LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 26: 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 XXVI.	DISTINCTION 26
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 447-450. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 447-450. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
Cap. I. De hoc nomine “hypostasis”.*	Chapter I. On this name “hypostasis”.*
Nunc de proprietatibus personarum, quas frequenter in hoc tractatu commemoravimus, aliquid nos loqui oportet. Sed primum audiamus, quid de hoc nomine hypostasis Hieronymus dicit. Ait enim, sub hoc nomine venenum laetere. Sed hoc dicit, secundum quod haeretici eo utebantur, ut simplices seducerent, scilicet pro persona et pro essentia, ut, sive diceretur una tantum hypostasis sive tres, minus peritos ad inconveniens deducerent, cum non erat hoc nomen ita apud catholicos vulgatum, nec ita eius significatio determinata, ut modo. Et ideo Hieronymus dicit, hoc nomine non utendum fore sine distinctione vel expositione, tunc scilicet, quando cum haereticis contendebatur, ita scribens de Fide catholica ad Damasum Papam:¹ « Ab Arianorum praesule hypostaseon novellum nomen a me homine Romano exigitur. Interrogamus, quid tres hypostases arbitrentur intelligi; tres personas subsistentes, aiunt. Respondemus, nos ita credere. Non sufficit eis sensus, ipsum nomen efflagitant; quia nescio quid veneni in syllabis latet. Clamamus: si quis tres hypostases, id est, res subsistentes personas non confitetur, anathema sit. Si quis autem, hypostasim usiam intelligens, non tribus personis unam hypostasim indicit, alienus a Christo est, qui scilicet, tres hypostases dicens, sub nomine pietatis tres naturae conatur asserere. Sufficiat nobis dicere unam substantiam et tres personas perfectas aequales; taceamus tres hypostases, si placet. Nomen hoc non bonae suspicionis est, cum in eodem verbo sensus dissentiunt. Aut si rectum putatis, tres hypostases cum interpretationibus suis debere nos dicere, non negamus. Sed mihi credite, venenum sub melle latet: transfigurat enim se angelus satanae in Angelum lucis ».² His verbis non negat, utendum esse nomine hypostasis, sed haereticos eo prave usos ostendit, contra quos cautela opus erat in distinctione significationis; alioquin sibi contradiceret, qui supra tres hypostases confitetur.	Now concerning the properties of the Persons, which we have frequently called to mind in this treatise, it is necessary for us to say something. But first let us hear, what (St.) Jerome says concerning this name “hypostasis”. For he says, that under this name there lies hidden a poison. But he says this, according to which the heretics used to use it, to seduce the simple, that is, for a Person and for the Essence, so that, whether there was only said (to be) one Hypostasis or Three, they would lead the less experienced to an unfitting (conclusion), then this name was not so common [vulgatam] among Catholics, nor (was) its signification so determined, as (it is) now. And for that reason (St.) Jerome says, that this name is not to be used without a distinction and/or an exposition, at that time, that is, when he use to contend with heretics, writing thus of the Catholic faith to Pope Damasus:¹ « From the Dancer of the Arians there was exacted by me, a Roman man, a novel word, “hypostasis”. We sought by questioning [interrogamus], “What do they judge three “hypostases” to be understood (to be)?”, “Three subsistent Persons”, they said. We responded, that thus do we believe (Them to be). The sense was not sufficient for them, they urgently asked for the name itself; because I was ignorant of what (kind) of poison lay hidden in its syllables. We shouted: “If any of the three Hypostases, that is, subsistent things, is not confessed (to be) Persons, anathema sit! But if anyone, understanding a hypostasis (to be) an ousia, does not indicate [indicit] the Three Persons to be one Hypostasis, he is alien to Christ, who, that is, saying (that there are) “three hypostases”, strives to assert under a name of piety three natures. Let it suffice for us (Catholics) to say that (there is) one Substance and Three Persons, perfectly equal; let us be silent regarding “three hypostases”, if you please. This name is not one of good esteem [bonae suspicionis], when in the same word the (various) senses (of it) disagree. Either, if you think that it is right, that we ought to say that (there are) three “hypostases” with their interpretations, we do not deny it. But believe me, a poison lies hidden beneath the honey: for an angel of Satan transfigures himself into an Angel of light ».² With these words he does not deny, that the name “hypostasis” is to be used, but he shows that the heretics used it in a depraved manner, against which there was a need for caution in distinguishing the signification (of it); otherwise the one who confessed that (there are) “three hypostases”, would have contradicted himself.
Cap. II. De proprietatibus personarum et de nominibus earum relativis.	Chapter II. On the properties of the Persons and on the names relative to these.
Iam de proprietatibus personarum videamus, quae etiam notiones sive relationes in Scriptura plerumque dicuntur in illa Trinitate sancta; quae ideo a nobis repetitur,³ ut nostra cordi tenacius infigatur. Ait Augustinus in libro de Fide ad Petrum:⁴ « Aliud est genuisse quam natum esse, aliudque est procedere quam genuisse vel natum esse. Unde manifestum est, quod alius est Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus sanctus ». « Et est proprium solius Patris, non quia non est natus ipse, sed quia . . .	Let us now see, concerning the properties of the Persons, which are also said in Scripture, for the most part, (to be) the notions or relations in that Holy Trinity; which, for that reason, is recalled [repetitur] by us, so that It may be more tenaciously infixed in our heart.³ (St.) Augustine says in the book On the Faith to Peter:⁴ « ‘To have begotten’ is other than ‘to have been born’ and ‘to proceed’ is other than ‘to have begotten’ and/or ‘to have been born’. Whence it is manifest, that One is the Father, Another the Son, Another the Holy Spirit ». « And it is proper to the Father alone, not that He has not Himself been born, but that . . .
* [Trans. nota: Hic hypostasis originaliter in edition critica perperam legitur in italico in loco cum letteris normalibus; quia in titulis capitulorum usus scribendi patrum Quaracchiorum est sine lettteris italicis quando significatur nomen rei et non res.] ¹ Epist. 15. n. 3; in quo textu pro indicit ed. 2 inducit; originale dicit, sed adiicit particulam in ante tribus personis. Deinde codd. A C D E et ed. 1 cum originali omittunt Nomen hoc post si placet, quae lectio, licet minus clara, fortasse genuina est. Immediate post in originali legitur in eodem sensu verba dissentiunt pro in eodem verbo sensus dissentiunt; haec tamen lectio Magistri omnino praeferenda est. ² Respicitur ad II. Cor. 11, 14. ³ Solummodo ed 2 repetuntur, ut cordi nostro tenacius infigantur, scilicet proprietates personarum; in nostra textu haec propositio refertur ad Trinitate sancta. ⁴ Cap. 1. n. 6. Sequens locus ibid. c. 2. n. 7.	* [Trans. note: Here the original critical text faultily reads hypostasis in italics, rather than in normal text; because according to the usage of the Quaracchi Editors, a term written without italicization in a chapter title is one which is used as the name of a thing rather than the thing itself; and since hypostasis is a nominative form, it must be used here in the sense of the word, rather than the thing.] ¹ Epistle 15, n. 3; in which text edition 2 has induce [inducit] for indicate [indicit]; the original has say [dicit], but it inserts the particle in [in] before the three persons [tribus personis]. Then codices A C D E and edition 1, together with the original, read let us be silent regarding “three hypostases”, if you please; it is not (a name) of good esteem [taceamus; tres hypostases, si placet non bonae suspicionis est], which reading, though less clear, perhaps is genuine. Immediately after this in the original there is read the words disagree in the same sense [in eodem sensu verba dissentiunt] for in the same word the (various) senses (of it) disagree [in eodem verbo sensus dissentiunt]; however this latter reading of Master (Peter) is entirely to be preferred. ² A reference to 2 Cor. 11:14. ³ Only edition 2 reads are recalled by us, so that they may be more tenaciously infixed in our heart [a nobis repetuntur, ut cordi nostro tenacious infigantur], that is, “the properties of the persons”; in our text this proposition is referred to the Holy Trinity [Trinitate sancta]. ⁴ Chapter 1, n. 6. The following passage is ibid., ch. 2, n. 7.

p. 448

unum Filium genuit; propriumque solius Filius, non quia ipse non genuit, sed quia de Patris essentia natus est; proprium vero Spiritus sancti est, non quia nec natus est ipse nec genuit, sed quia solus de Patre Filioque procedit ». Ecce breviter assignavit tres proprietates trium personarum, quarum una non est alia. Hoc enim significavit, cum dixit: Aliud est genuisse quam natum esse, aliudque procedere, id est, alia proprietas sive notio est generatio, et alia nativitas, alia processio, quae aliis nominibus dicuntur paternitas, filiatio, spiratio.¹ Has proprietates designant illa nomina personarum, scilicet Pater, Filius et Spiritus sanctus, quae relativa sunt et ad se invicem dicuntur; quia notant relationes, quae non sunt Deo accidentales, sed ipsis personis ab aeterno sunt immutabiliter, ut non modo appellationes sint relativae, sed etiam relationes sive notiones in rebus ipsis, scilicet in personis sint.	He begot one Son; and (it is) proper to the Son alone, not that He did not beget, but that He has been born from the Essence of the Father; but it is proper to the Holy Spirit, not that He has neither Himself been born nor has He begotten, but that He alone proceeds from the Father and the Son ». Behold he briefly assigned the three properties of the Three Persons, of which one is not the other. For he signified this, when he said: “ ‘To have begotten’ is other than to have been born, and ‘to proceed’ (is) another”, that is, one property or notion is generation, and another (is) nativity, another procession, which by other names are said (to be) the paternity, the filiation, (and) the spiration.¹ These properties those names of the Persons designate, namely, “Father”, “Son” and “Holy Spirit”, which are relative (names) and are said regarding one another; because they note the relations, which are not accidental to God, but belong immutably to the Persons Themselves from eternity, so that the appellations are not merely [modo] relative, but are also the relations or notions in the Things Themselves, namely, in the Persons.
Cap. III. Quod non omnia dicuntur de Deo secundum substantiam; quaedam enim secundum relationem, nihil tamen secundum accidens.	Chapter III. That not all (names) are said of God according to substance; for certain ones (are said) according to relation, however nothing (is said) according to accident.
Quocirca sciendum est, non omne quod dicitur de Deo, dici secundum substantiam; quia quaedam dicuntur secundum relationem, quae non est accidens, quia non est mutabilis. Ut enim Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate² ait: « Nihil in Deo secundum accidens dicitur, quia nihil ei accidit; nec tamen omne quod dicitur, secundum substantiam de Deo dicitur. In rebus creatis atque mutabilibus quod non secundum substantiam dicitur, restat ut secundum accidens dicatur. In Deo autem nihil quidem secundum accidens dicitur, quia nihil in eo mutabile est aut amissibile; nec tamen omne quod dicitur de Deo, secundum substantiam dicitur. Dicitur enim ad aliquid, sicut Pater ad Filium, et Filius ad Patrem, quod non est accidens; quia et ille semper Pater, et ille semper Filius; et ita semper, quia semper natus est Filius, nec coepit unquam esse Filius. Quod si aliquando esse coepisset, aut aliquando esse desineret Filius, secundum accidens diceretur. Et quia Pater non dicitur Pater, nisi ex eo quod est ei Filius, et Filius non dicitur Filius, nisi ex eo quod habet Patrem; non secundum substantiam haec dicuntur, sed ad invicem ista dicuntur, neque tamen secundum accidens, quia et quod dicitur Pater, et quod dicitur Filius aeternum atque incommutabile est eis ».	About which it must be known, that not every (name) which is said of God, is said according to substance; because certain ones are said according to a relation, which is not an accident, because it is not mutable. For as (St.) Augustine says in the fifth book On the Trinity:² « Nothing in God is said according to accident, because nothing accedes to Him; nor, however, is every (name) which is said, said of God according to substance. It remains that, in created and mutable things what is not said according to substance, is said according to accident. But in God nothing, indeed, is said according to accident, because nothing in Him is mutable or able to be lost [amissibile]; nor, however, is everything which is said of God, said according to substance. For ‘as regards something’, which is not an accident, is said, just as “the Father” (is said regarding) “the Son”, and “the Son” regarding “the Father”; because both the Former (is) always the Father, and the Latter (is) always the Son; and thus always, because the Son has always been born, not has the Son every begun to be. Wherefore, if He at any time had begun to be, or (if) at any time the Son had ceased to be, it would be said according to accident. And because the Father is not said (to be) the Father, except out of this, that the Son is His, and the Son is not said (to be) the Son, except out of this, that He has a Father; these (names) are not said according to substance, but these (names) of Theirs are said regarding one another, and yet not according to accident, because both that He is said (to be) the Father, and that He is said (to be) the Son is eternal and incommutable to Them ».
Ecce his verbis aperte ostenditur, quaedam dici de Deo secundum substantiam, quaedam secundum relationem, nihil tamen secundum accidens. Ostenditur etiam proprietas Patris esse, quod habet Filium, et proprietas Filii, quod habet Patrem. Ideoque, cum dixit,³ aeternum et incommutabile esse, quod Pater dicitur, et quod Filius dicitur; ita intelligi voluit, id est: proprietas, qua Pater est Pater, et proprietas, qua Filius est Filius, aeterna est et incommutabilis, quia et Pater semper est Pater, et Filius semper Filius. Unde et Hilarius proprietates personarum assignans in duodecimo libro de Trinitate⁴ ait: « Si semper Patri proprium est, quod semper est Pater, necesse est semper Filio proprium esse, quod semper est Filius. Ubi enim semper Pater est, semper et Filius est: ergo qui non semper Pater est non semper genuit ». Item in eodem: « Nato Deo manifestum est proprium esse, quod Filius est ».	Behold with these words there is openly shown, that certain (names) are said of God according to substance, certain ones according to relation, yet nothing according to accident. The property of the Father is also shown to be, that He has a Son, and the property of the Son, that He has a Father. And for that reason, when he said,³ that it is eternal and immutable, that one is said (to be) the Father, and that (the other) is said (to be) the Son; he wanted that it be understood thus, that is: the property, by which the Father is the Father, and the property, by which the Son is the Son, is eternal and incommutable, because both the Father is always the Father, and the Son always the Son. Whence even (St.) Hilary, assigning the properties of the Person in the twelfth book On the Trinity⁴ says: « If it is always proper to the Father, that He is the Father, it is necessary that it always be proper to the Son, that He is always the Son. For where there is always a Father, there is always a Son: therefore he who is not always the Father, has not always begotten ». Likewise in the same (book he says): « It is manifest that it is proper to the God (who has been) born, that He is the Son ».
Cap. IV. Quare dicatur proprium esse Unigeniti, Filium Dei esse, cum etiam homines sint filii Dei.	Chapter IV. For what reason is it said that it is proper to the Only-Begotten, to be the Son of God, since even men are the sons God.
Hic quaeritur, quomodo dicatur esse proprium nato Deo, quod est Dei Filius vel genitus ex Deo, cum etiam homines filii Dei dicantur et sint, secundum illud: Filii Excelis omnes.⁵ Et ad Moysen de populo Israel Dominus ait:⁶ Filius meus primogenitus Israel. Sed magna est distantia: homines enim filii Dei sunt factura, non nativitatis proprietate; Deus autem Filius originis proprietate Filius est et veritate nativitatis, non factura vel adoptione; et illi quidem ante sunt, quam filii Dei sint; fiunt enim filii Dei,⁷ non nascuntur filii Dei. Unde Hilarius, solum Deum natum originis proprietate Dei filium ostendens, inter ipsum et homines filios Dei evidentissime distinguit in duodecimo libro de Trinitate,⁸ ita dicens: « Vero Patris solus qui ex eo nascitur vere Filius est. Et nos quidem filii Deo sumus, sed per facturam. Fuimus enim aliquando filii iracundiae, sed filii Deo per adoptionem effecti sumus potius, quam nascimur. Et quia omne quod fit, antequam fiat, non fuit, nos, cum filii non fuissemus, efficimur. Ante enim filii non eramus, sed per gratiam facti sumus, non nati neque generati, sed acquisiti. Acquisivit enim nos Deus sibi, et . . .	Here there is asked, in what manner is it said that it is proper to the God (who is) born, that He is the Son of God and/or begotten out of God, since men are said (to be) and are sons of God, according to that (verse): (you are) all sons of the Most High.⁵ And to Moses the Lord said of the people of Israel:⁶ My first born son, Israel. But there is a great distance: for men are sons of God by a making [factura], not (they are not such) by a property of (their) nativity; but God the Son by the property of (His) origin is the Son and by the truth of (His) nativity, not by a making and/or by an adoption; and indeed they are before they are sons of God; for they become the sons of God,⁷ they are not born sons of God. Whence (St.) Hilary, showing that the God (who has been) born (is) alone a son of God by the property of (His) origin, distinguished between Him and the men (who are) sons of God in the twelfth book On the Trinity,⁸ thus saying: « However, He alone who is born out of Him is truly the Son of the Father. And we, indeed, are God’s sons, but through a making. For we were at one time sons of wrath, but we have been made sons for God through adoption rather than being born such [quam nascimur]. And because everything which comes to be, before it comes to be, was not, we, when we were not sons, were made (such). For before we were not sons, but through grace we have been made, not born, nor generated, but acquired (as such). For God acquired us for Himself, and . . .
¹ Excepta ed. 8, aliae edd. et codd. menus bene omittunt spiratio. Cod. A (in margine ab alia manu) repetit processio. Immediate postea ante nomina adiecimus illa fide omnium codd. et ed. 1. ² Cap. 5. n. 6. — Paulo superius Vat. cum pluribus edd. et codd. D E Unde Augustinus pro Ut Augustinus. Post medium textum et post ille semper Vat. cum aliis edd., excepta 1, bis addit est, refragantibus codd. et originali. ³ Solummodo Vat. cum edd. 4, 6 dixerit. ⁴ Num. 23; Magister tamen ordinem propositionum transmutat. — Sequens locus est ibid. n. 15. ⁵ Psalm. 81, 6. — Paulo superius post dicatur fide omnium codd. et edd. 1, 2, 5 adiecimus esse, et ante secundum illud posuimus contra solam Vat. sint pro fiant. ⁶ Exod. 4, 22. ⁷ A sola Vat. omittitur filii Dei, non inepte legendo fiunt enim, non nascuntur filii Dei. Omne codd. et aliae edd. addunt saltem filii, codd. D E et ed. 1 filii Dei, quae lectio accuratius sensum exprimit; paulo superius pro sint cod. C et plurimae edd. sunt. ⁸ Num. 12. et 13; in quo textu solummodo edd. 2, 3, 7, 8 post Vero addunt Deo; eaedem et nonnullae aliae edd. qui ex Deo pro ex eo. Textus Hilarii omitti vere ante Filius. Fide eiusdem originalis et codd. A B C posuimus meliorem lectionem filii Deo sumus, licet omnes edd. et codd. D E habeat filii Dei sumus. Item correximus paulo inferius filii Deo per pro filii Dei per. Verba aliquando filii inracundiae respiciunt ad Ephes. 2, 3: Et eramus natura filii irae.	¹ Excepting edition 8, the other editions and codices omit less well (and) the spiration [spiratio]. Codex A (in the margin by another hand) repeats procession [processio] for spriation [spiratio]. Immediately afterwards before names [nomina] we have inserted those [illa], on the testimony of all the codices and edition 1. ² Chapter 5, n. 6. — A little above this the Vatican edition, together with very many editions and codices D and E, has from this (St.) Augustine [Unde Augustinus] for as (St.) Augustine [Ut Augustinus]. In the second half of the text the Vatican edition, together with the other editions, except ed. 1, by adding the verbs reads the Former is always the Father, and the Latter is always the Son [et est ille semper Pater, et est ille semper Filius], breaking with the codices and the original. ³ Only the Vatican edition, together with editions 4 and 6, reads since he said [cum dixerit]. ⁴ Number 23; however, Master (Peter) changes the order of the propositions. — The following passage is ibid., n. 15. ⁵ Psalm 81:6. — A little above this after it is said [dicatur], trusting in all the codices and editions 1, 2 and 5, we have inserted it is [esse], and before according to that (verse) [secundum illud] we have, contrary to the Vatican edition alone, put are [sint] for become [fiant]. ⁶ Ex. 4:22. ⁷ From the Vatican edition alone there is omitted the sons of God [filii Dei], and not ineptly read instead for they become, they are not born, sons of God [fiunt enim, non nascuntur filii Dei]. All the codices and the other editions add at least sons [filii], codices D and E and edition 1 add the sons of God [filii Dei], which reading more accurately expresses the sense; a little above this at before they are sons of God [quam filii Dei sint], codex C and very many editions have the indicative form for they are [sunt] rather than the subjunctive. ⁸ Numbers 12 and 13; in which text only editions 2, 3, 7 and 8, after However [Vero] add the dative for God [Deo]; and the same and not a few other editions read out of God [ex Deo] for out of Him [ex eo]. The text of (St.) Hilary omits truly [vere]. Trusting in the same original and codices A B and C, we have posited the better reading God’s sons [filii Deo sumus], though all the editions and codices D and E have the sons of God [filii Dei sumus]. We have corrected the same a little below this, placing sons for God [filii Deo per] for sons of God [filii Dei per]. The words at one time sons of wrath [aliquando filii iracundiae] respect Eph. 2:3: And we were by birth sons of wrath [ET eramus natura filii irae].

p. 449

per hoc dicitur nos genuisse. Genuisse enim Deum filios nunquam cum proprietatis significatione cognoscimus dici. Ex adoptione¹ enim homo factus est filius Dei, non ex generatione; neque ei proprietas est, sed nuncupatio, ac per id non vere filius est, quia nec proprie natus dicitur, nec semper filius fuit. Unigenitus autem Deus nec fuit aliquando non filius, nec fuit aliquid antequam filius, nec quidquam ipse nisi filius. Atque ita qui semper est filius, nascibilitatis proprietate ac veritate filius est solius, qui genuit; et ille tantum qui genuit, pater ipsius est; quia sicut ille filius origine, ita ille pater generatione ».	through this He is said to have begotten us. For we know [cognoscimus] that it has never been said that God begot sons, with the signification of the property. For out of an adoption¹ man has been made a son of God, not out of a generation; nor is it his property, but (rather) a naming, and through that he is not truly a son, because neither is he said properly (to be) “born”, nor was he always a son. But the Only-Begotten God neither was at one time not a son, nor was something before (being) a son, nor (was) He Himself anything but a son. And so thus, He who always is a son, by the property of (His) nascibility and by truth is the son of Him alone, who begot (Him); and only He who begot, is His father; because just as the Former (is) a son by origin, so the Latter a father by generation ».
Cap. V. Quod homo dicitur filius Trinitatis, et Trinitas pater hominum.	Chapter V. That a man is said (to be) a “son” of the Trinity, and the Trinity, the “father” of men.
Homo vero, qui filius Dei est, factura non tantum Patris, sed et Filius et Spiritus sancti filius est, id est totius Trinitatis; et Trinitas ipsa Pater eius dici potest. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate² ait: « Non potest dici Trinitas pater, nisi forte translative ad creaturam propter adoptionem filiorum. Quod enim scriptum est:³ Audi Israel, Dominus Deus tuus, Deus unus est, non utique, excepto Filio aut Spiritu sancto, oportet intelligi; quem unum Dominum Deum nostrum recte dicimus etiam Patrem nostrum, per gratiam suam nos regenerantem ». De hoc etiam Hilarius in sexto libro de Trinitate⁴ ait: « Omnibus per fidem Deus est pater, quibus est pater per eam fidem, qua Iesum Christum Dei Filium confitemur ». Ecce ostensum est, quare proprium dicatur esse Dei nati, quod filius est, quia scilicet ipse solus natus proprie dicitur. Unde Hilarius in libro tertio de Trinitate⁵ ait: « Dominus dicens: Clarifica Filium tuum, non solo nomine contestatus est, se esse filium, sed et proprietate. Nos filii Dei sumus, sed non talis hic filius. Hic enim verus et proprius est filius origine, non adoptione; veritate, non nuncupatione; nativitate, non creatione ».	On the other hand, the man, who is a son of God, is by a making not only a son of the Father, but also (a son) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, that is, of the whole Trinity; and the Trinity Itself can be said to be his Father. Whence (St.) Augustine in the fifth book On the Trinity² says: « The Trinity cannot be said to be a father, except perhaps in a transferred manner regarding the creation on account of the adoption of sons. For that which has been written:³ Hear o Israel, the Lord Thy God, is one God, must indeed not be understood, with the Son or the Holy Spirit excepted; which One Lord, Our God, we rightly say (is) also Our Father, regenerating us through His grace ». On this even (St.) Hilary in the sixth book On the Trinity⁴ says: « Through faith God is father to all, to whom He is the father through that Faith, by which we confess Jesus Christ (to be) the Son of God ». Behold it has been shown, for what reason it is said that it is proper to the God (who has been) born, that He is a son, because, that is, He alone is properly said (to be) “born”. Whence (St.) Hilary in the third book On the Trinity⁵ says: « The Lord saying: Glorify Thy Son, has not witnessed by name alone, that He is a son, but also by (His) property. We are the sons of God, but He (is) not such a son. For He is a true and proper son by origin, not by adoption; by truth, not by being named [nuncupatione]; by a nativity, not by being created ».
Cap. VI. Quod Spiritus sanctus eadem proprietate donum dicitur, qua Spiritus sanctus, et utroque modo relative ad Patrem et Filium.	Chapter VI. That the Holy Spirit is said (to be) “the Gift” by the same property, by which (He is said to be) “the Holy Spirit”, and in each manner relatively to the Father and the Son.
Ita etiam de Spiritu sancto dicendum est, qui proprie dicitur donum Dei, cum tamen et alia plura sint dona Dei. Sed Spiritus sanctus ita proprietate immutabili et aeterna donum⁶ est, sicut Filius proprietate est filius. Eo enim donum dicitur, quo spiritus sanctus, et utroque utique nomine relative dicitur, eademque relatione dicitur spiritus sanctus et donum; licet ipsa relatio non ita appareat in hoc nomine spiritus sanctus, sicut in hoc nomine donum. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate⁷ ita ait: « Spiritus sanctus, qui non est Trinitas, sed in Trinitate intelligitur, in eo quod proprie dicitur spiritus sanctus, relative dicitur, cum et ad Patrem et ad Filium refertur, quia Spiritus sanctus et Patris et Filii spiritus est. Sed ipsa relatio non apparet in hoc nomine, apparet autem, cum dicitur donum Dei; donum enim est Patris et Filii, quia et a Patre procedit et a Filio. Ergo Spiritus sanctus ineffabilis est quaedam Patris Filiique communio. Et ideo fortasse sic appellatur, ut iam diximus nec iterare piget, quia Patri et Filio potest eadem appellatio convenire. Nam hoc ipse proprie dicitur, quod illi communiter: quia et Pater spiritus et Filius spiritus, et Pater sanctus et Filius sanctus. Ut ergo ex nomine, quod utrique convenit, utriusque communio significetur, vocatur donum amborum spiritus sanctus ».	Thus, too, it must be said of the Holy Spirit, that He is properly said (to be) “the Gift” of God, yet though there are also many gifts of God. But the Holy Spirit is thus by (His) immutable and eternal property a gift,⁶ just as the Son by (His) property is a son. For, He is said (to be) “a gift” for this, whereby (He is said to be) a “holy spirit”, and indeed He is said (to be such) by each name in a relative manner, and He is said by the same relation (to be) a “holy spirit” and a “gift”; though the relation itself does not appear so much in this name “holy spirit”, just as (it does) in this name “gift”. Whence (St.) Augustine in the fifth book On the Trinity⁷ thus says: « The Holy Spirit, who is not the Trinity, but is understood in the Trinity, in this that He is properly said (to be) a holy spirit, is said (to be such) relatively, when He is referred both to the Father and to the Son, because the Holy Spirit is a spirit of both the Father and of the Son. But the relation itself does not appear in this name, but it does appear, when He is said (to be) a gift of God; for He is a gift of the Father and the Son, because He proceeds both from the Father and from the Son. And perhaps for this reason He is thus named, as we have already said, nor is it annoying to repeat, that the same appellation can befit the Father and the Son. For by this He is properly said (to be) what They (are) commonly: because both the Father (is) a spirit and the Son a spirit, and both the Father (is) holy and the Son holy. Therefore, so that out of the name, which befits Each, the communion of Each be signified, the gift of Both is called a holy spirit ».
Ecce habes, quare Spiritus sanctus proprie dicatur donum, et quod relative dicitur sive donum, sive spiritus sanctus, et quod nomen sibi proprium tenet, quod communiter Patri et Filio convenit, sed divisim. Et est sciendum, quod⁸ cum Pater vel Filius dicitur spiritus, sive sanctus, neutrum relative dicitur, sed secundum substantiam.	Behold you have, for what reason the Holy Spirit is properly said (to be) a gift, and that He is relatively said (to be) either a gift, or a holy spirit, and that He has a proper name for Himself, which commonly befits the Father and the Son, but separately [divisim]. And it must be known, that⁸ when the Father and/or the Son is said (to be) a “spirit”, or “holy”, neither is said in a relative manner, but (rather both are said) according to substance.
Cap. VII. Utrum Pater vel Filius vel Trinitas ipsa possit dici spiritus sanctus.⁹	Chapter VII. Whether the Father and/or the Son and/or the Trinity Itself can be said (to be) a “holy spirit”.⁹
Hic quaeri potest, utrum Pater vel Filus vel etiam ipsa Trinitas possit dici spiritus santus, sicut disiunctim dicitur et spiritus et sanctus. De hoc Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate¹⁰ sic ait: « Trinitas nullo modo potest dici filius, spiritus vero sanctus potest quidem universaliter dici, secundum id quod scriptum est: Quoniam Deus spiritus est. Itaque Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, quoniam unus est Deus, et utique Deus sanctus est, et Deus spiritus est, potest appellari trinitas, et spiritus sanctus. Sed tamen tunc spiritus sanctus relative non dicetur, sed secundum essentiam, quia proprie Spiritus sanctus, qui non est Trinitas, sed in Trinitate, dicitur relative ».	Here there can be asked, whether the Father and/or the Son and/or even the Trinity Itself can be said (to be) a “holy spirit”, just as separately [disiunctim] it is said (that They are) both a “spirit” and “holy”. On this (St.) Augustine in the fifth book On the Trinity¹⁰ speaks in this manner: « The Trinity in no manner can be said (to be) a “son”, but It can , indeed universally, be said (to be) a “holy spirit”, according to that which is written: Since God is a spirit. And so the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, since God is one, and indeed God is holy, and God is a spirit, can be named a “trinity”, and a “holy spirit”. But yet this “holy spirit” will not be said in a relative manner, but according to essence, because properly (speaking) the Holy Spirit, who is not the Trinity, but in the Trinity, is said (to be such) in a relative manner ».
Cap. VIII. Quod non omnia, quae relative dicuntur, suis ad se vicissim respondent vocabulis.	Chapter VIII. That not all (the names), which are said relatively, respond, according to their terms, to one another in reverse.
Quidam tamen putant, spiritum sanctum vel donum non dici relative ad Patrem vel ad Filium. Si enim, inquiunt, haec relative ad se dicuntur, suis invicem sibi respondent vocabulis: ut, sicut dicitur:	However, certain (authors) think, that “holy spirit” and/or “gift” are not said relatively to the Father and/or to the Son. For if, they say, these are said relatively to one another, they respond to one another [invicem sibi] according to their own terms [vocabulis]: so that, just as there is said:
¹ Haec leguntur ibid. n. 15, sed multis a Magistro omissis vel mutatis. ² Cap. 11. n. 12. — Supra Vat. et edd. 1, 4, 6 omittunt et post Patris, sed. ³ Deut. 6, 4. Vulgata: Audi Israel, Dominus Deus noster, Dominus unus est. ⁴ Num. 30. ⁵ Num. 11. Locus citatus s. Scripturae est Ioan. 17, 1. ⁶ Solummodo codd. A D addunt Dei; deinde codd. et ed. 1 omittunt est ante filius. ⁷ Cap. 11. n. 12. ⁸ Codd. A B D E et edd. 1, 2, 3, 7 quia. Etiam alibi Magister particula quia utitur pro quod. ⁹ Codd. D E hic incipiunt d. XXVII. ¹⁰ Cap. 11. n. 12, nonnullis a Magistro mutatis et omissis. — Locus s. Scripturae est Ioan. 4, 12. — Circa finem textus Augustini solummodo Vat. et ed. 4, 5 non dicitur pro non dicetur.	¹ These are read ibid., n. 15, but with many (words) omitted and/or changed by Master (Peter). ² Chapter 11, n. 12. — Above the Vatican edition and editions 1, 4, and 6 omit also [et] after of the Father, but [Patris, sed]. ³ 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.]. ⁴ Number 30. ⁵ Number 11. The passage cited from Sacred Scripture is Jn. 17:1. ⁶ Only codices A and D add of God [Dei]; then the codices and edition 1 omit is [est] before a son [filius]. ⁷ Chapter 11, n. 12. ⁸ Codices A B D and E and editions 1, 2, 3 and 7, read that [quia]. Even elsewhere Master (Peter) uses the Latin quia [because] for quod [that]. ⁹ Codices D and E here begin Distinction XXVII. ¹⁰ Chapter 11, n. 12, with not a few things changed and omitted by Master (Peter). — The passage of Sacred Scripture is Jn. 4:12. — Near the end of the text of (St.) Augustine only the Vatican edition and editions 4 and 5 have is not said [non dicitur] for will not be said [non dicetur].

p. 450

Pater Filii pater, et Filius Patris filius, ita dicatur pater Spiritus sancti vel Doni pater, et Spiritus sanctus vel Donum Patris spiritus vel donum. Sed non ita est in omnibus relativis. Non enim omnia, quae relative dicuntur, suis ad se invicem respondent vocabulis. Unde Augustinus horum elidens opinionem, in quinto libro de Trinitate:¹ « Non moveat, inquit, quoniam diximus, Spiritum sanctum non ipsam Trinitatem, sed eum qui est in Trinitate, relative dici, licet non ei vicissim respondeat vocabulum eius, ad quem refertur. Dicimus enim Spiritum sanctum Patris, sed non vicissim dicimus Patrem Spiritus sancti, ne filius eius intelligatur Spiritus sanctus. Item dicimus Spiritum sanctum Filii, sed non dicimus Filium Spiritus sancti, ne pater eius intelligatur Spiritus sanctus. In multis enim relativis hoc contingit, ut non invenitur vocabulum, quo sibi vicissim respondeant. Cum ergo dicimus donum Patris et Filii, non quidem possumus dicere patrem doni aut filium doni, sed ut haec vicissim respondeant, dicimus donum donatoris, et donatorem doni, quia hic potuit inveniri usitatum vocabulum, illic non potuit ». « Donum ergo donatoris, et donator doni cum dicimus, relative utrumque ad invicem dicimus ». « Donator tamen non fuit Deus nisi ex tempore, cum Spiritus sanctus sit donum etiam ab aeterno ».

“the Father of the Son (is) a father”, and “the Son of the Father (is) a son”, so there is said “a father of the Holy Spirit” and/or “the father of the Gift”, and “the Holy Spirit and/or the Gift of the Father (is) a spirit and/or a gift”. But not so is it among all relative (names). For not all (names), which are said relatively, respond to one another according to their own terms. Whence (St.) Augustine, shattering their opinion, (says) in the fifth book On the Trinity:¹ « Let it not move (you) », he says, « since we have said, that the Holy Spirit is said in a relative manner not (to be) the Trinity Itself, but Him who is in the Trinity, though the term for Him, to whom He is referred, does not respond to Him in reverse [vicissim]. For we say that (He is) the Holy Spirit of the Father, but we do not say in reverse that (the Latter is) the Father of the Holy Spirit. Likewise we say that (He is) the Holy Spirit of the Son, but we do not say that (the Latter is) the Son of the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit be understood (to be) His father. For in many relative (names) it happens, that a term is not found, by which they respond to themselves in reverse. When, therefore, we say “the gift of the Father and of the Son”, we indeed cannot say that “(One is) the father of the gift” or “(the Other is) the son of the gift”, but so that these respond in reverse, we say that (the Holy Spirit is) “the gift of the granter”, and that (Either is) “the grantor of the gift”, because in the latter case [hic] a customary [usitatum] term could be found, in the former case [illic] it could not ». « When, therefore, we say “the gift of the grantor” and “the grantor of the gift”, we say each relative to one another ». « However, God was not only [non nisi] a “grantor” in time, since the Holy Spirit is “a gift” also from eternity ».

¹ Cap. 12. n. 13; sequentes loci ibid. c. 15. et 16. n. 16. et 17. — Vat. cum paucis edd. et ab aeterno pro etiam ab aeterno.

¹ Chapter 12, n. 13; the following passages are ibid., chs. 15 and 16, nn. 16 and 17. — The Vatican edition together with a few editions reads (at the end) also from eternity [et ab aeterno] for also from eternity [etiam ab aeterno].

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