LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 20: 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 XX.	DISTINCTION 20
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 366-367. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 366-367. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
Cap. I. Quod aliqua personarum non excedit aliam potentia.	Chapter I. That None of the Persons exceeds Another in power.
Nunc ostendere restat, quomodo aliqua harum personarum aliam non excellat potentia, ut, sicut una et indifferens est magnitudo trium, ita una et indifferens monstretur potentia trium. Sciendum est igitur, quia¹ non est potentior Pater Filio, nec Filius vel Pater Spiritu sancto, nec maiorem potentiam habent duo vel tres simul quam singulis eorum; quia nec plus potest Pater simul et Filius quam solus Spiritus sanctus, nec hi tres simul plus possunt quam singulus eorum, quia omnipotentiam, quam habet Pater, et Filius accepit nascendo et Spiritus sanctus procedendo. Quod Augustinus rationibus et auctoritatibus probabiliter astruit in libro contra Maximinum,² qui dicebat Patrem potentiorem ac meliorem Filio.	Now it remains to show, in what manner None of these Persons excels Another in power, so that there be shown, just as one and un-differing is the magnitude of the Three, so one and un-differing the power of the Three. It must be known, therefore, that¹ the Father is not more potent than the Son, nor the Son and/or Father than the Holy Spirit, nor do Two and/or Three have more power than Each of Them; because neither is the Father and the Son together more able [plus possunt] than the Holy Spirit alone, nor are these Three more able than Each of Them, because the omnipotence, which the Father has, both the Son accepts by being born, and the Holy Spirit by proceeding. Which (argument St.) Augustine constructs in a manner provable by reasons and authorities in the book Against Maximinus,² who said that the Father (is) more potent and better than the Son.
Cap. II. Quod non minus potest Filius quam Pater.	Chapter II. That the Son is no less able than the Father
« Nihil, inquit,³ Patre minus habet ille qui dicit: Omnia quae habet Pater, mea sunt ». « Nam si minus habet in potestate aliquid quam Pater, non sunt eius omnia, quae habet Pater; sed eius sunt omnia quae habet Pater; tantam igitur habet potestatem Filius, quantam Pater »: « aequalis ergo est Patri. Non enim potest qui accepit inaequalis esse ei qui dedit ».	« Nothing », he says,³ « less than the Father has He, who says: All which the Father has, are Mine ». « For if in power He has anything less than the Father, they are not all His, which the Father Has, but all which the Father has are His; therefore the Son has as much power, as the Father »: « therefore He is equal to the Father. For He, who accepts (all), cannot be unequal to Him, who has given (all) ».
¹ Edd. 5, 8 quod. ² Vat. et aliae edd. in libro tertio contra Maximinum; codd. et ed. 1 sic: in libro contra Maxim. In edd. impressis Augustini duo tantum sunt libri contra Maximinum. Sed in antiquis mss. exemplaribus huius operis opusculum « Collatio Augustini cum Maximino » inscribebatur primus liber. c. M., et illi duo secundus et tertius. Textus sequens sunt ex secundo libro iuxta computationem modernam. ³ Libr. II. c. 14. n. 7. — Locus Scripturae est Ioan. 16, 15. Duo loci sequentes Augustini sunt ibid. n. 9. et 7.	¹ Editions 5 and 8 read that [quod]. ² The Vatican edition and the other editions have in the third book Against Maximinum [in librio tertio contra Maximinum]; the codices and edition 1 have: in the book Against Maxim. [in libro contra Maxim.]. In the printed editions of (St.) Augustine’s works there are only two books Against Maximinum. But in the ancient copies of the manuscripts of this work, « Collatio Augustini cum Maximino », the first book was entitled primus liber. c. M., and the other two the second and third books. The text cited by Master Peter is from the second book, according to the modern reckoning. ³ Book II,ch. 14. n. 7. — The passage of Scripture is Jn. 16:15. The two following passages of (St.) Augustine are ibid., nn. 9 and 7.

p. 367

Cap. III. De obiectionibus haereticis contra hoc, et responsionibus catholicis.	Chapter III On the objections of heretics against this, and the response of Catholics.
« Tu autem hoc de potentia sapis, quod potens sit Filius, sed potentior Pater, ut secundum doctrinam vestram potens potentem potuerit gignere, et non omnipotens omnipotentem. Habet ergo Pater omnipotentiam, quam non habet Filius; at si hoc est, falsum est quod ait Filius: Omnia quae habet Pater, mea sunt ».¹	« You, moreover, know this of the power, that the Son is potent, but the Father more potent, since according to your doctrine a potent could beget a potent, and not an omnipotent an omnipotent. Therefore, the Father has an omnipotence, which the Son does not have; but if this is (so), what the Son says is false: All which the Father has, are Mine ».¹
« Sed, inquis, Pater a nemine potentiam accepit, Filius autem a Patre. Fatemur et nos, Filium accepisse potentiam ab illo, de quo natus est potens; Patri vero potentiam nullus dedit, quia nullus eum genuit. Gignendo enim dedit potentiam Pater Filio, sicut omnia quae habet in substantia sua, gignendo dedit ei quem genuit de substantia sua ».²	« But, you ask, the Father accepts power from no one; however the Son (does) from the Father. We say also, that the Son has accepted power from Him, from whom He has been born potent; but no one gave power to the Father, because no one begot Him. For by begetting the Father gave power to the Son, just as all which He has in His own Substance, by begetting He gave to Him whom He begot of His own Substance ».²
« Sed quaeritur, utrum tantam quanta ipsi est potentiam Pater Filio dederit, an minorem. Si tantum, non solum potentem, sed etiam omnipotentem genuisse Omnipotens intelligitur; si vero minorem, quomodo omnia quae habet Pater, Filii sunt? Si Patris omnipotentia Filii non est, non omnia procul dubio, quae habet Pater, Filii sunt ».³ At omnia Filii sunt; omnipotentia ergo Patris etiam Filii est: non est ergo Pater potentior Filio.	« But it is asked, whether the Father gave as much power to the Son as was His, or whether less. If as much, the Omnipotent is understood to have begotten not only a potent, but also an Omnipotent; but if less, in what manner are all, which the Father has, the Son’s? If the omnipotence of the Father is not the Son’s, (it is) not far from doubt that all, which the Father has, are the Son’s ».³ But all are the Son’s; therefore the omnipotence of the Father is also the Son’s: therefore the Father is not more potent than the Son.
Item, alio modo probat Filium aequalem Patri contra Maximinum⁴ ita dicens: « Tu dicis, quod Pater genuit Filium minorem se ipso, in quo et Patri derogas, qui si Filium unicum minorem genuit, aut non potuit, aut non voluit gignere aequalem. Si dicas, quia non voluit, eum invidum esse dixisti; si autem non potuit, ubi est omnipotentia Dei Patris? Prorsus ad hunc articulum res colligitur, ut Deus Pater aequalem sibi gignere Filium aut non potuerit, aut noluerit. Si non potuit, infirmus; si noluit, invidus invenitur. Sed utrumque hoc falsum est: Patri igitur Filius verus aequalis est. Genuit ergo Pater sibi aequalem Filium et ab utroque precedit utrique aequalis Spiritus sanctus ». « Si enim formam suam, ut ait Augustinus contra eundem,⁵ Pater in unico Filio plenam gignere potuit, nec tamen plenam genuit, sed minorem, cogimini Patrem invidum dicere ». Plenum ergo Deum et aequalem sibi genuit Filium.	Likewise, in another manner he proves against Maximinus⁴ that the Son (is) equal to the Father, thus saying: « You say, that the Father begot the Son less than Himself, in which you also derogate the Father, who, if He begot only a lesser [unicum minorem] Son, either could not, or would not, beget an Equal. If you say, that He would not, you have said that He is envious [invidum]; but if He could not, where is the omnipotence of God the Father? Further, according to this article (of your faith) one gathers [res colligitur], that God the Father either could not, or was unwilling to beget a Son equal to Himself. If He could not, (His is) infirm; if He was unwilling, He is found (to be) envious. But each consequent [utrumque hoc] is false: therefore the Son is the true equal to the Father. Therefore the Father begot a Son equal to Himself and from Each there proceeds an Equal to Each, the Holy Spirit ». « For if the Father could beget », as (St.) Augustine says against the same,⁵ « His own full Form in an only Son, and yet did not beget It full, but lesser, we are driven to say that the Father (is) envious ». Therefore He begot a God full and equal to Himself, the Son.
Hoc autem per similitudinem humanam ita esse demonstrat inquiens:⁶ « Homo pater, si potuisset, aequalem Filium genuisset. Quis ergo, audeat dicere, quod hoc Omnipotens non potuit? Addo etiam, quia si posset homo, maiorem melioremque se ipso gigneret Filium. Sed maius vel melius Deo quidquam esse non potest ». « Deus ergo cur non aequalem, ut ais, Filium genuit, cui nec anni necessarii fuerunt, per quos adimpleretur aequalitas, nec omnipotentia defuit. An forte noluit? ergo, quod absit, invidit; sed non invidit: aequalem igitur genuit Filium ».⁷ « Credamus ergo, Filium ei esse aequalem ».	Moreover, he demonstrates through a similitude to man that this is so, inquiring:⁶ « A man, as a father, if he were able, would have begotten an equal Son. Therefore, who dares to say, that the Omnipotent could not (do) this? I add also, because if a man were able, he would beget a Son greater and better than himself. But no one at all can be greater and/or better than God ». « Therefore, why did not God beget an equal, as you say, Son, for whom neither were years, through which an equality would be fulfilled, necessary, nor the omnipotence lacking. Or perhaps He was unwilling? therefore, far be it, He envied (Him); but He did not envy (Him): therefore He begot an equal Son ».⁷ « We believe, therefore, that the Son is equal to Him ».
« Sed forte dices: eo ipso maior est Pater Filio, quia de nullo genitus genuit tamen aequalem. Ad quod cito respondeo: immo ideo non est maior Pater Filio, quia aequalem genuit. Originis enim quaestio ista est, quis de quo sit; aequalitatis autem, qualis aut quantus sit »,⁸ quod est dicere: ad originem pertinet quaestio, qua quaeritur, quis de quo sit; ad aequalitatem vero illa qua quaeritur, qualis aut quantus quis sit. « Nec cum dicitur Filius a Patre genitus, ostenditur inaequalitas substantiae, sed ordo naturae, non quo alter prior esset altero, sed quo alter est ex altero ».⁹ Non ergo secundum hoc, quod Pater genuit, et Filius genitus est, vel Spiritus sanctus ab utroque procedit, aequalitas vel inaequalitas ibi existit, quia non secundum hoc alia persona alii aequalis vel inaequalis dicitur. Ecce aequalitas Trinitatis et una eademque substantia, quantum breviter potuimus, demonstrata est in superioribus,¹⁰ qualiter scilicet aliqua trium personarum quamlibet aliam nec aeternitate nec magnitudo nec potentia excellat.	« But perhaps you will say: the Father is greater than the Son for this very reason, that He has begotten a Begotten from nothing, yet an Equal. To which I swiftly respond: nay, for that reason the Father is not greater than the Son, because He begot an Equal. For this question of yours is (one) of the origin, ‘who is from who?’; but (one) of equality is ‘of what kind or how much is it?’»,⁸ which is to say: to the origin pertains the question, by which there is asked, ‘who is from who?’; however to equality that by which there is asked, ‘of what kind or how much is Any?’. « Nor when the Son is said (to be) begotten from the Father, is there shown an inequality of Substance, but (rather) an order of nature, not by which the One would be prior to the Other, but by which the One is out of the Other ».⁹ Therefore, not according to this, that the Father begot, and the Son has been begotten, and/or the Holy Spirit has proceeded from Each, does equality and/or inequality exist There, because not according to this is one Person said (to be) equal and/or unequal to the Other. Behold the equality of the Trinity and the one and same Substance, as much as we briefly were able, has been demonstrated in the above (sentences),¹⁰ namely, in what manner Any of the Three Persons in neither eternity nor magnitude nor power excels any Other.
¹ Ibid. c. 12. n. 1. — In hoc textu Augustini Vat. cum pluribus edd. verbo gignere praemittit generare vel contra codd. et originale. ² Loc. cit. paucis interpositis. — Hic codd. A B C et ed. 1 Fateamur pro Fatemur. ³ Ibid. immediate post. — In principio textus post utrum Vat. cum paucis edd. male addit ei. Finito textu, post omnia Vat. cum aliis edd. contra 1, 2, 3, 7, et omnes codd. addit quae habet Pater, quod facile ex praecedentibus suppleri potest. ⁴ Libr. II. c. 7. et 5. Eadem docet Augustinus in libr. LXXXIII. Quest. q. 50. ⁵ Ibid. cap. 15. n. 1. ⁶ Ibid. cap. 18, n. 3, ubi Vat. et plures edd. post Addo etiam omittunt quia, refragantibus codd. B C D E, ed. 1 et originali. ⁷ Ibid. c. 15. n. 5. — Quae sequuntur, leguntur ibid. c. 18. n. 3. ⁸ Ibid. immediate post, ubi Vat. et edd. 4, 8, 9 post quia aequalem adiiciunt sibi, contra alias edd., codd. et originale. ⁹ Ibid. cap. 14. n. 8. — Solummodo Vat. post prior male legit est pro esset. ¹⁰ Scilicet in hac et praecedente dist.	¹ Ibid., ch. 12, n. 1. — In this text of (St.) Augustine, the Vatican edition, together with very many editions, preface the word beget [gignere] with generate and/or [generare vel], contrary to the codices and the original. ² Loc. cit., with a few things interposed. — Here codices A B and C and edition 1 read Let us say [Fateamur] for We say [Fatemur]. ³ Ibid., immediately after. — At the beginning of the text, after whether [utrum] the Vatican edition, together with a few editions, badly adds to Him [et]. After the citation’s end, the Vatican edition, together with the other editions, contrary to editions 1, 2, 3 and 7, and to all the codices, after all [omnia] add which the Father has [quae habet Pater], which easily can be supplied from the preceding (arguments). ⁴ Book. II, ch. 7 and 5. (St.) Augustine teaches the same in the book 83 Questions, q. 50. ⁵ Ibid., chapter 15, n. 1. ⁶ Ibid., chapter 18, n. 3, where the Vatican edition and very many editions, after I add also [Addo etiam] omits because [quia], breaking with codices B C D and E, edition 1 and the original. ⁷ Ibid., chapter. 15, n. 5. — Those which follow, are read in ibid., ch. 18, n. 3. ⁸ Ibid., immediately after, where the Vatican edition and editions 4, 8, and 9, read because He begot an Equal to Himself [quia aequalem sibi genuit], contrary to the other editions, codices and the original. ⁹ Ibid., chapter 14, n. 8. — On the Vatican edition reads badly is prior [prior est] for would be prior [prior esset]. ¹⁰ That is, in this and the preceding distinction.

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