi tempora cogitentur, quae habeant prius et posterius, quia ibi omnino nulla sunt ».

Perhaps according to this understanding the Holy Spirit is also said “to be sent4 through the Son” and “to be from the Father through the Son”.  Whence (St.) Hilary (of Poitiers), speaking to God the Father of the Holy Spirit and the Son, says in the twelfth book On the Trinity:5 « In Thy Holy Spirit, (having) come forth from Thee [ex te profecto] and (having been) sent through Him ».  Likewise:  « Before the ages [tempora] Thy Only-Begotten, born from [ex] Thee, remained, such that Thy Holy Spirit is from [ex] Thee and through Him; whom even if I do not perceive by sense, I yet hold in conscience.  For I am stupid in the spiritual affairs which regard Thee [rebus tuis hebes] ». Likewise in the same (work):  « Guard this, I pray, religion of my Faith, that I may always obtain, that which I have professed in the Creed of my New Life [regenerationis]:  “May I adore the Father, that is, Thee6 and Thy Son, as One with Thee; may I deserve Thy Holy Spirit, who is from [ex] Thee through Thy Only-Begotten” ».  Behold he openly says, that the Holy Spirit “from [a] the Father through the Son” both is sent and is; which is not to be understood, as if from the Father through a minor Son He is sent and/or is, but that from [ex] the Father and the Son He is and is sent by Each [ab utroque].  But this very (thing) the Son has from the Father, that from Himself the Holy Spirit both is7 and is sent.  Therefore (St.) Hilary wanted to signify this, making a distinction in speech, to show that the Authorship [auctoritatem] is in the Father.  Hence it is also, that the Truth showing, that the Father is the Author of the Procession, by which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, said in the Gospel:8  Who proceeds from [de] the Father, when the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.  Whence (St.) Augustine in the fifteenth book On the Trinity (says):9  « If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, why did the Son say:  Who proceeds from the Father ?  Why do you think, except that it is His custom [solet] to refer even that which belongs to Himself to Him, from whom He also is, just as He says:10  My doctrine is not Mine, but His, who sent Me ?  If here, therefore, the doctrine is to be understood (to be) His, which He did not call His own, but the Father’s, how much more in that (passage) is the Holy Spirit to be understood to proceed from Him, where he thus says:  Who proceeds from the Father, since He did not say:  “Who does not proceed from Me.”  From whom, moreover, the Son has, that He is God — for He is God from [de] God — indeed from [a] Him He has, that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Himself.  And for that reason the Holy Spirit has from the Father Himself, that He proceeds from [de] the Son even as [etiam sicut] He proceeds from the Father ».  « On which account, let him who can understand in this (passage), what the Son says:11  Just as the Father has Life in Himself, in this manner has He given even to the Son to have Life in Himself, not that the Father gave life to a Son, existing without life, but that He thus begot Him without time, so that the Life, which the Father gave to the Son by begetting (Him), is the coeternal Life of the Father, who gave (It); understand also, just as the Father has Life in Himself, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him, so He has given to the Son, that the same Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him, and each without time.  Therefore, thus has is been said, “that the Holy Spirit proceeds from [de] the Father,” so that there is understood, ‘that it has (been granted) from the Father to the Son that He proceeds also from the Son.’12  For if He has anything, the Son has (it) from the Father, indeed He has it from the Father, such that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him.  But let no ages [tempora] be thought of There, which have a “before” and “after”, because in that place [ibi] there are entirely none ».

1  Explan. ad Cyrillum c. 1. et 3.

2  Omnes codd. omittunt sanctus.

3  Codd. D E cum sola Vat. de se ipso, quod antea, ubi prima vice occurrit, habet cod. C.

4  Omnes codd. bene addunt a Patre, sed cum hoc desit in omnibus nostris edd., nihil immutavimus in textu.

5  Num. 55; sequens locus n. 56, tertius n. 57.

6  Edd. omnes contra originale et codd. sic transponunt verba:  te Patrem scilicet.

7  Vat. cum paucis edd. omittit et.

8  Ioan. 15, 26; Vulgata a Patre.  —  Mox multae edd. contra edd. 1, 7 et mss. addunt et post cum; insuper edd. pleraeque omittunt santus post Spiritus.

9  Cap. 27. n. 48.

10  Ioan. 7, 16.  —  Immediate antea Vat. cum paucis edd. contra originale et mss., addendo sicut et transponendo et, sic habet; ipsius est, sicut et de quo.

11  Ioan. 5, 26.

12  Vat. cum aliis edd., excepta 1, perperam et contradicentibus mss. et textu Augustini praemittit et ante Filio.  Sensus est:  intelligatur, a Patre datum esse Filio, quod Spiritus sanctus etiam de ipso procedit.  —  Paulo post Vat. cum nonnullis edd. omittit et ante de illo procedat.  Denique edd. 2, 3 cogitantur loco cogitentur.

1  Explanation to Cyril, ch. 1 and 3.

2  All the codices omit Holy [sanctus].

3  Codices D and E, together with only the Vatican edition, have from His very self [de se ipso], which Codex C likewise has before this, where it first occurs.

4  All the codices add from the Father [a Patre], but since this is lacking in all our editions, we have changed nothing in the text.

5  N. 55; the following passage is n. 56, the third n. 57.

6  All the editions, contrary to the original and the codices, transpose the words in this manner:  Thee, the Father, that is [te Patrem scilicet].

7  The Vatican edition, together with a few of the editions, omits both [et].

8  Jn. 15:26; the Vulgate reads from the Father [a Patre].  —  Then many editions, contrary to editions 1 and 7 and the manuscripts, add both [et] after proceeds [Trans. Note: in the Latin text after cum]; moreover very many of the editions omit Holy [sanctus ] in the same phrase.

9  Chapter 27, n. 48.

10  Jn 7:16.  —  Immediately before this the Vatican edition, together with a few of the editions, contrary to the original and the manuscripts, by adding just as [sicut] and transposing and [et], reads thus:  to Him even That which belongs to Himself, as (That) from which He (is) and (That which) He Himself is. [ipsius est, sicut et de quo et ipse est].

11  Jn 5, 26.

12 The Vatican edition, together with the other editions, excepting edition 1, faultily and by contradicting the manuscripts and the text of (St.) Augustine, inserts an and [et] before the Son [Filio: which thus reads from the Father and the Son].  The Sense of our text is:  so that there is understood, that it has been given by the Father to the Son, that the Holy Spirit proceeds even from Him.  —  A little after this the Vatican edition, together with not a few editions, omits also [et] before proceeds from Him [de illo procedat].  then editions 2 and 3 have But no ages . . . are thought of [Sed . . . cogitantur] in place of But let no ages . . . be thought of [Sed cogitantur].

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.