LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 23: 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 XXIII.	DISTINCTION 23
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 401-403. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 401-403. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
Cap. I. De hoc nomine quod est persona, quod secundum substantiam dicatur, non singulariter, sed pluraliter accipitur in summa.	Chapter I. On this name which is “Person”, since it is said according to substance, it is accepted not singularly, but plurally in the Most High.
Praedictis¹ adiiciendum est, quod cum omnia nomina, quae secundum substantiam de Deo dicuntur, singulariter et non pluraliter de omnibus in summa dicantur personis, ut supra ostensum est,² est tamen unum nomen, scilicet persona, quod secundum substantiam dicitur de singulis personis et pluraliter, non singulariter in summa accipitur. Dicimus enim: Pater est persona, Filius est persona, Spiritus sanctus est persona, et hoc secundum substantiam dicitur. Nec tamen dicitur: Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus sunt una persona, sed tres personae. Hoc ergo nomen excipitur a praedicta³ regula nominum, quae secundum substantiam de Deo dicuntur, quia cum hoc ad se dicatur et secundum substantiam, pluraliter tamen, non singulariter in summa accipitur.	To the aforesaid¹ there must be added, that since all the names, which are said of God according to substance, are said singularly and not plurally of all the Persons in the Most High (Trinity), as has been shown above,² there is, however, one name, that is “person”, which is said according to substance of Each Person and is plurally, not singularly, accepted in the Most High (Trinity). For we say: “the Father is a person, the Son is a person, the Holy Spirit is a person”, and this is said according to the substance. And yet there is not said: “the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one person”, but (rather) “are three persons”. Therefore this name is excepted from the aforesaid³ rule for the names, which are said of God according to substance, because since this is said regarding Itself and according to substance, yet it is accepted plurally, not singularly, in the Most High (Trinity).
Quod autem persona secundum substantiam dicatur, Augustinus ostendit in septimo libro de Trinitate⁴ dicens: « Non est aliud Deo esse, aliud personam esse, sed omnino idem ». Item:⁵ « In hac Trinitate cum dicimus personam Patris, non aliud dicimus quam substantiam Patris. Quocirca ut substantia Patris ipse Pater est, non quo Pater est, sed quod est; ita et persona Patris non aliud quam ipse Pater est; ad se quippe dicitur persona, non ad Filium vel Spiritum sanctum, sicut ad se dicitur Deus et magnus et bonus et iustus et huiusmodi. Et quemadmodum hoc illi est esse, quod Deum esse, quod magnum esse, quod bonum esse; ita hoc illi est esse, quod personam esse ». Ecce expresse habes, quod persona secundum substantiam dicitur, ut cum dicitur: Pater est persona, hic sit sensus: Pater est essentia divina; similiter, cum dicitur: Filius est persona, Spiritus sanctus est persona, id est essentia divina.	Moreover, that “person” is said according to substance, (St.) Augustine shows in the seventh book On the Trinity⁴ saying: « It is not one thing for God to be, another to be a person, but (it is) entirely the same (thing) ». Likewise:⁵ « In this Trinity, when we say “the Person of the Father”, we do not say (something) other than the Substance of the Father. On which account, as the Substance of the Father is the Father Himself, not whereby He is the Father, but that He is; thus also the Person of the Father is not other than the Father Himself; indeed “person” is said regarding Himself, not regarding the Son and/or the Holy Spirit, just as “God” and “great” and “good” and “just” and (names) of this kind are said regarding Himself. And according to the measure which for Him to be is that, which (is) to be God, which (is) to be great, which (is) to be good; so for Him to be is that, which (is) to be a person ». Behold you expressly have, that “person” is said according to substance, such as when there is said: “the Father is a Person”, here the sense is: ‘the Father is the Divine Essence’; similarly, when there is said, “the Son is a person”, “the Holy Spirit is a person”, that is “is the Divine Essence”.
Ideo oritur hic quaestio difficilis quidem, sed non inutilis, qua quaeritur, cur non dicantur hi tres una persona, sicut una essentia et unus Deus. Quam quaestionem Augustinus diligenter tractat atque congrue explicat in septimo libro de Trinitate⁶ ita dicens: « Cur non haec tria simul unam personam dicimus, sicut unam essentiam et unum Deum, sed dicimus tres personas, cum tres deos aut tres essentias non dicamus? Quia volumus vel unum aliquod vocabulum servare huic significationi, qua intelligitur Trinitas, ne omnino taceremus interroganti, quid tres essent, cum tres esse fateamur ». « Cum ergo quaeritur, quid tres, ut ait Augustinus in libro quinto de Trinitate,⁷ magna prorsus inopia humanum laborat eloquium. Dictum est tamen tres personae, non ut illud diceretur, sed ne taceretur omnino ». Non enim rei ineffabilis eminentia hoc vocabulo explicari valet. Ecce ostendit, qua necessitate dicatur pluraliter personae, videlicet ut hoc uno nomine quaerentibus de tribus respondeamus.⁸	For this reason, there arises here an indeed difficult, but not unuseful, question, by which there is asked, why these Three are not said (to be) one person, just as (They are said to be) one Essence and one God. Which question (St.) Augustine diligently treats and congruously explains in the seventh book On the Trinity,⁶ thus saying: « Why do we not say (that) these Three together (are) one person, just as (we say that They are) one Essence and one God, but we say (rather that They are) Three Persons, though we do not say (that They are) three gods, or three essences? Because we want also [vel] that some, one word [vocabulum] serve this signification, by which “Trinity” is understood, lest we would be entirely silent to one interrogating us, “What are the Three?”, when we say that there are Three ». « When, therefore, there is asked, “What (are) the Three?” », as (St.) Augustine says in the fifth book On the Trinity,⁷ « human speech labors head-on in great need [magna prorsus inopia]. Yet there has been said “Three Persons”, not so that that would be said, but lest one would be entirely silent ». For the eminence of the ineffable subject [rei] does not prevail to be explained by this word. Behold, he shows, by what necessity there is said in the plural “persons”, namely, so that we may respond⁸ with this one name to those asking (us) concerning the Three.
¹ Codd. B E adiungunt tamen. ² Dist. XXII. c. 3. ³ Codd. A B E praescripta. ⁴ Cap. 6. n. 11, ubi sola Vat. pro non est aliud Deo perperam legit non aliud Deum, ed. 8 et cod. C est Deum esse. ⁵ Ibid. ⁶ Ibid. immediate post. — Hic Vat. et aliae edd. contra codd., ed. 1 et originale post cum addunt tamen. Paulo post eadem Vat. et paucae edd. taceamus interrogati pro taceremus interroganti. ⁷ Cap. 9. n. 10. ⁸ Codd. et ed. 1 responderemus, et paulo ante pro dicatur sola ed. 8 dicantur.	¹ Codices B and E add however [tamen]. ² Distinction XXII, ch. 3. ³ Codices A B and E read the afore-written [praescripta]. ⁴ Chapter 6, n. 11, where the Vatican edition alone faultily reads that it is not one thing to be God [non aliud Deum esse], and edition 8 and codex C there is a being-God [est Deum esse] for It is not one thing for God to be [Non enim est aliud Deo esse]. ⁵ Ibid. ⁶ Ibid., immediately after. — Here the Vatican edition and the other editions, contrary to the codices, to edition 1 and to the original, after though [cum] add yet [tamen]. A little after this the same Vatican edition and a few editions have we be entirely silent, having been interrogated [taceamus interrogati] for we would be entirely silent to the one interrogating [taceremus interroganti]. ⁷ Chapter 9, n. 10. ⁸ The codices and edition 1 read we would respond [responderemus], and a little before this only edition 8 reads by what necessity “persons” are said in the plural [qua necessitate diantur pluraliter personae].

p. 402

Cap. II. Qua necessitate dictum sit tres personae a Latinis, et a Graecis tres hypostases vel substantiae.	Chapter II. By what necessity has there been said by the Latins “Three Persons”, and by the Greeks “Three Hypostases and/or Substances”.
Qua necessitate non solum Latinus sermo, sed etiam Graecus eadem pene super hac re laborans nominum penuria coarctatur. Unde Augustinus, quid a Graecis vel a Latinis necessitate de ineffabili Trinitate dictum sit, aperiens, in septimo libro de Trinitate¹ ait: « Loquendi causa de ineffabilibus, ut fari aliquod modo possemus, dictum est a Graecis una essentia, tres substantiae, id est una usia, tres hypostases. Aliter enim Graeci accipiunt substantiam quam Latini. A Latinis autem dictum est una essentia vel substantia, tres personae, quia non aliter in sermone nostro, id est Latino, essentia quam substantia solet intelligi. Et ut intelligatur saltem in aenigmate, placuit ita dici, ut diceretur aliquid, cum quaereretur, quid tria sint, quae tria esse² fides vera pronuntiat, cum et Patrem non dicit esse Filium, et Spiritum sanctum, scilicet Donum Dei, nec Patrem dicit esse nec Filium. Cum ergo quaeritur, quid tria vel quid tres, conferimus nos ad inveniendum aliquod nomen, quo complectamur haec tria. Neque occurit animo, quia supereminentia divinitatis usitati eloquii facultatem excedit. Verius enim cogitatur Deus quam dicitur et verius est quam cogitatur ».	By which necessity not only the Latin language [Latinus sermo], but also the Greek, laboring upon this matter, is constrained by nearly [pene] the same penury of names. Whence (St.) Augustine revealing [aperiens], what has been said of necessity by the Greeks and/or by the Latins of the ineffable Trinity, says in the seventh book On the Trinity:¹ « For the sake of speaking of ineffable (things), so that we might be able to speak in some manner, there has been said by the Greeks “one essence, three substances, that is, one ousia, three hypostases”. For the Greeks accept substance in another manner than the Latins. But by the Latins there has been said “one essence and/or substance, three persons”, because “essence” is not accustomed to be understood in another manner in our language, that is Latin, than “substance” (is). And to understand at least in an enigma, it has pleased (them) that it be said thus, so that something would be said, when there is asked, “What are the Three, which the True Faith pronounces to be² “three”, when both one says that the Father is not the Son, and one says that the Holy Spirit, that is the Gift of God, is neither the Father nor the Son?” When, therefore, it is asked, “What (are) the three (things)?” and/or “What (are) the three (persons)?”, we confer to find some name, by which we comprise those Three. Nor does (a word) occur to (one’s) spirit, because the supereminence of the Divinity exceeds the faculty of accustomed speech. For God is thought more truly than is said, and is more truly than is thought ».
« Pater ergo et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, quoniam tres sunt, quid tres sint quaeramus, et quid commune habeant. Non enim possunt dici tres patres, quia tantum Pater ibi Pater est, nec tres filii, cum nec Pater ibi sit Filius nec Spiritus sanctus, nec tres spiritus sancti, quia Spiritus sanctus propria significatione, qua etiam³ Donum Dei dicitur, nec Pater est nec Filius. Quid ergo tres? Si tres personae esse dicuntur, commune est eis id quod persona est ». « Certe enim, quia Pater est persona, et Filius est persona, et Spiritus sanctus est persona, ideo dicuntur tres personae ». « Propterea ergo dicimus tres personas, quia commune est eis id quod persona est ».⁴ Ex praedictis aperte intelligi potest, qua necessitate dictum sit a Latinis tres personae, cum persona secundum substantiam dicatur. Unde et tribus commune est id quod persona est.⁵	« Therefore, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, since They are Three, let us ask, “What “three” are they?”, and “What common (name) do They have?”. For They cannot be said (to be) “three fathers”, because only the Father is the Father There, nor “three sons”, since neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit is the Son There, nor “three holy spirits”, because the Holy Spirit by His own signification, by which He is also³ said to be “The Gift of God”, is not the Father nor the Son. Therefore, what (are) the Three? If They are said to be three persons, that which a “person” is, is common to Them ». « For certainly, because the Father is a person, and the Son a person, and the Holy Spirit a person, for that reason They are said (to be) “three Persons” ». « On this account, therefore, we say (that there are) Three Persons, because that which a “person” is, is common to Them ».⁴ From the aforesaid it can be openly understood, by what necessity there has been said by the Latins “three persons”, since “person” is said according to substance. Whence also that which a “person” is,⁵ is common to the Three.
Cap. III. Quare non dicimus Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum esse tres deos, ut tres personas.	Chapter III For what reason do we not say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are “Three Gods”, since (we do say that they are)“Three Persons”.
Sed quaeritur hic, cum dicamus, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum esse tres personas, quia commune est eis quod persona est, id est, quia Pater est persona, et Filius est persona, et Spiritus sanctus est persona: cur non dicamus similiter tres deos, cum et Pater sit Deus, et Filius sit Deus, et Spiritus sanctus sit Deus? Quia scilicet illud Scriptura contradicit; hoc autem, etsi non dicit, non tamen contradicit. Unde Augustinus hanc movens quaestionem atque definiens in libro septimo de Trinitate⁶ ita ait: « Si ideo dicimus, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum esse tres personas, quia commune est eis id quod persona est; cur non etiam tres deos dicimus? Certe, ut praedictum est, quia Pater est persona, et Filius est persona, et Spiritus sanctus est persona, ideo tres personae dicuntur. Quia ergo Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, et Spirtus sanctus Deus, cur non dicuntur tres dii »? Ecce proposuit quaestionem; attende, quid respondeat subdens:⁷ « An ideo non dicuntur tres dii, quia Scriptura non dicit tres deos? Sed nec tres personas alicuibi Scripturae textus commemorat. An ideo licuit loquendi et disputandi necessitate tres personas dicere, non quia Scriptura dicit, sed quia Scriptura non contradicit? Si autem diceremus tres deos, contradiceret Scriptura dicens:⁸ Audi Israel, Deus tuus, Deus unus est ». Ecce absolutio quaestionis, quare potius dicamus tres personas quam tres deos, quia scilicet illud non contradicit Scriptura.	But here there is asked, since we say, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are Three Persons, because what a “person” is, is common to Them, that is, because the Father is a person, and the Son is a person, and the Holy Spirit is a person: why do we not similarly say (that there are) “three gods”, since the Father is also God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God? Because, namely, Scripture contradicts the latter; but the former, even if it does not say (it), yet it does not contradict (it). Whence (St.) Augustine moving and defining this question in the seventh book On the Trinity⁶ thus says: « If, for that reason, we say, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are Three Persons, because that which a “person” is, is common to Them; why do we not also say (that They are) “three gods”? Certainly, as has been said before, because the Father is a person, and the Son is a person, and the Holy Spirit is a person, for that reason They are said (to be) “three persons”. Therefore, because the Father (is) God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God, whey are They not said (to be) “three gods” »? Behold, he has proposed the question; pay attention to what he responds, as he continues [subdens]:⁷ « Or whether, for this reason, They are not said (to be) “three gods”, because Scripture does not say (that They are) “three gods”? But neither does the text of Scripture anywhere commemorate “three persons”. Or whether for this reason it was licit from the necessity of speaking and disputing to say (that They are) “three persons”, not because Scripture says (it), but because Scripture does not contradict (it)? But if we were to say (that They are) “three gods”, Scripture would contradict (us), saying:⁸ Hear o Israel, thy God, is one God ». Behold the resolution [absolutio] of the question, for what reason do we say (that They are) “three persons” rather than “three gods”, because, namely, Scripture does not contradict it.
Cap. IV. Cur non dicimus tres essentias, ut tres personas.	Chapter IV Why do we not say “Three Essences”, since (we do say) “Three Persons”.
Verum et hic alia emergit quaestio, quam Augustinus consequenter annectit dicens:⁹ « Cur, inquit, et tres essentias non licet dicere, quod similiter Scriptura sicut non dicit, ita non contradicit? At si dicis, quod propter unitatem Trinitatis non dicuntur tres essentiae, sed una essentiae; quaero, cur non propter eandem unitatem Trinitatis dicantur una persona, et non tres personae. Ut enim est illis commune nomen essentiae, ita ut singulus quisque dicatur essentia, sic illis commune est personae vocabulum ». « Quid igitur restat, nisi ut fateamur, loquendi necessitate a Graecis et Latinis parta haec vocabula adversus insidias vel errores haereticorum? Cumque conaretur humana inopia loquendo proferre ad hominum sensus, quod in secretario mentis de Deo tenet sive per piam fidem sive per qualemcumque intelligentiam, timuit dicere tres essentias, ne intelligeretur in illa summa aequalitate ulla diversitas. Rursus non poterat dicere, non esse tria quaedam; quod quia dixit Sabellius, in haeresim lapsus est. Quaesivit ergo, quid tria diceret, et dixit tres personas sive tres substantias secundum Graecos ».	However, there also emerges here the other question, which (St.) Augustine consequently connected (with the former), saying:⁹ « Why », he says, « is it not licit to say (that They are) “three essences”, because similarly Scripture, just as it does not say (it), thus does not contradict (it)? But if you say, that on account of the Unity of the Trinity They are not said (to be) “tree essences”, but “the one Essence”; I ask, why on account of the same Unity of the Trinity are They not said (to be) “one person”, and not “three persons”? For as the name for the Essence is common to Them, such that any single One is said (to be) the Essence, in the same manner, the word for a Person is common to Them ». « What remains, therefore, unless that we say, that these words (were) born by the Greeks and Latins from the necessity of speaking against the traps [insidia] and/or errors of heretics? And since the human need for speaking strives to proffer to human sense, what it holds in the sacristy [secretario] of the mind concerning God, whether through pious faith or through any understanding whatsoever, it feared to say (that They are) “three essences”, lest there would be understood in that most high Equality any diversity. Again it could not say, that there were not a certain Three; which because Sabellius has said (there were not), he had fallen into heresy. Therefore it asked, what it would say (that) the Three (are), and it said (that They are) “three persons” or “three substances”, according to the Greeks ».
¹ Cap. 4. n. 7. — Paulo ante Vat. cum nonnulis edd. omittit a ante Latinis. Verba in textu id est usque quam Latini inclusive a Magistro interpolata sunt. ² Solummodo Vat. et edd. 4, 6 post quae tria esse male addunt tria; edd. 5, 9 quia tria esse fides. [Trans. nota: In nota ista perperam legitur Quae pro prima quae et : pro ; ] ³ Vat. et edd. 4, 8 omittunt etiam. ⁴ Tres loci Augustini leguntur loc. cit. n. 7. et 8. ⁵ Hic Vat. et aliae edd. contra ed. 1 et omnes codd. addunt: id est hoc nomen persona. ⁶ Cap. 4. n. 8. — Ex codd. et plurimis edd. adiecimus ita ante ait. In fine textus Vat. et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5 bis addunt est, scil. post Pater et post Filius. ⁷ Ibid. paucis interpositis. — Paulo ante Vat. contra codd. et plures edd. addit hanc ante quaestionem. In ipso textu cod. D post textus addit scilicet novi et veteris Testamenti. ⁸ Deuter. 6, 4. Vulgata: Audi Israel, Dominus Deus noster, Dominus unus est. Cum Magistro et Augustino legunt Ambrosius, libr. I. de Fide ad Gratianum c. 1. n. 6 et c. 3. n. 23; et Hilarius, libr. IV. de Trinitate n. 8. — Immediate post cod. D solutio loco absolutio. Deinde pro illud ed. 6 illi. ⁹ Ibid. immediate post, et quod sequitur n. 9. — In fine primi textus ed. 1 post vocabulum addit et essentiam praedicat.	¹ Chapter 4, n. 7. — A little before this the Vatican edition, together with not a few editions, omits by [a] before the Latins [Latinis]. The words in the text that is . . . than the Latins [id est . . . quam Latini] has been interpolated by Master (Peter). ² Only the Vatican edition and editions 4 and 6, read badly which . . . the Three to be “three” [quae tria esse tria etc.]; editions 5 and 9 read because [quia] for which [quae]. [Trans. note: In this footnote the first quae was failty capitalized, and there was a colon in place of the semi-colon.] ³ The Vatican edition and editions 4 and 8 omit also [etiam]. ⁴ The three passages from (St.) Augustine are read in loc. cit., nn. 7 and 8. ⁵ Here the Vatican edition and the other editions, contrary to edition 1 and all the codices, add [Trans. note: faultily] that is, this name “person” [id est hoc nomen persona]. ⁶ Chapter 4, n. 8. — From the codices and very many editions, we insert thus [ita] before says [ait]. At the end of the text, the Vatican edition and editions 2, 3, 4, and 5 twice add is [est], namely after the Father [Pater] and after the Son [Filius]. ⁷ Ibid., with a few (words) interposed. — A little before this, the Vatican edition, contrary to the codices and very many editions, adds this [hanc] before question [quaestionem] [Trans. note: in place of the]. ⁸ Dt. 6:4. The Vulgate reads: Hear o Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is One [Audi Israel, Dominus Deus noster, Dominus unus est]. (St.) Ambrose in On the Faith to Gratian, Bk. I, ch. 1, n. 6 and ch. 3, n. 23, reads (the verse in the same way) with Master (Peter) and (St.) Augustine; and (St.) Hilarly (likewise), On the Trinity, Bk. IV, n. 8. — Immediately after this codex D has solution [solutio] in place of resolution [absolutio]. Then edition 6 has it [illi] for it [illud]. ⁹ Ibid. immediately afterwards, and what follow is from n. 9. — At the end of the first quote edition 1 adds and predicates the essence [et essentiam praedicat].

p.403

« Quod enim de personis secundum nostram, hoc de substantiis secundum Graecorum consuetudinem oportet intelligi. Sic enim dicunt illi tres substantias, unam essentiam, id est tres hypostases, unam usiam; quemadmodum nos dicimus tres personas, unam essentiam vel substantiam »;¹ « quamquam et illi, si vellent, sicut dicunt tres substantias, tres hypostases, possent dicere tres personas, tria prosopa. Illud autem maluerunt dicere, quia fortasse secundum linguae suae consuetudinem aptius dicitur ».	« For what one is bound to understand of “persons” according to our (language), this (one understands) of “substances” according to (that) of the Greeks. For in the same manner they say “the Three Substances” (are) “the one Essence”, that is, “the Three Hypostases”, “the one Ousia”; according to which manner we say “the three Persons” (are) “the one Essence and/or Substance” »;¹ « though they also, if they want, just as they say “three substances” (are) “three hypostases”, they can say “three persons” (are) “three prosopa”. But they preferred to say the former, because perhaps, according to the custom of their own tongue, it is more aptly said ».
Cap. V. Quod in Trinitate non est diversitas vel singularitas vel solitudo, sed unitas et trinitas et distinctio et identitas.	Chapter V That in the Trinity there is not a diversity and/or singularity and/or solitude, but a Unity and a Trinity and distinction and identity.
Iam sufficienter, ut puto, ostensum est, qua necessitate dicamus tres personas, et quare non similiter tres deos vel essentias, quia scilicet in altero obviat Scriptura, in altero diversitatis intelligentia; quia ibi nulla penitus est diversitas, sicut nec singularitas vel solitudo, sed unitas et trinitas. Unde Augustinus in libro septimo de Trinitate² ait: « Humana inopia quaerens, quid diceret tria, dixit tres personas vel substantias, quibus nominibus non diversitatem voluit intelligi, sed singularitatem noluit, ut non solum ibi unitas intelligatur ex eo, quod dicitur una essentia, sed trinitas ex eo, quod dicuntur tres personae ». Hilarius quoque in libro septimo de Trinitate³ ait: « Dominus dicit:⁴ Qui me videt, videt et Patrem. Cum hoc dicitur, excluditur singularis atque unici, id est solitarii intelligentia. Nam nec solitarium sermo significat, et indifferentem tamen naturam professio docet. Visus est enim in Filio Pater per naturae unitam similitudinem. Unum sunt enim natus et generans, unum sunt neque unus. Non itaque solitarius Filius est nec singularis nec dispar ». Item in eodem:⁵ « Sicut in Patre et Filio credere duos deos impium est, ita Patrem et Filium singularem Deum praedicare sacrilegum est. Nihil in his novum, nihil diversum, nihil alienum, nihil separabile est ». De hoc etiam Augustinus in libro Questionem veteris ac novae Legis⁶ ait: « Unus est Deus, sed non singularis ». Item Ambrosius in libro de Fide⁷ ait: « Quod unius est substantiae separari non potest, etsi non sit singularitatis, sed unitatis ». « Deus unus cum dicitur, nequaquam Deitatis trinitatem excludit et ideo non quod singularitatis, sed quod unitatis est praedicatur ». Ecce ex praedictis ostenditur, quod nec singularis nec diversus nec unicus vel solitarius confitendus est Deus, quia singularitas vel solitudo personarum pluralitatem excludit, et diversitas unitatem essentiae tollit. Diversitas inducit separationem Divinitatis, singularitas adimit distinctionem Trinitatis. Ideo Ambrosius in secundo libro de Fide⁸ ait: « Non est diversa nec singularis aequalitas »; « nec iuxta Sabellianos Patrem Filiumque confundens, nec iuxta Arianos Patrem Filiumque secernens. Pater enim et Filius distinctionem habent, separationem vero non habent ». Item in eodem:⁹ « Pater et Filius divinitate unum sunt, nec est ibi substantiae differentia nec ulla diversitas; alioquin quomodo unum Deum dicimus? Diversitas enim plures facit ». Constat ergo ex praedictis, quia in Trinitate nulla est diversitas; si tamen aliquando in Scriptura invenitur dictum tres diversae personae et huiusmodi, diversas dicit distinctas.	It has already been shown sufficiently, I think, by what necessity we say (that They are) “three persons”, and for what reason we (do) not (say that They are) “three gods and/or essences”, because, namely, in the one Scripture goes against it, in the other the understanding of a diversity (does); because there is thoroughly no diversity There, just as (there is) neither singularity and/or solitude, but (rather) a unity and trinity. Wherefore (St.) Augustine in the seventh book On the Trinity² says: « Human need seeking, what it would say that the Three (are), said (that They are) “three persons and/or substances”, by which names it wanted that a diversity not be understood, but (similarly) it did not want a singularity, so that not only a unity be understood There from that, which is said (to be) “the one Essence”, but a trinity from that, which the Three Persons are said (to be) ». (St.) Hilary also in the seventh book On the Trinity³ says: « The Lord says:⁴ He who sees me, sees also the Father. When He says this, there is excluded the understanding of a singular and also a unique, that is, a solitary. For neither does (His) discourse signify a solitary (Person), yet (His) profession does teach an un-differing Nature. For the Father has been seen in the Son through a united similitude of nature. For one (Being) [unum] are the One born and the One Generating, They are one (Being) and not one (Person) [unus]. And so the Son is not solitary, nor singular nor disparate ». Likewise in the same (book):⁵ « Just as in the Father and the Son it is impious to believe (that there are) two gods, so it is a sacrilege to preach that the Father and the Son (are) a singular God. Nothing among Them is new, nothing diverse, nothing alien, nothing separable ». Of this also (St.) Augustine in the book The Question on the Old and New Law⁶ says: « God is one, but not singular ». Likewise (St.) Ambrose in the book On the Faith⁷ says: « What is of one substance cannot be separated, even if it belongs not to a singularity, but to a unity ». « When there is said “the One God”, there is not at all excluded the Trinity of the Deity and for that reason there is preached not what (belongs) to a singularity, but what (belongs) to a unity ». Behold, from the aforesaid it is shown, that God is neither to be confessed (to be) “singular”, nor “diverse” nor “unique” and/or “solitary”, because singularity and/or solitude excludes the plurality of Persons, and diversity bear off the Unity of the Essence. A diversity induces a separation of the Divinity, a singularity takes away the distinction of the Trinity. For that reason (St.) Ambrose in the second book On the Faith⁸ says: « The equality is neither diverse nor singular »; « nor (is it an equality) according to the Sabellians, confounding the Father and the Son, nor according to the Arians, separating [secernens] the Father and the Son. For the Father and the Son have a distinction, but They do not have a separation ». Likewise in the same (work):⁹ « The Father and the Son according to the Divinity are one (Being), nor is there a difference of substance nor any diversity There; otherwise in what manner do we say (that there is) one God? For diversity causes many (things to be) ». It is established, therefore, from the aforesaid, that in the Trinity there is no diversity; yet if, at some time, there is found said in Scripture (that there are) three diverse Persons and (sayings) of this kind, it means (that) the diverse (Persons are) distinct (Persons).
Cap. VI. Quod non debet dici Deus multiplex.	Chapter VI That God ought not be said (to be) “manifold”.
Et sicut in Trinitate non est diversitas, ita nec multiplicitas, et ideo non est dicendus Deus multiplex, sed trinus et simplex. Unde Ambrosius in primo libro de Fide ait: « Est in Patre et Filio non discrepans, sed una divinitas, nec confusum quod unum est, nec multiplex esse potest quod indifferens est ». Multiplex itaque Deus non est.	And just as in the Trinity there is no diversity, so neither a multiplicity, and for that reason God is not to be said (to be) manifold [multiplex], bur (rather) Triune and Simple. Whence (St.) Ambrose in the first book On the Faith¹⁰ says: « There is in the Father and the Son no discrepancy [non discrepans], but one Divinity, nor is what is One, confused, nor can what is un-differing, be manifold ». And thus God is not manifold.
¹ Ibid. n. 8; sed verba id est usque usiam a Magistro inserta sunt. Locus sequens est ibid. c. 6. n. 11. ² Cap. 4, n. 9. — Paulo infra post tria sola Vat. dicit pro dixit. ³ Num. 38. et 39. — Sed textum hunc Magister ex septem locis Hilarii contextuit; quod, ut ipsius methodus exemplo aliquo illustretur, hic lectoris oculis subiicimus. Verba: Dominus dicit etc. sunt ex n. 38; Nam nec solitarium etc. ibid. paulo ante; Visus est etc. ibid. paulo post; Unum sunt enim natus et generans, n. 39. Unum sunt neque unus, n. 38; non itaque solitarius Filius est, n. 39; nec singularis nec dispar, n. 38. ⁴ Ioan. 14, 9. — Paulo infra post excluditur Vat. et aliae edd. contra ed. 1, omnes codd. et originale singularitas pro singularis. ⁵ Ibid. n. 39, sed ordine propositionum immutato. Pro sacrilegum aliqui codd. et edd. 1, 2 habent sacrilegium. ⁶ Quaestiones, scil. ex veteri et novo Testamento mixtim, quaest. 122. Non sunt Augustini, sed potius auctoris haeretici, fortasse Hilarii diaconi, de quo supra dist. XIX. locuti sumus. In textu Vat. cum originali, sed contra omnes codd. et alias edd., solitarius pro singularis. ⁷ Libr. V. c. 3. n. 46. — Locus sequens est loc. cit. II. c. 1. n. 18. Finito textus, post ostenditur omnes codd. et ed. 1 quod loco quia, quod habent Vat. et aliae edd. ⁸ Cap. 8. n. 69. — Sequens textus est ibid. c. 3. n. 33. ⁹ In eodem opere, sed libr. I. c. 2. n. 18. et 19. ¹⁰ Cap. 2. n. 17.	¹ Ibid. n. 8; but the words that is, “the Three Hypostases”, “the one Ousia” [id est tres hypostases, unam usiam] have been inserted by Master (Peter). The following passage is ibid., ch. 6, n. 11. ² Chapter 4, n. 9. — A little below this the Vatican edition alone reads says [dicit] for said [dixit]. ³ Numbers 38 and 39. — But Master (Peter) has woven this text together from seven passages of (St.) Hilary; which, to illustrate his method by an example, we here submit to the eyes of the reader: The first sentence and the second are from n. 38; the third is also from n. 38, a little before it; the fourth likewise, but a little after it; the first half of the fifth from n. 39; the second half from n. 38; the first half of the sixth from n. 39, the second half from n. 38. ⁴ Jn. 14:9. — A little below this the Vatican edition and the other editions, contrary to edition 1, to all the codices and to the original, read there is excluded a singularity and also the understanding of a unique, that is, a solitary [exluditur singularitas atque unici, id est solitarii intelligentia]. ⁵ Ibid., n. 39, but with the order of the propositions changed. For a sacrilege [sacrilegum] some codices and editions 1 and 2, have sacrilegious [sacrilegium]. ⁶ Mixed Questions from the Old and New Testament, question 122. These do not belong to (St.) Augustine, but rather to a heretical author, perhaps Hilary the Deacon, of whom, we have spoken in Distinction XIX, p. I, ch. 4, p. 337, footnote 8. In the text, the Vatican edition together with the original, but contrary to all the codices and the other editions, has solitary [solitarius] for singular [singularis]. ⁷ Book V, ch. 3, n. 46. — The following passage is loc. cit., Bk. II, ch. 1. n. 18. After the end of the texts, all the codices and edition 1 have that [quod] for the that [quia], which the Vatican edition and the other editions have. ⁸ Chapter 8, n. 69. — The following quote is ibid., ch. 3, n. 33. ⁹ In the same work, but Bk. II, ch. 2, nn. 18 and 19. ¹⁰ Chapter 2,n. 17.

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.

Sententiarum Quatuor Libri

The Four Books of Sentences