LIBER PRIMUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 29: 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 XXIX.	DISTINCTION 29
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 506-507. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 506-507. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
Cap. I. De principio.	Chapter I. On principium.
Est praeterea aliud nomen, multiplicem notans relationem, scilicet principium. Dicitur enim principium semper ad aliquid. Et dicitur Pater principium, et Filius principium, et Spiritus sanctu principium; sed differenter. Nam Pater dicitur principium ad Filum et ad Spiritum sanctum. Unde Augustinus in libro quarto de Triniate¹ ait: « Pater est principium totius divinitatis, vel si melius dicitur, deitatis, quia ipse est a nullo. Non enim habet de quo sit vel de quo procedat »; sed ab eo et Filius est genitus, et Spiritus sanctus procedit. Non igitur dicitur principium totius deitatis, quod vel sui vel divinae essentiae principium sit, sed quia principium est Filii et Spiritus sancti, in quibus singulis tota divinitas est. Filius ad Spiritum sanctum dicitur principium. Spiritus vero sanctus non dicitur principium nisi ad creaturas, ad quas etiam Pater dicitur principium et Filius et Trinitas ipsa simul, et singula persona² principium dicitur creaturarum. « Pater ergo principium est sine principio, Filius principium de principio, Spiritus sanctus principium de utroque, id est de Patre et Filio ».³	There is, moreover, another name, noting a manifold relation, namely, principium (i.e. “beginning” or “principle”). For a principium is always said regarding something. And the Father is said (to be) a principium, and the Son a principium, and the Holy Spirit a principium; but differently. For the Father is said (to be) a principium regarding the Son and regarding the Holy Spirit. Whence (St.) Augustine in the fourth book On the Trinity¹ says: « The Father is the beginning [principium] of the whole Divinity, and/or if it is better said, of the Deity, because He Himself is from None. For He does not have a from Whom He is and/or a from Whom He proceeds »; but from Him the Son has been begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds. He is not, therefore, said (to be) the beginning of the whole Deity, because He is the principle [principium] of Himself and/or of the Divine Essence, but because He is the principle of the Son and the Holy Spirit, in Each of which is the whole Divinity. The Son is said (to be) a principium regarding the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit is not said (to be) a principium, except as regards creatures, regarding which even the Father is said (to be) a principle and the Son and the Trinity Itself together, and each Person² is said (to be) the Principle of creatures. « Therefore, the Father is the beginning without a beginning, the Son the beginning from a beginning, the Holy Spirit the beginning from each (beginning), that is from the Father and the Son ».³
Cap. II. Quod ab aeterno Pater est principium et Filius, sed non Spiritus sanctus.	Chapter II. That from eternity the Father is a principle and the Son, but not the Holy Spirit.
Et Pater ab aeterno principium est Filii, et Pater et Filius principium Spiritus sancti, quia Filius est a Patre, et Spiritus sanctus ab utroque. Spiritus vero sanctus non ab aeterno principium est, sed esse coepit, quia non dicitur principium nisi ad creaturas. Cum ergo creaturae esse coeperunt, et Spiritus sanctus esse coepit principium earum. Ita etiam Pater et Filius esse coepit cum Spiritu sancto unum principium creaturarum, quia creaturae coeperunt esse a Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto; et dicuntur hi tres non tria, sed unum principium omnium creaturarum, quia uno eodemque modo principium rerum sunt. Non enim aliter sunt res a Patre et aliter a Filio, sed penitus eodem modo. Ideo Apostolus intelligens, hanc Trinitatem esse unum principium rerum, ait:⁴ Ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia. « Cum vero audimus, omnia esse ex deo, ut ait Augustinus de Natura boni,⁵ omnes utique naturas intelligere debemus, et omnia quae naturaliter⁶ sunt. Non enim ex ipso sunt peccata, quae naturam non servant, sed vitiant, quae ex voluntate peccantium nascuntur ». Omnium ergo, quae naturaliter sunt, unum principium est Pater cum Filio et Spiritu sancto, et hoc esse coepit. Ab aeterno autem Pater principium est Filii generatione, et Pater et Filius unum principium Spiritus sancti. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate⁷ ita ait: « Dicitur relative Pater, idemque relative dicitur principium. Sed Pater ad Filium dicitur, principium vero ad omnia quae ab ipso sunt. Et principium dicitur Filius. Cum etiam diceretur ei:⁸ Tu quis est? respondit: Principium, qui et loquor vobis. Sed nunquid Patris principium est? Immo creatorem se voluit ostendere, cum se dixit esse principium, sicut et Pater principium est creaturae, quia ab ipso sunt omnia. Cum vero dicimus et Patrem principium et Filium principium, non duo principia creaturae dicimus, quia Pater et Filius simul ad creaturam unum principium est, sicut unus creator. Si autem quidquid in se manet et gignit vel operatur aliquid, principium est eius rei, quam gignit, vel eius quam operatur; non possumus negare, etiam Spiritum sanctum⁹ recte dici principium, quia non eum separamus ab appellatione creatoris: quia scriptum est¹⁰ de illo, quod operetur, et utique in se manens operatur. Non enim in aliquid eorum quae operatur, ipse mutatur et vertitur. Unum ergo principium ad creaturam cum Patre et Filio est Spiritu sanctus, non duo vel tria principia ». Ecce aperte ostendit Augustinus, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum esse unum principium rerum creaturarum, id est, uno eodemque modo esse principium; et illum modum satis aperuit, quia scilicet operantur omnia, et quia similiter¹¹ operantur hi tres, ideo unum principium esse dicuntur.	And the Father from eternity is the principle of the Son, and the Father and the Son the principle of the Holy Spirit, because the Son is from the Father, and the Holy Spirit from Each. But the Holy Spirit is not from eternity a principle, but began [coepit] to be (one), because He is not said (to be) a principle except as regards creatures. When, therefore, creatures began to be, the Holy Spirit also began to be their Principle. Thus too the Father and the Son began to be, with the Holy Spirit, the one Principle of creatures, because creatures began to be from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and these Three are not said (to be) three (principles), but the one Principle of all creatures, because in one and the same manner They are the Principle of things. For things are not in one manner from the Father and in another from the Son, but (are) in thoroughly the same manner (form Both). For that reason the Apostle understanding, that this Trinity is the one Principle of things, says:⁴ From Him and through Him and in Him are all (things). « When, however, we hear, that all things are from God », as (St.) Augustine says On the Nature of the Good,⁵ « we ought to indeed understand all natures, and all which are naturally.⁶ For not from Him are the sins, which do not serve nature, but vitiate (it), which are born out of the will of (those) sinning ». Of all (things), therefore, which naturally are, the one Principle is the Father with the Son and the Holy Spirit, and this He began to be. Moreover, from eternity the Father is the principle of the Son according to generation, and the Father and the Son the one principle of the Holy Spirit. Whence (St.) Augustine in the fifth book On the Trinity⁷ thus says: « He is said relatively (to be) “the Father”, and the Same is said relatively (to be) a “principle”. But He is said (to be) “the Father” as regards the Son, but a “principle” as regards all those which are from Him. And the Son is said (to be) a “beginning”. Since there was also said to Him:⁸ What are you? He responds: The Beginning, I who also speak to you. But is the Father not the Beginning? Nay He wanted to show that He (is) the Creator, when he said that He is the Beginning, just as the Father is the Beginning of creatures, because all are from Him. However, when we say that both the Father (is) a beginning and the Son a beginning, we do not say (that there are) two principles of creatures, because the Father and the Son together are the one Principle regarding a creature, just as (They are) the one Creator. If, however, anything remains in itself and begets and/or works something, He is the principle of the that thing which begets, and/or of that which works, we cannot deny, that the Holy Spirit⁹ also is rightly said (to be) a “beginning”, because we do not separate Him from the appellation of “Creator”: because it has been written¹⁰ of Him, that He works, and indeed remaining in Himself He works. For not into something of those which He works, is He Himself changed and turned. Therefore, the one Principle regarding a creature, with the Father and the Son, is the Holy Spirit, not two and/or three principles ». Behold (St.) Augustine openly shows, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the one Principle of created things, that is, that in one and the same manner They are the Principle; and that manner he sufficiently revealed, because, namely, all (things) are worked, and because similarly¹¹ those Three work, for that reason They are said to be the one Principle.
Cap. III. Quomodo Pater principium Filii, et ipse cum Filio Spiritus sancti.	Chapter III. In what manner the Father (is) the principle of the Son, and He with the Son (the principle) of the Holy Spirit.
Deinde in eodem libro continue ostendit, quomodo Pater dicatur principium ad Filium, et ad Spiritum sanctum ipse et Filius, dicens, ideo Patrem esse principium Filii, quia genuit eum, et Patrem et Filium esse principium Spiritus sancti, quia Spiritus sanctus procedit vel datur ab utroque. Ait enim ita:¹² « Si gignens ad id quod gignitur principium est, Pater ad . . .	Then in the same book he immediately [continue] shows, in what manner the Father is said (to be) a principle regarding the Son, and (in what manner) regarding the Holy Spirit He and the Son (are said to be the same), saying, that the Father is the principle of the Son for this reason, because He begot Him, and that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit proceeds and/or is given by Each. For he thus says:¹² « If the one betting regarding that which is begotten is a principle, the Father regarding . . .
¹ Cap. 20. n. 29. Verba: ipse est a nullo etc. sunt ex n. 28. [Trans. nota: Hic in titulo capituli primi perperam et contra usum editorum principio scribitur cum litteris italiticis, correctum est ex consuetudini editorem et iuxta contextum distinctionis integrae, quae respicit ascriptionem huius nominis ad S. Trinitatem, non ad principium per se.] ² Vat. cum aliis edd. personarum contra codd. A B D E et ed. 1. ³ August., II. contra Maxim. c. 17. n. 4. ⁴ Rom. 11, 36. ⁵ Cap. 28. Etiam ea quae praecedunt, secundum sensum dicta sunt ab August., V. de Trin. c. 13. n. 14. ⁶ Vat. aliaeque edd., excepta 1, naturalia, sed contra codd. et originale. ⁷ Cap. 13. n. 14. Vide etiam Enarrat. in Psalm. 109. n. 13. ⁸ Ioan. 8, 25.* ⁹ Cod. D adiungit esse principium et. Paulo inferius ed. 9 cum originali post creatoris habet et pro quia. ¹⁰ I. Cor. 12, 11: Haec autem omnia operatur unus atque idem Spiritus. ¹¹ Codd. A D, ed. 1 et 5 (in margine) simul. ¹² Libr. V. de Trin. c. 14. n. 15. In principio textus edd. 1, 2, 3 cum originali ad id quod gignit pro ad id quod gignitur. Locus s. Scripturae est Ioan. 15, 26.	¹ Chapter 20, n. 29. The words: He Himself is from None etc.[ipse est a nullo etc.], are from n. 28. [Trans. note: On the translation of the Latin principium, see the Rationale for the Translation of Peculiar Latin Terms, in the Introduction to this English translation. Here in the title to Chapter I, principium is untranslated because the entire Distinction refers to the multiple senses of the Latin word, which cannot be translated with a univocal English term; it is also rendered as the word itself, because, for the same reason, since the Distinction does not concern God as a principle, but the ascription of this name to the Most Holy Trinity. Hence the Latin of the Chapter Title has been changed, by removing the italics from the word principium, since the custom of the Quaracchi editors is to not italicize terms used as words in chapter titles.] ² The Vatican edition, together with the other editions, has of the Persons [personarum], contrary to codices A B D and E, and to edition 1. ³ (St.) Augustine, Against Maximinus, Bk. II, ch. 17, n. 4. ⁴ Rom. 11:36. ⁵ Chapter 28. Even those things (words) which precede, according to (their) sense, have been taken from (St.) Augustine’s, On the Trinity, ch. 13, n. 14. ⁶ The Vatican edition and the other editions, except edition 1, have natural [naturalia], but contrary to the codices and original. ⁷ Chapter 13, n. 14. See also Ennarations on Psalm 109, n. 13. ⁸ Jn. 8:25.* ⁹ Codex C adjoins is a beginning and [esse principium et]. A little below this edition 9, together with the original, after of “Creator” [creatoris] it has and [et] for because [quia]. ¹⁰ 1 Cor. 12:11: But all these does one and the same Spirit work [Haec autem omnia operatur unus atque idem Spiritus]. ¹¹ Codices A and D, edition 1 and 5 (in the margin), have together [simul]. ¹² On the Trinity, Bk. V, ch. 14, n. 15. At the beginning of the text editions 1, 2 and 3, together with the original have regarding that which he begets [ad id quod gignit] for regarding that which is begotten [ad id quod gignitur]. The passage of Sacred Scripture is Jn. 15:26.
* [Trans. nota: In loco istius s. Scriptura P. Cornelius a Lapide Comment. in S. Scripturam scribit: S. August. saepe Beda, Rupert. Bernard. et S. Ambros. l. 3. de Fide cap. 4. Principium accipiunt ut nominativi casus. q. d. Ego sum principium, id est, ego sum primus et novissimus, vel ego sum principium rerum omnium, quia per Verbum Dei facta sunt omnia, juxta illud: Verbo Domini caeli firmati sunt. Verum nota pro principium, graece non est arch in nominativo casu, sed archn in acusativo, ita enim constanter habent Graeca et Graeci: et sic Septuag. vertere solent Heb. בדאשית berescit, id est, in principio. — Fusius loquitur P. Cornelius in argumento isto ibid.]	* [Trans. note: On this passage of Sacred Scripture, Fr. Cornelius a Lapide, S. J., in his Commentaria in Sacram Scripturam, c. A.D. 1620, writes: St. Augustine often, the (Venerable) Bede, (Sts.) Rupert, Bernard and Ambrose, On the Faith, Bk. 3, ch. 4, accept beginning [principium] as a nominative case, that is, “I am the beginning”, that is, “I am the First and Last”, and/Or “I am the Principle of all things”, because through the Word of God all (things) have been made, in according with that (verse): By the Word of the Lord the heavens haven been made. However note that in place of beginning [principium], in the Greek is not arch in the nominative case, but archn in the accusative, for thus does the Greek and the Greeks continually have it: and in this manner the Seputagint is accustomed to renter the Hebrew בדאשית bereshit, that is, “in the beginning”. — Fr. Cornelius speaks more at length on this argument ibid..]

p. 507

Filium principium est, quia genuit eum. Utrum autem et ad Spiritum sanctum principium sit Pater, quia dictum est: De Patre procedit, non parva quaestio est. Quod si ita est, non iam principium ei¹ tantum rei erit, quam gignit vel facit, sed et ei, quam dat et quae procedit ab ipso. Si ergo quod datur vel quod procedit principium habet, a quo datur vel procedit, fatendum est, Patrem et Filium principium esse Spiritus sancti, non duo principia. Sed sicut Pater et Filius ad creaturam relative unus creator et unus dominus dicitur, sic relative ad Spiritum sanctum unum principium. Ad creaturam vero Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus unum principium sunt, sicut unus creator et unus dominus ». Ecce habes, quod Pater principium Filii dicitur, quia genuit eum. Qua ergo notione est Pater, ea principium Filii dicitur, id est generatione, secundum quam etiam dicitur auctor Filii. Unde Hilarius in quarto libro de Trinitate² ait: « Ipso quo Pater dicitur, eius quem genuit auctor ostenditur, id nomen habens, quod neque ex alio profectum intelligatur, et ex quo is qui genitus est, substitisse doceatur ». « Novit Ecclesia unum innascibilem Deum, novit unigenitum Dei Filium. Confitetur Patrem ab origine liberum, confitetur et Filii originem ab initio, non ipsum ab initio, sed ab ininitiabili, non per se ipsum, sed ab eo qui a nemine est, natum ab aeterno, nativitatem scilicet ex paterna aeternitate sumentem. Edita est hic fidei professio, sed professionis ratio nondum exposita est »; et ideo quaerenda, scilicet quomodo intelligendum sit quod ait, Filii originem esse ab initio, et non ipsum esse ab initio, sed ab ininitiabili. Hoc utique subdens determinavit, quomodo acceperit initium, inquiens, originem Filii esse ab initio, ac si diceret: non ita intelligas, originem Fiii esse ab initio, quasi ipse Filius habeat initium, sed quia ipse est ab ininitiabili, id est a Patre, a quo sunt omnia. Nam licet Filius sit principium de principio, non est tamen concendendum, quod Filius habeat principium. Cumque Filius sit principium de principio, et Pater principium non de principio, non est principium de principio principium sine principio, sicut Filius non est Pater; neque duo tamen principia, sed unum, sicut Pater et Filius non duo creatores, sed unus creator.	the Son is a principle, because He begot Him. Moreover, whether also regarding the Holy Spirit the Father is a principle, because it was said: From the Father He proceeds, is no small question. Which if He is thus, He is not now the principle to only that¹ Thing, which He begets and or makes, but also to the That, which He gives and which proceeds from Him. If, therefore, what is given and/or what proceeds has a principle, from which it is given and/or proceeds, it must be professed [fatendum est], that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles. But just as the Father and the Son regarding a creature are said relatively (to be) the one Creator and one Lord, so relatively regarding the Holy Spirit They are one principle. However, as regards a creature the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the one Principle, just as (They are) the one Creator and the one Lord ». Behold, you have, that the Father is said (to be) the principle of the Son, because He begot Him. Therefore, He is the Father by that notion, by which He is said (to be) the principle of the Son, that is, by the generation, according to which He is also said (to be) the “author” of the Son. Whence (St.) Hilary in the fourth book On the Trinity² says: « By that very (name) by which He is said (to be) “the Father”, of Him whom He begot, He is shown (to be) an author, having that Name, which is indeed neither understood from another, and out of which the One who has been begotten, is taught to have subsisted ». « The Church knows the One Innascible God, She knows the Only-Begotten Son of God. She confesses the Father free from origin, She confesses too the origin of the Son from a beginning [ab initio], not that He Himself (is) from a beginning, but from an Uninitiable One [ab ininitiabili], not through Himself, but from Him who is from no one, born from eternity, that is, taking up a nativity from the paternal eternity. Here is published the profession of the Faith, but the reason for the profession has not yet been expounded »; and for that reason it must be asked, namely, in what manner, that which he says, that the origin of the Son is from a beginning, and that He Himself is not from a beginning, but from an Uninitiable One, is to be understood. Indeed subjoining this he determined, in what manner he accepted a “beginning” [initium], saying, that the origin of the Son is from an beginning, as if he said: do not understand (it) thus, that the origin of the Son is from a beginning, as if the Son Himself has a beginning, but because He Himself is from an Uninitiable One, that is from the Father, from whom are all (things). Nor though the Son is the beginning [principium] from a beginning, yet it must not be conceded, that the Son has a beginning. And since the Son is the Beginning from a Beginning, and the Father the Beginning not from a beginning, the Beginning from a Beginning is not the Beginning without a beginning, just as the Son is not the Father, nor yet (are They) two beginnings, but one, just as the Father and the Son (are) not two Creators, but the one Creator.
Cap. IV. An eadem notione Pater et Filius sint principium Spiritus sancti.	Chapter IV. Whether the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit according to the same notion.
Unum autem principium sunt Pater et Filius non tantum creaturarum, ut dictum est supra, sed etiam Spiritus sancti; ideo quaeri solet, utrum eadem notione Pater sit principium Spiritus sancti et Filius, an sit alia notio, qua Pater dicitur principium Spiritus sancti, et alia, qua Filius. — Ad quod dicimus, cum Pater dicatur princpium Spiritus sancti et Filius — quia Spiritus sanctus procedit vel datur ab utroque, nec aliter procedit vel datur a Patre quam a Filio — sane intelligi potest, Patrem et Filium eadem relatione vel notione dici principium Spiritus sancti. — Si vero quaeritur, quae sit illa notio, quam ibi notat principium, nomen eius non habemus,³ sed non est ipsa paternitas vel filiatio, immo notio quaedam, quae⁴ Patris est et Filii, qua ab aeterno Pater et Filius unum principium sunt Spiritus sancti. Donator autem, ut praedictum est,⁵ dicitur Pater vel Filius ex tempore, sicut Spiritus sanctus datum vel donatum.	Moreover, the Father and the Son are the one principle not only of creatures, as has been said above, but also of the Holy Spirit; for that reason it is customarily asked, whether the Father and the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit by the same notion, or is it one notion, by which the Father is said (to be) the principle of the Son, and another, by which the Son (is said to be the same). — To which we say, since the Father is said (to be) the principle of the Holy Spirit and the Son (is too) — because the Holy Spirit proceeds and/or is given by Each, nor does He proceed and/or is given otherwise by the Father than by the Son — sanely can it be understood, that the Father and the Son are said (to be) the principle of the Holy Spirit by the same relation and/or notion. — However, if one asks, what that notion is, which “principle” notes there, we do not have a name for it,³ but it is not the paternity itself and/or the filiation, nay (it is) a certain notion, which⁴ belongs to the Father and to the Son, by which from eternity the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit. But, as has been said before,⁵ the Father and/or the Son is said (to be) “the Giver” (of the Holy Spirit) in time, just as the Holy Spirit (has been) given and/or granted (in time).
¹ Ita hic et paulo inferius omnes codd. cum originali; sed omnes edd. bis habent eius pro ei. Deinde post Patrem et Filium omnes edd., excepta 1, addunt unum, sed contra originale et codd. Denique plures codd. et edd. 2, 3, 4 cum originali omittunt sunt ante sicut unus creator. ² Num. 9. Alius locus est ibid. n. 6. ³ Receptum est nomen spiratio, consecratum a Conclio Lugdunensi II. (an. 1274): « Spiritus sanctus . . . non duabus spirationibus, sed unica spiratione procedit ». ⁴ Vat. sola omittit quae; paulo inferius eadem cum cod. C et aliis edd., excepta 1, est pro sunt. ⁵ Dist. XIV. XV. XVII.	¹ Thus here and a little below all the codices, together with the original; but all the editions twice have of that [eius] for to that [ei]. then after that the Father and the Son are the [Patrem et Filium], all the editions, except edition 1, add one [unum], but contrary to the original and codices. Then very many codices and editions 2, 3 and 4, together with the original, omit are [sunt] before just as (They are) the one Creator [sicut unus creator]. ² Number 9. The other passage is ibid., n. 6. ³ The name received now is spiration [spiratio], consecrated by the Second Council of Lyon (A. D. 1274): « The Holy Spirit . . . not by two spirations, but by a unique spiration proceeds ». ⁴ The Vatican edition alone omits which [quae]; a little below this the same edition together with codex C and the other editions, except edition 1, has is [est] for are [sunt]. ⁵ In Distinctions XIV, XV, and XVII.

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