LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 13: 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 XIII.	DISTINCTION 13
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 228-229. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 228-239. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
Cap. I. Quare Spiritus sanctus, cum sit de substantia Patris, non dicatur genitus, sed tantum procedens.	Chapter I For what reason is the Holy Spirit, since he is from the Substance of the Father, not said (to be) begotten, but only proceeding.
Post haec¹ considerandum est, quantum a talibus, quales nos sumus, intelligi potest, cum Spiritus sanctus procedat de Patre et sit de substantia Patris, cur non dicatur esse natus, sed potius procedere; et cur non dicatur filius. Quare autem Spiritus sanctus non dicatur vel sit natus, et ideo non sit filius, Augustinus ostendit in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate² ita dicens: « Si Spiritus sanctus filius diceretur, amborum utique Filius diceretur, quod asurdissimum est. Filius quippe nullus est duorum nisi patris et matris. Absit autem, ut inter Deum Patrem et Deum Filium tale aliquid suspicemur ». Absurdissime ergo filius diceretur amborum, id est Patris et Filii. « Amborum enim filius diceretur, si eum ambo genuissent, quod abhorret omnium sanorum sensus. Non igitur ab utroque est genitus, sed procedit ab utroque amborum Spiritus ».³ His verbis ostenditur, cur Spiritus, cum sit de Patre, non tamen dicatur genitus vel filius.	After these (considerations)¹ there must be considered, as much as there can be understood by such as we are, since the Holy Spirit proceeds from [de] the Father and is from the Substance of the Father, why He is not said to have been born, but rather to proceede; and why He is not said (to be) a son. Moreover, the reason why [quare] the Holy Spirit is not said (to be) and/or has not been born, and for that reason is not “a son”, (St.) Augustine shows in the fifteenth book On the Trinity,² speaking thus: « If the Holy Spirit would be said (to be) “a son”, Both would certainly be said (to be) “The Son”, which is most absurd. Indeed no “son” belongs to two except to a father and a mother. Moreover, far be it, that between God the Father and God the Son we suspect anything of the kind [tale aliquid] ». Therefore most absurdly would “son” be said of Both, if Both had begotten Him, which (argument) the sense of all sane (men) abhors. Therefore the Spirit has not been begotten by Each, but proceeds from Each of the Two [a utroque amborum] ».³ With these words there is shown, why the Spirit, since He is from [de] the Father, is not, however, said (to be) begotten and/or “a son”.
Cap. II. Cur Filius dicatur procedere, cum Spiritus sanctus non dicatur gigni.	Chapter II Why is the Son said to proceed, when the Holy Spirit is not said to be begotten?
Cum autem Spiritus sanctus non dicatur genitus, sed tantum procedens, quaeri solet, cur Filius non dicitur tantum genitus, sed et procedens, sicut ipse in Evangelio Ioannis⁴ ait: Ego ex Deo processi vel exivi, et veni in mundum. Non ergo tantum Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre, sed etiam Filius. Ad quod dicimus, quod cum uterque procedat a Patre, dissimiliter tamen. Nam « Spiritus sanctus, ut ait Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate,⁵ procedit a Patre non quomodo natus, sed quomodo datus » vel Donum. Filius autem processit nascendo, exiit ut genitus. Ac per hoc illud elucescit, ut potest, scilicet cur Spiritus sanctus etiam non sit filius, cum et ipse a Patre exeat, « ideo scilicet⁶ non dicitur filius, quia neque natus est, sicut Unigenitus, neque factus, ut per Dei gratiam in adoptionem nasceretur, sicut nos ».	Moreover, since the Holy Spirit is not said (to be) begotten, but only proceeding, it is customarily asked [quare solet], why the Son is not said only (to be) born, but also proceeding, just as He Himself says in the Gospel of (St.) John:⁴ I have proceeded out of and/or have come forth from God, and I have come into the world. Therefore not only does the Holy Spirit proceed from [a] the Father, but the Son (does) too. To which we say, that though Each proceeds from the Father, however (They do so) dissimilarly. For « the Holy Spirit », as (St.) Augustine says in the fifteenth book On the Trinity,⁵ « proceeds from the Father not in the manner which (one is) born, but in the manner which (one is) given » and/or (as) the Gift. Moreover, the Son has proceeded by being born, He has come forth as the Begotten. And through this, there glitters that, as (much as) it can, that is, ‘why the Holy Spirit is not also a son, since he also comes forth from the Father’, « for this reason, namely⁶ ‘He is not said (to be) “a son”, because neither has He been born, as the Only-Begotten (has), nor made, as one (who) through the grace of God has been born unto adoption, as we (are)’ ».
Cap. III. Quod non potest mortalis distinguere inter generationem Filii et processionem Spiritus sancti.	Chapter III That a mortal cannot distinguish between the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Sprit.
Inter generationem vero Filii et processionem Spiritus sancti, dum hic vivimus, distinguere non sufficimus. Unde Augustinus Maximino praemissam quaestionem refricanti, scilicet quaerenti, cur Spiritus sanctus non diceretur filius, cum de Patris esset substantia, respondens sic ait:⁷ « Quaeris a me, si de substantia Patris et Filius, de substantia Patris est etiam Spiritus sanctus, cur unus filius sit, et alius non sit filius. Ecce respondeo, sive capias sive non capias: de Patre est Filius, de Patre est Spiritus sanctus, sed ille genitus est, iste procedens; ideo ille Filius est Patris, de quo est genitus; iste autem Spiritus est utriusque, quoniam de utroque procedit. Sed ideo, cum de illo loqueretur, ait:⁸ De Patre procedit, quoniam Pater processionis eius est auctor, qui talem Filium genuit et gignendo ei dedit, ut etiam de ipso procederet Spiritus sanctus. Nam nisi procederet etiam de ipso, non diceret discipulis:⁹ Accipite Spiritus sanctum, eumque insufflando daret, ut a se quoque procedere significans, aperte ostenderet flando, quod spirando dabat occulte. Quia ergo, si nasceretur, non tantum de Patre nec tantum de Filio, sed de ambobus utique nasceretur; sine dubio filius diceretur amborum. Ac per hoc, quia filius amborum nullo modo esset, non oportuit nasci eum de ambobus. Amborum est ergo Spiritus,¹⁰ procedendo de ambobus ».	On the other hand, while we live here, we are not sufficient to distinguish between the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit. Whence (St.) Augustine responding thus to Maximinus, warming up again [refricanti] the aforementioned question, that is, asking, why the Holy Spirit was not said (to be) “a son”, since He was from [de] the Substance of the Father, says:⁷ « You ask from me, if the Holy Spirit is from the Substance of the Father and the Son is also from the Substance of the Father, why is One a “son”, and the Other is not a “son”. Behold, I respond, whether you grasp it or do not grasp it: the Son is from the Father, the Holy Spirit is from the Father, but the Former has been begotten, that (Spirit) of Theirs (is) proceeding; for that reason that Son is of the Father, from whom He has been begotten; but that Spirit of Theirs is of Each, since He proceeds from Each. But for that reason, when (the Former) speaks of the Latter, He says:⁸ proceeds from the Father, since the Father is the Author of His procession, which (Father) begot such a Son and by begetting gave to Him, that the Holy Spirit would also proceed from Him. For if He did not proceed from Him also, He would not have said to the Disciples:⁹ Accept the Holy Spirit, and would (not) by breathing upon (them) given Him, as One signifying that He also proceeds from Himself, (nor) would He have openly shown by exhaling [flando], that by spirating He was giving (Him) in a secret manner. Therefore, because, if He were born, not only from the Father nor only from the Son, but from Both He would indeed be born; would without doubt be said (to be) the “son” of Both. And through this, because in no manner is he the son of Both, it was not necessary [oportuit] that He be born from Both. Therefore the Spirit¹⁰ is of Both, by proceeding from Both ».
« Quid autem inter nasci et procedere intersit, de illa excellentissima natura loquens explicare quis potest? Non¹¹ omne quod procedit, nascitur, quamvis omne procedat, quod nascitur; sicut non omne quod bipes est, homo est, quamvis bipes sit omnis, qui homo est. Hoc scio; distinguere autem inter illam generationem et hanc processionem nescio, non valeo, non sufficio. Ac per hoc, quia et illa et ista est ineffabilis sicut Propheta de Filio loquens ait:¹² Generationem eius quis ennarabit? ita de Spiritu sancto verissime dicitur: processionem eius quis enarrabit? Satis sit ergo nobis quia non est a se ipso Filius, sed ab illo de quo natus est, non est a se ipso Spiritus sanctus, sed ab illo de quo procedit, et quia de utroque procedit, sicut iam ostendimus ».¹³ De Spiritu sancto, quomodo ipse de . . .	« Moreover, what intervenes [intersit] between “being born” and “proceeding”, speaking of that most excellent Nature, who can explain? Not¹¹ everything which proceeds, is born, although everything proceeds, because it is born; just as not everything which is a biped, is a man, although everyone, who is a man, is a biped. This I know; but how to distinguish between that generation and this procession I know not, nor am I able, nor do I suffice. And through this, that both this and that are ineffable, just as the Prophet, speaking of the Son, says:¹² His generation, who will tell it forth? such that of the Holy Spirit there is most truly said: His procession, who will tell it forth? Therefore, it is sufficient for us that the Son is not from [a] Himself, but from Him from [de] whom He has been born, the Holy Spirit is not from [a] Himself, but from Him from [de] whom He proceeds, and that He proceeds from Each, just as we have already shown ».¹³ Concerning the Holy Spirit, in what manner He Himself be . . .
¹ Ed. 1 sola hoc. ² Cap. 27. n. 48, et Tract. 99. in Ioan. n. 9. — Etiam verba praecedentia secundum sensum ex eodem loco excerpta sunt. — Post Trinitate Vat. et ed.. 4, 8 omittunt ita; in fine loci codd. A C D suspicetur pro suspicemur. ³ August., ibid. c. 26. n. 47, in quo loco sola Vat. post ambo perperam addit et. Deinde cod. B cum Augustino habet ab omnium sanorum sensibus. Denique contra Augustinum et omnes mss. legunt edd. Non ergo pro Non igitur. ⁴ Cap16, 27. et 28. Vulgata Ego a Deo exivi. Exivi a Patre et veni in mundum. Sed Ioan. 8, 42 legitur: ex Deo processi; unde Magister dicit : processi vel exivi. ⁵ Cap. 14. n. 15, unde et sumta sunt quae post interposita verba Magisteri sequuntur. ⁶ Vat. et edd. 4, 5, 6, 8 Spiritus pro scilicet. Mox cod. C verbo natus est praemittit ipse. ⁷ Libr. II. c. 14. n. 1; in quo loco edd. 1, 8 indebite omittunt sit ante et alius. Mox ante Spiritus sanctus solummodo codd. A C addunt etiam. ⁸ Ioan. 15, 26; Vulgata a Patre procedit. — Paulo ante sola ed. 1 cum originali omittit est ante utriusque. ⁹ Ioan. 20, 22. ¹⁰ Contradicentibus mss., ed 1 et textu Augustini, Vat. cum aliis edd. addit sanctus. ¹¹ Ed. 1 adiungit enim, et paulo infra post illam addit Verbi. ¹² Isai. 53, 8. ¹³ Loc. cit. — Paulo infra ed. 5 ipse Deus sit de Deo pro ipse de Deo sit.	¹ Edition 1 alone has this [hoc]. ² Chapter 27, n. 48, and On the Gospel of John, Tract 99, n. 9. — Even the preceding words, according to their sense, have been excerpted from the same passage. — After Trinity [Trinitate], the Vatican edition and editions 4 and 8, omit thus [ita]; at the end of the passage, codices A C and D have there be suspected [suspicetur] for we suspect [suspicemur]. ³ (St.) Augustine, ibid., ch. 26, n. 47, in which passage on the Vatican edition after if both [si . . . ambo] faultily adds also [et]. Then codex B together with (St.) Augustine’s text has by the senses of all sane men [ab omnium sanorum sensibus]. Then contrary to (St.) Augustine and all the manuscripts, the editions read Therefore [ergo] for Therefore [igitur]. ⁴ Jn 16:27, 28. The Vulgate has I have come forth from God. I have come forth from the Father and I have come into the world. [Ego a Deo exivi. Exivi a Patre et veni in mundum.] But John 8:42 reads: out of God have I proceeded [ex Deo processi]; whence Master (Peter) says: I have proceeded and/or have come forth [processi vel exivi]. ⁵ Chapter 14, n. 15, whence have also been taken those which follow the interposed words of Master (Peter). ⁶ The Vatican edition and editions 4, 5, 6 and 8, have ‘the Spirit [Spiritus] in place of namely ‘He. Then codex C has has He Himself been born [ipse natus est]. ⁷ Book II, ch. 14, n. 1; in which passage editions 1 and 8 unduly omit after the first why [cur] the first is [est]. Next at Holy Spirit [Spiritus sanctus] only codices A and C add also [etiam]. ⁸ Jn. 15:26; the Vulgate reads proceeds from the Father [a Patre procedit]. — A little before this only edition 1 together with the original omits is [est] before of Each [utriusque]. ⁹ Jn. 20:22. ¹⁰ Contradicting the manuscripts, edition 1 and the text of (St.) Augustine, the Vatican edition, together with the other editions, adds Holy [sanctus]. ¹¹ Edition 1 inserts For [enim], and a little below this in that generation [illam generationem], inserts of the Word [Verbi]. ¹² Isaiah 53:8. ¹³ Loc. cit.. — In the text at the end of the page, passing over into the next, edition 5 has God Himself be from God [ipse Deus sit de Deo] for He Himself be from God [ipse de Deo sit].

p. 229

Deo sit, nec tamen ipse filius sit, quoniam procedendo, non nascendo legitur esse de Deo, iam superius, quantum visum est, disputavimus.	from [de] God, and yet He is not a son, since is it read that He is from God by proceeding, not by being born, we have disputed above already, as much as has been seen.
Cap. IV. Utrum Spiritus sanctu debeat dici ingenitus, cum non sit genitus.	Chapter IV Whether the Holy Spirit ought to be said (to be) unbegotten, since He is not begotten.
Nunc considerandum est, cum Spiritus sanctus non sit genitus, utrum debeat dici ingenitus. Ad quod dicimus, Spiritum sanctum nec genitum nec ingenitum debere dici. Unde Augustinus ad Orosium¹ ait: « Spiritum sanctum nec genitum nec ingenitum fides certa declarat; quia si dixerimus ingenitum, duos patres affirmare videbimur; si autem genitum, duos filius credere culpamur ». Sicut enim solus filius dicitur genitus, ita et solus Pater dicitur ingenitus, eo quod a alio non sit. Unde Augustinus in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate:² « Pater, inquit, solus non est de alio, ideo solus appellatur ingenitus, non quidem in Scripturis, sed in consuetudine disputantium et de re tanta sermonem qualem valuerint proferentium. Filius autem de Patre natus est, et Spiritus sanctus de Patre principaliter et communiter de utroque procedit. Ideoque cum Spiritum sanctum genitum non dicamus, dicere tamen non audemus ingenitum, ne in hoc vocabulo vel duos patres in illa Trinitate, vel duos, qui non sunt de alio, quispiam suspicetur ». Ecce his verbis aperte ostendit, Spiritum sanctum nec genitum nec ingenitum debere dici.	Now there must be considered, since the Holy Spirit has not been begotten, whether He ought to be said (to be) unbegotten. To which we say, that the Holy Spirit ought to be said (to be) neither begotten nor unbegotten. Whence (St.) Augustine says to (St. Paulus) Orosius: « That the Holy Spirit (is) neither begotten nor unbegotten the certain Faith declares; because if we said (that He is) unbegotten, we will seem to affirm (that there are) two fathers; but if begotten, we are at fault for [culpamur] believing (that there are) two sons ». For just as a son alone is said (to be) begotten, so also a Father alone is said (to be) unbegotten, for the reason that He is not from [a] another. Whence (St.) Augustine in the fifteenth book On the Trinity (says):² « The Father », he says, « alone is not from [de] another, for that reason He alone is named “the Unbegotten”, not indeed in the Scriptures, but in the custom of those disputing and of those proffering speech [sermonem] on the matter as much as they are able. But the Son has been born from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father and commonly from Each. And for that reason since we do not say that the Holy Spirit (has been) begotten, yet we do not dare say (that He is) unbegotten, lest in this word anyone at all [quispiam] suspect (that there are) two fathers in that Trinity, and/or (that there are) two, who are not from another ». Behold with these words he has openly shown, that the Holy Spirit ought not be said (to be) begotten nor unbegotten.
Hieronymous tamen in Regulis definitionum³ contra haereticos Spiritum sanctum dicit ingenitum esse, his verbis: « Spiritus sanctus Pater non est, sed ingenitus atque infectus. Pater non est, quia Patris est et in Patre est; processionem habet ex Patre, et non nativitatem; Filius autem non est, quia genitus non est ». Ecce his verbis dicitur Spiritus sanctus esse ingenitus, quod videtur adversari praemissis verbis Augustini.	(St.) Jerome, however, among “the Rules of Definitions”³ against heretics says that the Holy Spirit is unbegotten, with these words: « The Holy Spirit is not the Father, but unbegotten and untainted. He is not the Father, because He is of the Father and is in the Father; He has (His) procession out of the Father, and not a nativity; but He is not the Son, because He has not been begotten ». Behold with these words the Holy Spirit is said to be unbegotten, which seems to be adverse [adversari] to the words of (St.) Augustine.
Sed ut istam quae videtur repugnantiam de medio abigamus, dicimus, quod Hieronymus aliter accepit⁴ nomen ingeniti, et aliter Augustinus. Accepit enim Augustinus ingenitum, qui vel quod ab⁵ alio non est; et secundum hoc de solo Patre dicitur; Hieronymus vero ingenitum dicit non genitum; et secundum hoc de Spiritu sancto potest dici, cum Spiritus sanctus non sit genitus.	But so that we may be rid of what seems to be the inconsistency between them [repugnantium de medio abigamus], we say, that (St.) Jerome accepts⁴ the name unbegotten in one manner, and (St.) Augustine in the other. For (St.) Augustine accepts unbegotten, as ‘one who’ and/or ‘as something which’ ‘is not from [ab]⁵ another’; and according to this it is said of the Father alone; (St.) Jerome on the other hand means unbegotten as not begotten; and according to this it can be said of the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit has not been begotten.
Quod autem Hieronymus ita acceperit, ostenditur ex verbis suis, quibus in eodem tractatu⁶ utitur, faciens talem divisionem: « Omne quod est, aut ingenitum est, aut genitum, aut factum. Est ergo quod nec natum est nec factum; et est quod natum est et factum non est, et est quod nec natum est nec factum est; et est quod factum est et natum non est; et est quod factum est et natum est et renatum est; et est quod factum est et natum est et renatum non est. Nunc praepositorum singulis rebus subsistentiam destinemus. Quod ergo nec natum nec factum est, Pater est; non enim ab aliquo⁷ est. Quod autem natum est et factum non est, Filius est, qui a Patre genitus est, non factus. Quod iterum nec natum nec factum est, Spiritus sanctus est, qui a Patre procedit. Quod etiam factum est et natum non est, caelum et terra⁸ ceteraque, quae sunt insensibilia. Quod vero factum est et natum est et renatum non est, animalia sunt ». Ecce his verbis ostendit Hieronymus, se ingenitum accipere non genitum. Aliter enim non esset praemissa divisio vera, scilicet omne quod est aut ingenitum est, aut genitum, aut factum. Atque in divinisionis huius prosecutione in assignatione ingeniti, ubique ponit non natum.	Moreover, that (St.) Jerome accepts it thus, is shown from his own words, which he uses in the same tract,⁶ making such a division: « Everything which is, either is unbegotten, or begotten, or made. Therefore, there is that which is neither born nor made; and there is that which is born and has not been made, and there is that which has neither been born nor has been made; and there is that which has been made and has not been born; and there is that which has been made and has been born and has been reborn; and there is that which has been made and has been born and has not been reborn. Now we shall appoint [destinemus] subsistence to each thing of the aforementioned (categories). Therefore, that which has neither been born nor made, is the Father; for He is not from anyone.⁷ But that which has been born and has not been made, is the Son, who has been begotten by the Father, and not made. Again, that which has neither been born nor made, is the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father. Moreover, that which has been made and has not been born, (is)⁸ the sky and the earth and all the other (things), which are insensible. On the other hand, that which has been made and has been born and has not been reborn, are the animals ». Behold with these words (St.) Jerome shows, that he accepts unbegotten as not begotten. For in other manner the aforementioned division would not be true, that is, that everything which is, is either unbegotten, or begotten, or made. And in the prosecution of this division, put not born everywhere unbegotten is assigned [in assignatione ingeniti].
¹ In dialogo nempe quaestionum sub titulo ad Orosium, quaest. 2. Sed suppositionum est hoc opus. In fine huius loci ed. 8 cum originali culpabimus pro culpamur. ² Cap. 26. n. 47. — In hoc textu post sermonem cod. D qualemcumque loco qualem. Ipse Augustinus post principaliter intersit: ipso sine ullo temporis intervallo dante etc. — In fine ed. 1 non sint pro non sunt, et edd. 5, 9 de aliquo pro de alio. ³ Edd. 1, 8 titulo huius operis addunt: vel distinctionum. Hic liber non est S. Hieronymi, nec in appendicibus editionum eiusdem invenitur. In appendice ad opera S. Ambrosii (Patrolog. Migne, Lat. tom. 17. col. 510.) impressum est opusulum anonymum sub tituolo: de Trinitate; alias, in Symbolum Apostolorum Tractatus, ex quo (c. 3. coll. 512.) textus secundum, paulo infra citatus, integre desumtus est, paucis tantum verbis deficientibus vel mutatis. Locus vero hic citatus tantum quoad sensum ibi exhibetur. Cum autem hoc opusculum, ut putant editores, sit mutilum et iam antiquitus interpolatum, fortasse Lombardus etiam primum textum ad verbum inde accepit. In praevia admonitione Benedictini editores huius libelli censent, ipsum contra Priscillianistas et ad vindicandum Toletanam fidei regulam esse editum atque Concilio, si minus toletano, saltem Braccarensi secundo, quod a. 563 vulgo ponitur, supparem esse. — Locum infra a Magistro exhibitum Alcuinus (de Fide Ss. Trinitatis libr. II. c. 9. Patrolog. Lat. Migne, tom. 101. col. 28.) totum reportat, sed nonnullis additis vel mutatis. ⁴ Codd. A C D E acceperit. ⁵ Vat. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 de. Immediate ante ed. 1 omittit vel quod. Deinde codd. A B C D post Spiritu omittunt sancto. Denique ed. 1 omittit ultima verba: cum Spiritus etc. ⁶ Cap. 3. — Vide notam paulo supra. — Immediate ante Vat. et edd. 4, 6, 8 verbis eius pro verbis suis; quod licet sit minus rectum, exhibet tamen omnes codd. et ceterae edd. Deinde ubi prima vice ponitur nec natum codd. omittunt est contra edd. ⁷ Vat. et edd. 4, 5, 6, 9 verbo aliquo praemittunt alio. ⁸ Supple cum ed. 6 est. — Immediate post edd. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 omittunt sunt. Non multum infra ante ostendit Hieronymus cod. C addit aperte.	¹ In the dialogue, namely, of questions under the title “To Orosius”, question 2. But this work is of forgers [Trans. note: supposititium in the original note, read as and changed to suppositionum, lat. for “of forgers”.] At the end of this passage, edition 8 together with the original has we will blame [culpabimus] for we are at fault [culpamur]. ² Chapter 26, n. 47. — In this text after speech [sermonem] codex D has as everso [qualemcumque] in place of as [qualem]. (St.) Augustine himself after principally from the Father [de Patre principaliter] inserts without any interval of time itself being given [ipso sine ullo temporis intervallo dante] etc. — At the end edition 2 has are not [non sint] in the subjunctive, and editions 5 and 9 have from anyone [de aliquo] for from another [de alio]. ³ Editions 1 and 8, add to the title of this work: and/or distinctions [vel distinctionum]. This book does not belong to St. Jerome, nor is it found among the appendices of the editions of his writings. In the appendix to the Opera S. Ambrosii, (Patrologia., Migne, Lat. tom. 17, col. 510) is printed an anonymous work under the title: de Trinitate; alias in Symbolum Apostolorum Tractatus, from which (ch. 3, col. 512) the following text, cited a little below this, has been excerpted in its entirety, with only a few words lacking and/or changed. But the passage cited here is only exhibited according to its sense. Moreover, since this work, as the editors think, has been mutilated and interpolated already from ancient times, perhaps (Peter) Lombard accepted even the first text word-for-word from this one. In the previous admonition the Benedictine editors judge of this book, that it is almost equal to the one published against the Priscillianists and to vindicate the rule of faith of the Council of Toledo, by the Council itself, or if not that of Toledo, at least that of the Second Council of Braga, which is commonly said to have taken place in A.D. 563. — The passage exhibited by Master (Peter) below, Alcuin (de Fide Ss. Trinitatis, Bk. II, ch. 9: Patrologia Latina, Migne, tom. 101, col. 28) reports in its entirety, but with not a few things added and/or changed. ⁴ Codices A C D E have accepted [acceperit]. ⁵ The Vatican edition and editions 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9, have from [de]. Immediately before this, edition 1 omits and/or as something which [vel quod]. Then codices A B C D at of the Holy Spirit [de Spiritu sancto] omit Holy [sancto]. Then edition 1 omits the last words since the Holy Spirit etc. [cum Spirtus etc.]. ⁶ Chapter 3. — See note 3 above. — Immediately before this the Vatican edition and editions 4, 6 and 8, have from his words [verbis eius] for from his own words [verbis suis], which though they are less correct, yet all the codices and all the other editions do exhibit. Then where for the first time there is put neither born [nec natum] the codices omit is [est] contrary to the editions. ⁷ The Vatican edition and editions 4, 5, 6, and 9, have from any other [ab alio aliquo]. ⁸ Supply with edition 6 is [est]. Immediately after this editions 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9 omit are [sunt]. Not much below this at (St.) Jerome shows [ostendit Hieronymus] codex C adds openly [aperte].

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