|
Magistri Petri Lombardi |
Master Peter Lombard |
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 XXI. |
DISTINCTION 21 |
|
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, |
Latin
text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, |
|
Cap. I.
Quomodo possit dici: solus Pater vel solus Filius vel solus Spiritus sanctus, cum sint inseparabiles. |
Chapter I. In what manner can there be said: “the Father alone”,* and/or “the Son alone” and/or “the Holy Spirit alone”, since They are inseparable. |
|
Hic oritur quaestio trahens originem ex praedictis. Dictum est enim supra,1 quod tantus est solus Pater vel solus Filius vel solus Spiritus sanctus, quantum simul illi tres, et quod duae vel tres personae simul non sunt maius aliquid quam una sola. Ideo quaerit Augustinus in sexto libro de Trinitate:2 « Quomodo haec sane dici possint, cum nec Pater sit solus nec Filius nec Spiritus sanctus, sed semper et inseparabiliter et Filius cum Patre et Pater cum Filio et Spiritus sanctus cum utroque; inseparabiles enim sunt hae tres personae ». Ad quod ita respondet Augustinus in eodem:3 « Solum Patrem dicimus Patrem, non quia separatur a Filio vel a Spiritu sancto, sed hoc dicentes significamus, quia illi simul cum eo non sunt Pater ». Solus enim Pater Pater est. Quod non dicitur, quia ipse sit solus, id est sine Filio vel Spiritu sancto, sed per hoc Filius et Spiritus sanctus a paternitatis consortio excluduntur. Ita et cum dicitur: solus Filius Filius est, vel solus Spiritus sanctus Spiritus sanctus est, non dividitur Filius a Patre vel Spiritus sanctus ab utroque, sed a consortio filialis proprietatis excluduntur Pater et Spiritus sanctus, et a consortio processibilis proprietatis Pater et Filius. Cum ergo dicitur: tantus est solus Pater, quantum simul illi tres, per hoc quod dicitur solus non separatur Pater ab aliis, sed hic est sensus: solus Pater, id est Pater, quia ita Pater est, quod nec Filius nec Spiritus sanctus, tantus est etc.4 Similiter intellige, cum dicitur: solus est Filius vel solus est Spiritus Sanctus. « Solus ergo Pater dicitur, ut ait Augustinus in eodem,5 quia non nisi ipse ibi Pater est », et solus Filius, quia non nisi ipse ibi Filius est, et solus Spiritus sanctus, quia non nisi ipse ibi Spiritus sanctus est. |
Here arises the question, drawing its origin from the aforesaid. For it has been said above,1 that as much as is the Father alone [solus] and/or the Son alone and/or the Holy Spirit alone, so much (are) those Three together, and that Two and/or Three Persons together are not something more than One alone. For that reason (St.) Augustine ask in the sixth book On the Trinity:2 « In what manner can these be sanely said, since neither is the Father alone, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, but always and inseparably (is) both the Son with the Father and the Father with the Son and the Holy Spirit with Each; for these Three Persons are inseparable ». To which (St.) Augustine responds thus, in the same book:3 « We say that the Father alone (is) the Father, not because He is separated from the Son and/or from the Holy Spirit, but saying this we signify, that Those together with Him are not the Father ». For the Father alone is the Father. Which is not said, because He Himself is alone, that is without the Son and/or the Holy Spirit, but through this the Son and the Holy Spirit are excluded from a share in the paternity [a paternitatis consortio]. Thus too when there is said: “the Son alone is the Son”, and/or “the Holy Spirit alone is the Holy Spirit”, the Son is not divided from the Father and/or the Holy Spirit from Each, but the Father and the Holy Spirit are excluded from a share in the property of the Son [filialis], and the Father and the Son from a share in the property of the procession [processibilis]. Since, therefore, there is said: “as much as is the Father alone, so much those Three together”, through that which He is said (to be) “alone”, the Father is not separated from the Others, but this is the sense: “the Father alone, that is, the Father, because thus is He the Father, because neither is the Son nor the Holy Spirit as much (as those Three).4 Similarly understand, when there is said: “He alone is the Son” and/or “He alone is the Holy Spirit”. « Therefore He alone is said (to be) “the Father” », as (St.) Augustine says in the same,5 « because naught but He is the Father There », and He alone the Son, because naught but He is the Son There, and He alone the Holy Spirit, because naught but He is the Holy Spirit there. |
Cap. II.
Utrum debeat dici: solus Pater est Deus, vel solus Filius est Deus, vel solus Spiritus sanctus est Deus; an, Pater est solus Deus, Filius est solus Deus, Spiritus est solus Deus. |
Chapter II. Whether there ought to be
said: “the Father alone is God”, and/or “the Son alone is God”, and/or “the
Holy Spirit alone is God”; |
|
Post hoc quaeritur, utrum, sicut dicitur: solus Pater est Pater, vel solus Filius est Filius, ita possit dici: solus Pater est Deus, vel solus Filius est Deus, ita et de Spiritu sancto; aut, Pater est solus Deus, Filius est solus Deus. Ad quod dicimus, quia Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus dicitur et est unus Deus, et haec Trinitas simul proprie dicitur esse solus Deus, sicut solus sapiens, solus potens. Sed non videtur debere dici a nobis verbis nostris utentibus, nisi ubi sermo auctoritatis6 occurit: solus Pater est Deus, vel Pater est solus Deus; ita de Filio et Spiritu sancto dicimus. Unde Augustinus in sexto libro de Trinitate7 ait: « Quoniam ostendimus, quomodo possit dici solus Pater vel solus Filius, consideranda est illa sententia, qua dicitur, Deum verum solum non esse Patrem solum, sed Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum ». Ecce habes, quia non solus Pater dicendus est esse solus verus Deus. Item in eodem:8 « Si quis interroget, utrum Pater solus sit Deus; quomodo respondebimus, non esse, nisi forte ita dicamus, esse quidem Patrem Deum, sed non eum esse solum Deum? Esse autem solum Deum dicamus Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum ». Ecce et hic habes, quia Pater non debet dici solus Deus; atque hic9 solum in parte subiecti tantum accipere quidam volunt, in parte vero praedicati si sit, concedunt, quod Pater est solus Deus. Sed ex verbis Augustini videtur ostendi, quod proprie solus Deus dici debeat tota Trinitas. Et haec Trinitas, ut ait Augustinus contra Maximinum,10 intelligitur, cum Apostolus dicit: Beatus et solus potens; et ibi: Soli sapienti Deo; et ibi: Invisibili soli . . . |
After this, there is asked, whether, just as there is said: “the Father alone is the Father”, and/or “the Son alone is the Son”, it can thus be said: “the Father alone is God”, and/or “the Son alone is God”, thus also of the Holy Spirit; or, “the Father is the only God” [solus Deus], “the Son is the only God”. To which we say, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is said (to be) and is the One God, and this Trinity together is properly said to be the only God, just as “the only Wise One”, “the only Powerful One”. But it does not seem that by us, using our own words, there ought to be said: “the Father alone is God”, and/or “the Father is alone God”, except where the discourse of an authority6 occurs; and thus do we speak of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Wherefore (St.) Augustine in the sixth book On the Trinity7 says: « Since we have shown, in what manner there can be said “the Father alone” and/or “the Son alone”, there must be considered that sentence, by which there is said, that the True God is not only the Father, but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit ». Behold, you have, that not only the Father is to be said to be the only True God. Likewise in the same:8 « If anyone questions, whether the Father alone is God; in what manner shall we respond, that He is not, except perhaps we speak thus, that indeed the Father is God, but that He is not the only God [solus Deus]? But we do say that the only God [solus Deus] is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit ». Behold you also have here, that the Father ought not be said to be “the only God” [solus Deus]; and certain ones want to accept, here (in the text of St. Augustine),9 solus in the part of the subject (i.e. as “the Father is not alone God”), however, if it is in the part of the predicate, they do concede, that the Father is the only God. But from the words of (St.) Augustine it seems to be shown, that properly the only God ought to be said to be the whole Trinity. And this Trinity, as (St.) Augustine says Against Maximinus,10 is understood, when the Apostle says: the blessed and only Powerful One, and there (where he says): To the only wise God; and there (where he says): To the invisible, the only . . . |
|
1 Dist. XIX. — Mox solummodo Vat. et ed. 4 illae tres; supple: personae. Deinde Vat. cum paucis edd. post una superflue addit personam. 2 Cap. 7. n. 9, secundum sensum; Magister extendit quaestionem etiam ad Spiritum sanctum, sicut et in sequente textu. 3 Ibid., paucis interpositis. — In principio edd. praeter Vat. et ed. 1 male et contra codd. et originale legunt: Solum Deum Patrem dicimus, non quia. 4 Supple cum codd. A C: quantum illi tres. 5 Cap. 9. n. 10. 6 Vat. et edd. 2, 3, 7 non bene auctoritatibus. 7 Cap. 9. n. 10; in quo textu Vat. et aliae edd. contra 1, 8, codd. et originale male legunt posset pro possit. Finito textu, ante verus Deus Vat. et plures edd. contra codd. male omittunt solus. 8 Loc. cit. — Vat. et edd. 4, 6 interrogat, contradicentibus aliis edd., codd. et Augustino. Deinde post sed non sola Vat. omittit eum. 9 Edd. 2, 3, 7, 9 hoc; ed. 6 hic solus. In qualicumque lectione verba Magisteri ob brevitatem sunt subobscura. Lectionem hic sic interpretari possumus: hic, id est in hac resolutione negativa, aliqui distinguunt, admittentes eam, si verbum solum ex parte subiecti accipitur. Similiter etiam lectio hoc fortasse intelligi postest. De ipsa sententia Magistri cfr. S. Bonaventura, hic dub. 1. — Mox Vat. et ed. 4 post praedicati non bene legunt sic, et edd. 3, 7 peius si sic. 10 Libr. II. c. 12. n. 2. Magister ex hoc et tribus sequen- / -tibus . . . |
* [Trans. note: In this distinction the single Latin word solus is rendered in English with 2 distinct adverbial expressions: alone and the only, the former which is used always after the noun it modifies, whether this is immediately after, or on the other side of the copula, as in the sentence, “The Father is alone God”; the latter which always precedes the noun it modifies, as in the phrase “the only God”. This same Latin word could be rendered into English with the cognate sole in most usages, or with lone in some usages; but to clearly distinguish and to remove all confusion in English, the first two English adverbials have been employed in the text; furthermore the disparate senses of alone and only used in this English translation follows that reckoning confirmed by St. Bonaventure in his Commentaria on this Distinction, q. v., except wherein Master Peter reads Augustine in the contrary sense. — The rationale for the diverse uses of alone and the only in the translation is this: alone is used whenever solus has the sense of solitary and/or considered by itself; the only is used whenever solus has the sense of numerical exclusion; each is rendered according to what senses are allowed by the Catholic Faith: thus at the beginning of Chapter II, first alone is used, and then the only, on account of the argument which follows, regarding the unicity of God. Then alone is used, because inasmuch as it signifies solitary and considered by itself it comprises the uneasiness of an expression that would refer the name “God” to the “Father”, contradistinguished with the expression that the Trinity is the only True God, which would not occur if their sense were the same, as clearly the argument uses the second sense to expound the first. Likewise, in the quote of St. Augustine which follows footnote 8, the first the only God is rendered in parallel with the second, without which similarity the argument would not be coherent; and without which the argument of Master Peter, which follows, would not be founded on the text. The other usages of the only follow the same sense taken in the first usages on the basis of the argument Master Peter first advances; presuming that it was his intention to read this sense always in similar expressions. As will be seen in St. Bonaventure”s Commentary, he judges Master Peter”s argument after the quote which follows footnote 8, based on a faulty reading, and holds that Augustine should be read in the middle sentence the Father is not alone God. The Seraphic Doctor also judges in dubium 1 of this distinction, that « Master (Peter) does not say, that the Father is not the only God, but that He is not properly said (to be the only God) ».] 1 Distinction XIX. — Next only the Vatican edition and edition 4 read those Three [illae tres]; supply Persons [personae]. Then the Vatican edition, together with a few editions, reads than one Person alone [una persona sola]. 2 Chapter 7, n. 9, according to its sense; Master (Peter) extends the question even to the Holy Spirit, just as in the following text. 3 Ibid., with a few (words) interposed. — At the beginning the editions, besides the Vatican edition and edition 1, badly and contrary to the codices and original, read: We say that the only God (is) the Father, not because [Solum Deum Patrem dicimus, non quia]. 4 Supply with codices A and C: as much as those Three [quantum illis tres]. 5 Chapter 9, n. 10. 6 The Vatican edition and editions 2, 3, and 7, reads not well on authorities [auctoritatibus] for of an authority [auctoritatis]. [Trans. note: there authority is used in the sense of “a quote from a Pope, Doctor, Father, Saint etc.”] 7 Chapter 9, n. 10; in which text the Vatican edition and the other editions, contrary to edition 1 and 8, the codices and the original, read badly there could [posset] for there can [possit]. With the text finished, before True God [verus Deus], the Vatican edition and very many editions, contrary to the codices, badly omit the only [solus]. 8 Loc. cit.. — The Vatican edition, and editions 4 and 6, have the indicative questions [interrogat] for the subjunctive questions [interroget], with the other editions, the codices, and (St.) Augustine, contradicting this. Then after but that [sed] the Vatican edition alone reads there is not a sole God [non esse solum Deum]. 9 Editions 2, 3, 7 and 9 read this (word) [hoc] for here (in the text of St. Augustine) [hic]; and edition 6 reads “solus” [solus] for solus [solum]. In each whatever reading the words of Master (Peter) are somewhat obscure. We can interpret the reading of “here” [hic] in this manner: “here”, that is in this negative resolution (of the argument), some distinguish, admitting it, if the word “solus” is accepted on the part of the subject (i. e. “the Father is alone God”). Similarly also can be understood the reading of “this (word)” [hoc]. On this sentence of Master (Peter), cf. St. Bonaventure, here in dubium 1. — Next the Vatican edition and edition 4 read thus [sic] for if it is [si sit], and edition 3 and 7 read worse if thus [si sic]. 10 Book II, ch. 12, n. 2. Master (Peter) from this and the next three following . . . [Trans. note: this footnote continues on next page.] |
p. 377
|
Deo. Non enim de solo Patre haec accipienda sunt, ut contendebat Maximinus et alii haeretici, sed de Trinitate. Sicut et illud: Solus habet immortalitatem, quia secundum rectam fidem ipsa Trinitas est unus solus Deus, beatus, potens, sapiens, invisibilis. Unde Augustinus in eodem:1 « Cum unus Deus sit Trinitas, haec sit nobis solutio quaestionis, ut intelligamus solum Deum sapientem, solum potentem Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, qui est unus et solus Deus ». |
God. For not of the Father alone are these to be accepted, as Maximinus use to contend and the other heretics (too), but of the Trinity. Just as also that (verse): He alone has immortality, because according to the right Faith, the Trinity Itself is the one, only God, the Blessed One, the Powerful One, the Wise One, the Invisible One. Whence (St.) Augustine in the same (book says): « Since the one God is the Trinity, this is for us the solution to the question, that we understand that the only wise, the only powerful God (is) the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, who is the one and only God ». |
|
Cap. III.
Quomodo Trinitas dicatur solus Deus, cum ipsa sit cum spiritibus et animabus sanctis. |
Chapter III
In what manner is the Trinity said (to be) God alone, since He is with the spirits and the souls. |
|
Sed iterum quaeritur, quomodo ipsam Trinitatem dicimus solum Deum, cum sit cum spiritibus et animabus sanctis. Ad quod respondet Augustinus in sexto libro de Trinitate2 ita dicens: « Trinitatem dicimus Deum solum, quamvis semper sit cum spiritibus et animabus sanctis, sed solum dicimus, quia non aliud quam ipsa Trinitas Deus est. Non enim illi cum illa Deus sunt », vel aliqua alia, sed ipsa Trinitas tantum, non illi vel alia Deus est. |
But again there is asked, in what manner we say that the Trinity itself is God alone, since He is with the spirits and the holy souls. To which (St.) Augustine responds in the sixth book On the Trinity,2 thus saying: « We say that the Trinity is God alone, although He is always with the spirits and the holy souls, but we say “alone” [solum], because no other than the Holy Trinity is God. For God is not those (spirits and souls) with that (Trinity) », and/or some other (things), but the Trinity itself only [tantum], not they and/or others, is God. |
|
« Verumtamen, ut ait Augustinus,3 etsi de solo Patre praedicta dicerentur, non tamen excluderetur Filius vel Spiritus sanctus, quia hi tres unum sunt; sicut in Apocalypsi de Filio legitur, quod habet nomen scriptum, quod nemo scit nisi ipse. Non enim inde separatur Pater vel Spiritus sanctus. Et cum dicitur: Nemo novit Patrem nisi Filius; non inde separatur Pater, et Spiritus sanctus, quia inseparabiles sunt ». Aliquando etiam nominantur Pater et Filius, et tacetur Spiritus sanctus; sicut Veritas ad Patrem loquens ait:4 Ut cognoscant te et quem misisti Iesum Christum esse unum verum Deum. « Cur ergo, inquit Augustinus,5 tacuit de Spiritu santo? Quia consequens est, ut ubicumque nominatur unus, sicut Pater et Filius, tanta pace uni adhaerens intelligatur etiam ipsa Pax, quamvis non commemoretur ». Uno ergo istorum nominato, etiam reliqui intelliguntur; quod in pluribus Scripturae locis occurit. |
« Nevertheless », as (St.) Augustine3 says, « even if the aforesaid were said of the Father alone, yet the Son and/or the Holy Spirit would not be excluded, because those Three are One; just as in the Apocalypse there is read of the Son, that He has a written name, which no one knows, but He Himself. For not from this [inde] is the Father and/or the Holy Spirit separated. And when there is said: No one knows the Father but the Son; not from this is the Father, and the Holy Spirit, separated, because They are inseparable ». Sometimes also the Father and the Son are named, and the nothing is said of [tacetur] the Holy Spirit; just as the Truth speaking to the Father says:4 That they may cognize Thee and Him whom Thou has sent, Jesus Christ, to be the one, True God. « Why, therefore », says (St.) Augustine,5 « did he keep silent [tacuit] concerning the Holy Spirit? Because the consequent is, that wheresoever One is named, such as the Father and the Son, there is understood (to be) adhering to Him with such a great peace Peace Himself, although He is not commemorated ». Therefore, with One of Them named, the Rest are also understood; which occurs in very many passages [locis] of Scripture. |
|
sequen- / -tibus locis excerpsit Augustini doctrinam, quod semper tota Trinitas intelligitur in citatis locis sacrae Scripturae. Verba Augustini haec sunt: Ac per hoc quod ait Apostolus (I. Tim. 6, 15.): Beatus et solus potens, non cogor de Patre tantummodo accipere, sed de Deo, quod est ipsa Trinitas. Cap. 13. n. 2: Soli sapienti Deo (Rom. 16, 27.): Deus itaque, quod est ipsa Trinitas propterea solus sapiens recte dicitur, quia solus secundum substantiam suam sapiens est. Cap. 9. n. 1: Invisibili soli Deo (I. Tim. 1, 17.): Si dixisset soli Patri, difficilius fortasse quaestio solveretur; qui vero dixit soli Deo, non est utique contra nos; et Unigentus quippe in Dei forma et Spiritus sanctus in sua natura est invisibilis. Unus enim et solus Deus a nobis ipsa Trinitas predicatur. Cap. 12. n. 2: Beatus et solus potens, Rex regum etc. (I. Tim. 6, 16.): Nihil hic video dictum, quod non conveniat Trinitati. — Etiam alibi eadem docet Augustinus, cfr. libr. I. de Trinitate c. 6. n. 10. et 11, ex quo Magister mutuavit ultima verba. 1 Cap. 13. n. 1. Ulitmis verbis codd. B C D haec adiiciunt: Non ergo Pater solus, nec solus Filius, nec solus Spiritus sanctus Deus est, sed ipsa Trinitas unus Deus solus est. 2 Cap. 7. n. 9. — Vat. et ed. 4 ante dicens omittunt ita. 3 Libr. II. contra Maximinum c. 13. n. 1; sed Magister nonnulla omisit vel addidit. Tres in hoc textu occurrentes loci sacrae Scripturae sunt: I. Ioan. 5, 7; Apocal. 19, 12; et Matth. 11, 27, ubi Vulgata: Et nemo novit Filius nisi Pater; neque Patrem quis novit nisi Filius. S. Bonav. (hic dub. 3.), uti testantur codd., in Magistro legit: Nemo novit Filium nisi Pater. 4 Ioan. 17, 3. 5 Libr. VI. de Trinitate c. 9. n. 10. Etiam propositio praecedens secundum sensum inde excerpta est. — In fine sola Vat. addit: ut ibidem amplificat Augustinus. |
passages, excerpted the doctrine (St.) Augustine, that one is always to understand the whole Trinity in the cited passages of Sacred Scripture. The words of (St.) Augustine are these: And through this, which the Apostle (1 Tim. 6:15) says: The blessed and only Powerful One, I am not driven to accept it in the manner only of the Father, but of the God, which is the Trinity Itself. Chapter 13, n. 2: To the only wise God (Rom. 16:27): And so the God, which is the Trinity Itself, is on this account said (to be) the only wise One, because He alone according to His own Substance is wise. Chapter 9, n. 1: To the invisible, the only God (1 Tim. 1:17): If he had said to the only Father, perhaps the question would be solved with more difficulty [difficilius]; however, he who said to the only God, is certainly not against us; and indeed the Only-Begotten in the Form of God and the Holy Spirit in His own Nature is invisible. For the one and only God is predicated by us (to be) the Trinity Itself. Chapter 12, n. 2: the blessed and only powerful One, the King of kings etc. (1 Tim. 6:16) [Trans. note: In the Douay-Rheims Challoner edition of the Vulgate, this is found in v. 15, not v. 16]: I see nothing here said, that does not befit the Trinity. — (St.) Augustine also teaches elsewhere the same (doctrine), cf. On the Trinity, Bk. I, ch. 6, nn. 10 and 11, from which Master (Peter) changed his last words. 1 Chapter 13, n. 1. To the final words,
codices B C and D add these: Therefore not the Father alone, nor the
Son alone, nor the Holy Spirit alone is 2 Chapter 7, n. 9. — The Vatican edition and edition 4 before saying [dicens] omit thus [ita]. [Trans. note: The argument in the Latin text here gives the impression that in classical times it was generally assumed that, as all those who were in Heaven were divine, God was not only not alone, but also not solely God; however, whether this is the import of St. Augustine”s argument, but be ascertained on the basis of the context of his cited work.] 3 Against Maximinus, Bk. II, ch. 13, n. 1; but Master (Peter) has omitted and/or added not a few (words). The three passages of Sacred Scripture occurring in this text are 1 Jn. 5:7; Apoc. 19:12; and Mt. 11:27, where the Vulgate reads: And no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son. St. Bonaventure (here in dubium 3), reads in Master Peter, what is found in the codices: No one knows the Son except the Father [Nemo novit Filium nisi Pater]. 4 Jn. 17:3. 5 On the Trinity, Bk. VI, ch. 9, n. 10. The preceding proposition has also been excerpted from this, according to its sense. — At the end the Vatican edition alone adds: as Augustine explains the same [ut ibidem amplificat Augustinus]. |
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 than 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.