LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 24: 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 XXIV.	DISTINCTION 24
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 418-419. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 418-419. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
Cap. Unicum. Quid significetur his nominibus: unus vel una, duo vel duae, tres vel tria, trinus vel trinitas, plures vel pluralitas, distinctio vel distinctae, cum his utimur loquentes de Deo.	Chapter Sole. What is signified by these names: “one”, “two”, “three”, “triune” and/or “trinity”, “many” and/or “plurality”, “distinction” and/or “distinct”, when we use them, speaking of God.
Hic diligenter inquiri oportet, cum in Trinitate non sit diversitas vel singularitas, nec multiplicitas vel solitudo, quid significetur his nominibus, scilicet unus vel una, duo vel duae, tres vel tria, trinus vel trinitas, plures vel pluralitas, distinctae vel distinctio, cum dicitur: unus Deus, duae personae vel tres personae, plures personae, distinctae sunt personae; vel cum dicitur: distinctio personarum, pluralitas personarum, trinitas personarum et huiusmodi. Videmur enim hoc dicentes numerorum quantitates et rerum multitudinem vel multiplicitatem in Deo ponere. Quid ergo ista ibi¹ significent, ipso de quo loquimur aperiente, insinuare curemus.	Here it is opportune that there be a diligent inquiry [diligenter inquiri], since in the Trinity there is no diversity and/or singularity, nor multiplicity and/or solitude, what is signified by these names, that is, by “one”, “two”, “three”, “triune” and/or “trinity”, “many” and/or “plurality”, “distinct” and/or “distinction”, when there is said: “one God”, “Two Persons” and/or “Three Persons”, “many Persons” [plures personae], “the Persons are distinct” [distinctae sunt personae]; and/or when there is said: “the distinction of the Persons”, “the plurality of the Persons”, “the Trinity of the Persons” and (sayings) of this kind. For by this we seem to be saying [videmur dicentes] that one posits in God quantities of numbers and a multitude of things and/or a multiplicity. Therefore, by revealing [aperiente] that of which we speak, let us take care to review [insinuare], what these signify There.¹
Si diligenter praemissis auctoritatum verbis² intendimus, ut dictorum intelligentiam capiamus, magis videtur horum verborum usus introductus ratione removendi atque excludendi a simplicitate deitatis quae ibi non sunt, quam ponendi aliqua.	If we diligently look into [intendimus] the aforesaid words of the authorities, to grasp the understanding of the (things) said, the use of these words seems (to have been) introduced by reason of removing and excluding from the simplicity of the Deity (those things) which are not There, rather than of positing any.
Cum enim dicitur: unus Deus, multitudo deorum excluditur, nec numerari quantitas in divinitate ponitur, tanquam diceretur: Deus est, nec multi sunt vel plures dii. Unde Ambrosius in primo libro de Fide³ ait: « Cum unum dicimus Deum, unitas excludit numerum deorum nec quantitatem in Deo ponit, quia nec numerus nec quantitas ibi est ».	For when there is said: “one God”, a multitude of gods is excluded, nor is there posited in the Divinity a quantity to be numbered, as if there were said: “God is, nor are there many or more gods”. Whence (St.) Ambrose in the first book On the Faith³ says: « When we say “one God”, the unity excludes a number of gods and does not posit a quantity in God, because neither number nor quantity is There ».
Similiter, cum dicitur: unus est Pater, vel unus est Filius, et huiusmodi, ratio dicti haec est, quod non sunt multi patres vel multi filii, ita et de similibus.	Similarly, when there is said: “one is the Father”, and/or “one is the Son”, and (sayings) of this kind, this is the reckoning of the saying, that there are not many fathers and/or many sons, thus also concerning similar (expressions).
Item, cum dicimus: plures esse personas, singularitatem atque solitudinem excludimus, non diversitatem vel multiplicitatem⁴ ibi ponimus, quasi diceretur: sine solitudine ac singularitate personas confitemur. Unde Hilarius in libro quarto de Trinitate⁵ sic ait: « Dixit Deus: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Quaero nunc, an solum Deum sibi locutum existimes, an hunc sermonem eius intelligas ad alterum extitisse? Si solum fuisse dicis, ipsius voce argueris dicentis: Faciamus et nostram. Sustulit enim singularitatis ac solitudinis intelligentiam professio consortii, quia aliquod consortium esse non potest ipsi solitario, neque solitudo solitarii recipit faciamus nec alieno a se diceret nostram ». Attende, lector, his verbis et vide, quia nomine consortii pluralitatem significavit. Professio ergo consortii est professio pluralitatis, quam professus est dicens faciamus et nostram. Pluraliter enim utrumque dicitur; sed hac professione pluralitatis non diversitatem vel multitudinem posuit, sed solitudinem et singularitatem negavit. Sic ergo, cum dicimus: plures personas vel pluralitatem personarum, singularitatis et solitudinis intelligentiam excludimus.	Likewise, when we say: “that there are many [plures] Persons”, we exclude singularity and solitude, (and) we do not posit a diversity and/or multiplicity⁴ There, as if there were said: “we confess the Persons without solitude and singularity”. Whence (St.) Hilary in the fourth book On the Trinity⁵ thus says: « God said: Let Us make man to Our image and similitude. I ask now, whether you estimate that a lone God spoke to Himself, or do you understand this sermon of His to have existed for another? If you say that He was alone, you are convicted [argueris] by the Voice Itself, saying: Let Us make and Our. For the profession of company [consortii] takes away the understanding of singularity and solitude, because there cannot be any company with a solitary itself, nor does the solitude of a solitary receive a “Let Us make” nor to an alien to one’s self would one say “Ours” ». Attend to these words, reader, and see, that (God) has signified a plurality by the name of ‘company’. The profession, therefore, of company is a profession of plurality, which (God) has professed saying “Let Us make” and “Our”. For each is said in the plural; but by the profession of this plurality (God) has not posited a diversity and/or a multiplicity, but has denied a solitude and a singularity. Thus, therefore, when we say: that there are many Persons and/or a plurality of Persons, we exclude the understanding of a singularity and solitude.
Ita etiam, cum dicimus: tres personae, nomine ternarii non quantitatem numeri in Deo ponimus vel aliquam diversitatem, sed intelligentiam non ad alium nisi ad Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum dirigendam significamus, ut sit haec⁶ dicti intelligentia: tres personae sunt, vel tres sunt Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, id est, nec tantum Pater nec tantum Filius nec tantum Pater et Filius in deitate sunt, sed etiam Spiritus sanctus, et non alius ab his. Similiter, non tantum est ibi haec persona vel illa, vel haec et illa, sed haec et illa et illa,⁷ et non alia. Et hoc fore ita intelligendum Augustinus satis ostendit, ubi dicit,⁸ quod illo nomine non diversitatem intelligi voluit, sed singularitatem noluit.	Thus also, when we say: “Three Persons” [tres personae], by the name of a group of three [ternarii] we do not posit a quantity of number in God and/or any diversity, but we signify that the understanding (is to be) directed to no other (being) except to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that the understanding of the saying [dicti] is this:⁶ ‘there are Three Persons’, and/or ‘the Three are the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit’, that is, ‘not only the Father, nor only the Son, nor only the Father and the Son, are in the Deity, but also the Holy Spirit, and no other (person) than These’. Similarly, ‘not only is this Person and/or That, and/or This and that (Person) is There, but this (Person) and That and That,⁷ and no other (person)’. And (St.) Augustine sufficiently shows that thus this will be understood, where he says,⁸ that by that name (human need) wanted no diversity to be understood, but was (similarly) unwilling that a singularity (be understood).
Similiter, cum dicimus:⁹ duo sunt Pater et Filius, non dualitatis quantitatem ibi ponimus, sed hoc significamus, quod non est tantum Pater nec tantum Filius, sed Pater et Filius, et hic non est ille; ita et de aliis huiusmodi. Ita etiam cum dicimus: Pater et Filius sunt duae personae, hoc significamus, quod non tantum Pater est persona, nec tantum Filius est persona, sed Pater est persona, et Filius est persona, et haec non est illa.	Similarly, when we say:⁹ “the Father and the Son are two [duo]”, we do not posit the quantity of duality There, but signify this, that there is not only the Father nor only the Son, but the Father and the Son, and this One is not that One; and thus of the other (sayings) of this kind. Thus also, when we say: “the Father and the Son are two [duae] Persons”, we signify this, that not only the Father is a Person, nor only the Son is a Person, but the Father is a Person, and the Son is a Person, and this (Person) is not that (Person).
Cum autem dicimus: distinctae sunt¹⁰ personae, vel distinctio est in personis, confusionem atque permixtionem excludimus, et hanc non esse illam significamus. Cumque addimus: distinctae sunt personae proprietatibus sive differentes proprietatibus, aliam esse hanc personam et aliam illa suis proprietatibus, aliam esse hanc personam et aliam illam suis proprietatibus significamus. Et cum dicimus: aliam et aliam, non diversitatem vel alienationem ibi ponimus, sed confusionem Sabellianam excludimus.	Moreover, when we say: “the Persons are¹⁰ distinct” [distinctae], and/or “there is a distinction among the Persons”, we exclude (Their) confusion and thorough mingling [permixtionem], and we signify that this (Person) is not that (Person). And when we add: “the Persons are distinguished by properties or (are) different by properties”, we signify that One is this Person and the Other (is) that (Person) by Their own properties. And when we say: “the One and the Other” [aliam et aliam], we do not posit a diversity and/or alienation (of Persons) There, but we do exclude the Sabellius’ confusion (of the Persons).
Ita etiam, cum dicuntur discretae personae, vel cum dicitur discretio esse in personis, eandem intelligentiam facimus. Eo¹¹ enim modo ibi accipitur distin- / -ctio, . . .	Thus also, when the Persons are said (to be) discrete [discretae], and/or when a discretion [discretio] is said to be among the Persons, we cause the same signification. For distinction is accepted There in that¹¹ manner, . . .
¹ Solummodo Vat. et ed. 6 cum cod. D non bene sibi. ² Scilicet d. XXIII. Sententia Magistri opinantis, unitatem et numeros in divinis tantum privative, non positive, accipi, ab aliis Scholasticis communius non tenetur; cfr. Comment. Bonaventurae, hic a. 1. q. 1, a. 2. q. 2. ³ Cap. 2. n. 19; secundum sensum. Sic enim legitur in Ambrosio: « Diversitas plures facit, unitas potestatis excludit numeri quantitatem, quia unitas numerus non est ». Eadem repetit Ambros., III. de Spiritu sancto, c. 13. n. 93. — Codd. omnes et edd. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9 citant librum Ambrossi sub titulo de Trinitate. Paulo ante solummodo Vat. et ed. 1 adiiciunt si post tanquam. ⁴ Vat. et edd., exceptis 1, 6, contra codd. legunt nec diversitatem nec multiplicitatem. ⁵ Num. 17. Ultima tamen verba ab originali non parum differunt, sic dicente Hilario: Sustulit singularis intelligentiam professione consortii. Consortium autem esse aliquod solitario ipse (al. ipsi) sibi non potest. Neque rursum recipit solitarii solitudo faciamus; neque quisquam alieno a se nostrum loquitur. — Locus a s. Scripturae est Gen. 1, 26. ⁶ Vat. et plures edd. huius, contra omnes codd. et ed. 1. ⁷ Vat. et ed. 2 omittunt et illa, quod hic significat tertiam personam Trinitatis. ⁸ Libr. VII. de Trin. c. 4. n. 9. ⁹ Vat. cum pluribus edd. dicitur. ¹⁰ Solummodo Vat. et ed. 4 omittunt sunt. ¹¹ Vat. et plures edd. eodem, et paulo ante Ita et loco Ita etiam.	¹ Only the Vatican edition and edition 6, together with codex D, has not so well to themselves [sibi] for There [ibi]. [Trans. note: Here Master Peter Lombard discusses, among others, the differing significations of the Latin words for one [unus, una], two [duo, duae] and three [tres, tria], which on account of having gender in Latin, can have a broader meaning that merely numerical signification. It also should be evident, thus far, that the Latin word plures means not simply many, but more than one, in the sense of plural ones; when not contrasted with the proper Latin word for many [multus], it is rendered as many in English. This alters slightly the signification of the English translation from that of the Latin text, throughout the Commentary.] ² Namely, in d. XXIII. The sentence of Master (Peter) which says, that unity and numbers are only to be accepted in the divine privatively, not positively, is not held more commonly by the other Scholastics; cf. St. Bonaventure’s Commentaria, here in a. 1, q. 1, and in a. 2, q. 2. ³ Chapter 2, n. 19; according to its sense. For thus there is read in (St.) Ambrose: « A diversity makes “many”, a unity of power excludes a quantity of number, because a unity is not a number ». (St.) Ambrose repeats the same opinion in On the Holy Spirit, Bk. III, ch. 13, n. 93. — All the codices and editions 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9, cite the book of St. Ambrose under the title On the Trinity [de Trinitate]. A little before this only the Vatican edition and edition 1 insert if [si] after as if [tanquam]. ⁴ The Vatican edition and the editions, except nns. 1 and 6, contrary to the codices, read we posit neither a diversity nor a multiplicity [nec diversitatem nec multiplicitatem . . . ponimus]. ⁵ Number 17. However the final words differ not a little from the original, with (St.) Hilary saying: He took away the understanding of a singular by the profession of company. But there cannot be any company with a solitary to itself. Nor, again, does the solitude of a solitary receive a “Let Us make”; nor does anyone say “Our” to an alien to oneself. — The passage of Scripture is Gen. 1:26. ⁶ The Vatican edition and very many editions have of this saying is [est huius dicti], contrary to all the codices and edition 1. ⁷ The Vatican edition and edition 1 omits and That [et illa], which here signifies the Third Person of the Trinity. ⁸ On the Trinity, Bk VII, ch. 4, n. 9. [Trans. note. human need is supplied, from the context of the passage in St. Augustine.] ⁹ The Vatican edition, together with very many editions, reads there is said [dicitur] for we say [dicimus]. ¹⁰ Only the Vatican edition and edition 4 omit are [sunt]. ¹¹ The Vatican edition and very many editions have the same [eodem] for that [eo], and a little before this Thus also [Ita et] in place of Thus also [Ita etiam].

p. 419

distin- / -ctio, quo discretio. Et congrue dicitur ibi esse discretio vel distinctio, non diversitas vel divisio sive separatio. Unde Ambrosius in primo libro de Fide:¹ « Non est ipse Pater, qui Filius, sed inter Patrem et Filium expressa distinctio est ».	in which discretion (is likewise found). And congruously is there said There to be a discretion and/or a distinction, not a diversity and/or a division or a separation. Whence (St.) Ambrose in the first book On the Faith (says):¹ « It is not the Father Himself, who is the Son, but between the Father and the Son there is an expressed distinction ».
Cum vero dicitur:² trinitas, id significari videtur, quod significatur, cum dicitur: tres personae, ut, sicut non potest dici: Pater est tres personae, vel Filius est tres personae, ita non debeat dici: Pater est trinitas, vel Filius est trinitas.	However, when there is said:² “the Trinity”, it seems that there is signified that, which is signified, when there is said: “the Three Persons”, as, just as there cannot be said: “the Father is the Three Persons”, and/or “the Son is the Three Persons”, so there ought not be said: “the Father is the Trinity”, and/or “the Son is the Trinity”.
Hic non est praetermittendum, quod, cum supra dictum sit,³ Deum nec singularem nec multiplicem esse confidendum, idque Sanctorum auctoritatibus sit confirmatum, in contrarium videtur sentire Isidorus dicens:⁴ « Distinguendum est inter trinitatem et unitatem. Est enim unitas simplex et singularis, trinitas vero multiplex et numerabilis; quia est trinitas trium unitas ». Ecce unitatem dicit esse singularem, et trinitatem multiplicem et numerabilem. Sed ad hoc dicimus, quia singularem accepit, sicut et alii accipiunt unum; multiplicem vero et numerabilem,⁵ sicut alii dicunt trinum.	Here there must not be overlooked [praetermittendum], that, since as has been said above,³ God is not to be confessed to be singular nor manifold, and that has been confirmed by the authorities of the Saints, (St.) Isidore seems to think in the contrary, saying:⁴ « One must distinguish between a trinity and a unity. For a unity (is) simple and singular, but a trinity (is) manifold and numerable; because a trinity is a unity of three ». Behold he says that a unity is singular, and a trinity manifold and numerable. But to this we say, that he accepts “singular”, just as the others accept “one” [unum]; but “manifold” and “numerable”,⁵ just as the others say “triune”.
¹ Id est, de Fide at Gratianum, c. 2. n. 16. ² Edd. 2, 5 addunt Deus trinus vel cum dicitur. ³ Dist. XXIII. c. 6. ⁴ Non invenimus in editionibus Isidori locum istum (etiam ab aliis Scholasticis citatum), scilicet verba: Est unitas simplex et singularis, trinitas vero multiplex et numerabilis. ⁵ Sola Vat. numeralem, et postea omittit alii. Ed. 8 sicut post accipiunt unum glossando addit in essentia, ita in fine trinum addit in personis.	¹ That is, On the Faith to Gratian, ch. 2, n. 16. ² Editions 2 and 5 add “the Triune God” and/or when there is said [Deus trinus vel cum dicitur]. ³ Distinction XXIII, ch. 6. ⁴ We have not found this passage in the editions of (St.) Isidore, cited even by the other Scholastics: A unity is simple and singular, but a trinity manifold and numerable. ⁵ Only the Vatican edition has numeral [numeralem], and afterwards reads they for the others [alii]. Edition 8, just as after accept “one” [accipiunt unum] by glossing it adds in regard to the Essence [in essentia], so at the end adds in regard to the Persons [in personis].

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