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 XXX.

DISTINCTION 30

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 519-520.
Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 519-520.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

Cap. I.

 

De his quae temporaliter de Deo dicuntur et relative secundum accidens, quod non Deo, sed creaturis accidit.

Chapter I.

On those (names), which are said of God temporally and relatively according to an accident, which accedes not to God, but to creatures.

Sunt enim quaedam, quae ex tempore de Deo dicuntur eique temporaliter conveniunt sine sui mutatione et relative dicuntur secundum accidens, non quod accidat Deo, sed quod accidit creaturis, ut creator, dominus, refugium, datum vel donatum et huiusmodi.  De his Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate1 ait:  « Creator relative dicitur ad creaturam, sicut dominus ad servum ».  Item:2  « Non moveat, quod Spiritus sanctus, cum sit coaeternus Patri et Filio, dicitur tamen aliquid ex tempore, veluti hoc ipsum quod donatum diximus.  Nam sempiterne Spiritus est donum, temporaliter autem donatum.  Et si dominus non dicitur, nisi cum habere incipit servum, etiam ista appellatio relativa ex tempore est Deo.  Non enim sempiterna creatura est, cuius ille dominus est:  ergo dominum esse non sempiternum habet, ne cogamur etiam creaturam sempiternam dicere, quia ille sempiterne non dominaretur, nisi etiam ista sempiterne famularetur.  Sicut autem non potest esse servus qui non habet dominum, sic nec dominus qui non habet servum ».

For there are certain (names), which are said of God on account of time [ex tempore]* and befit Him temporally without His being changed [sine sui mutatione] and are said relatively according to an accident, which accedes not to God, but which accedes to creatures, such as “creator”, “lord”, “refuge”, “given” and/or “granted” and (names) of this kind.  Of these (St.) Augustine says in the fifth book On the Trinity:1  «  “Creator” is said relatively to a creature, just as “lord” to a servant [servus] ».  Likewise (he says elsewhere):2  « Let it not move (you), that the Holy Spirit, though He is coeternal to the Father and the Son, yet is said (to be) something on account of time, even as we said of that (name) which (is) “granted”.  For the Spirit sempiternally is a “gift”, but temporally a “granted”.  And if one is not said (to be) a “lord”, except when one begins to have a servant, that is also a relative appellation for God on account of time.  For sempiternal is not the creature, whose Lord He is:  therefore He does not have the sempiternal “being” of  a “lord” [dominum esse], lest we be driven to say that the creature (is) also sempiternal, because He ruled (it) as a lord [dominaretur] sempiternally, or (because) it also served in His household [famularetur] sempiternally.  Moreover, just as one cannot be a “servant”, who does not have a lord, so neither a “lord”, who does not have a servant ».

Sed hic aliquis dicet, quod non ex tempore competit Deo haec appellatio, qua dicitur dominus, quia non est tantum dominus rerum, quae ex tempore coeperunt, sed etiam illius rei, quae non coepit ex tempore, id est ipsius temporis, quod non coepit ex tempore, quia non erat ante3 tempus quam inciperet:  et ideo non coepit esse dominus ex tempore.

But here someone will say, that this appellation, by which He is said (to be) a “lord”, is not due [competit] God on account of time, because He is not only a lord of things, which began in time [ex tempore], but even of that thing, which did not begin in time, that is, of time itself, which did not begin in time, because there was no time before3 it began:  and for that reason He did not begin to be a lord on account of time.

Ad quod dici potest, quia licet non coeperit ex tempore esse dominus temporis, coepit tamen esse dominus temporis, quia non semper fuit tempus; et ipsius hominis ex tempore coepit esse dominus.4  De hoc Augustinus in eodem libro5 continue ita dicit:  « Quisquis extiterit, qui aeternum Deum solum dicat, tempora vero non esse aeterna propter varietatem et mutabilitatem, sed tamen ipsa tempora non in tempore esse coepisse, quia non erat tempus, antequam tempora inciperent, et ideo non in tempore accidere6 Deo, ut dominus esset, quia ipsorum temporum dominus erat, quae utique non in tempore esse coperunt — quid respondebit de homine, qui in tempore factus est, cuius utique dominus non erat, antequam esset?  Certe, ut dominus hominis esset, ex tempore accidit Deo, et ut omnis amoveatur controversia, certe ut tuus dominus esset vel meus, qui modo esse coepimus, ex tempore habuit.  Quomodo igitur obtinebimus, nihil secundum accidens dici de Deo?  Nisi quia ipsius naturae nihil accidit, quo mutetur; ut ea sint accidentia relativa, quae cum aliqua mutatione rerum, de quibus dicuntur, accidunt, sicut amicus relative dicitur.  Non enim amicus esse incipit, nisi cum amare coperit:  fit ergo aliqua mutatio voluntatis, ut amicus dicatur.  Nummus vero, cum dicitur pretium, relative dicitur; nec tamen mutatus est, cum esse coperit pretium, nec cum dicitur pignus et huiusmodi.  Si ergo nummus potest nulla sui mutatione totius dici relative, ut neque cum incipit dici, neque cum desinit, aliquid in eius natura vel forma, qua nummus est, mutationis fiat; quanto facilius de illa incommutabili Dei substantia debemus accipere, quod ita dicatur relative aliquid ad creaturam, ut, quamvis temporaliter incipiat dici, non tamen ipsi substantiae Dei accidisse aliqua intelligatur, sed illi creaturae, ad quam dicitur.  Qualiter etiam refugium nostrum7 dicitur:  refugium enim nostrum dicitur Deus relative:  ad nos enim refertur, et tunc refugium nostrum fit, cum ad eum refugimus.  Nunquid tunc fit aliquid in eius natura, quod, antequam refu- / - geremus

To which it can be said, that though He did not begin on account of time to be a lord of time, yet He did begin to be a lord of time, because time was not always; and of man himself He began to be a lord in time.4  Of this (St.) Augustine in the same book5 thus immediately says:  « Whoever has existed, who says that God alone (is) eternal, but that the seasons [tempora] are not eternal on account of (their) variability and mutability, but yet that the seasons themselves did not begin to be in a time [in tempore], because there was no time, before the seasons began, and for that reason that it did not accede6 to God in a time, to be a lord, because He was a lord of those seasons, which indeed did not begin to be in a time — what shall he respond concerning man, who has been made in a time, whose lord indeed He was not, before he was?  Certainly, to have been the lord of man, accedes to God on account of time, and to remove all controversy, certainly to have been your lord and/or mine, we who began to be a little while ago, He had on account of time.  In what manner, therefore, shall we obtain, that nothing is said of God according to accident?  Except because to the Nature of Him there accedes nothing, by which He is changed; so that those accidents are relatives, which accede with some change of the things, of which they are said, jut as “friend” is said relatively.  For one does not begin to be a friend, except when he begins to love:  therefore let there be some change of will, so that one be said (to be) a friend.  However, a coin [nummus], when it is said to be the price, is said (such) relatively; nor yet has it been changed, when it began to be the price, nor when it is said (to be) a pledge and (things) of this kind.  If, therefore a coin can be said relatively without any change of its whole self, so that neither when it begins, nor when it fails to be said (such), there comes to be something of a change in its nature and/or form, by which it is a coin; how much more easily ought we accept concerning that incommutable Substance of God, that thus something is said relatively to the creature, so that, although it begins to be said temporally, yet nothing is understood to have acceded to the Substance of God Itself, but (something is) to the creature itself, regarding which it is said.  In what manner, also, is He said (to be) “our refuge”:7  for God is said (to be) “our refuge” relatively:  for He is referred to us, and then He comes to be our refuge, when we flee back [refugimus] to Him.  Does something, then, come to be in His Nature, which was not . . .

1  Cap. 13. n. 14.  —  Paulo superius fide codd. B C E et ed. 1 posuimus accidat Deo pro accidit Deo.

2  Ibid. c. 16.n. 17; in quo textu Vat. cum aliis edd., excepta 1, ante moveat addit aliquem contra codd. et originale, et paulo post eadem cum aliis edd. sanctus post Spiritus.

3  Cod. A et ed. 1 verba bene transponunt sic:  non erat tempus, antequam inciperet.

4  Nostri codd. hic addiciunt notulam hanc:  Quando coepit tempus, Deus copeit esse dominus, nec ante tempus fuit dominus, sed cum tempore non ex tempore, vel in tempore, quia non ante fuit tempus quam ispe dominus, sed simul.  Cfr. S. Bonav. hic dub. 2.

5  Loc. cit.   Sed nonnulla a Magistro omissa vel mutata sunt.

6  Omnes codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 acciderit, sed incongrue.  Originale, utendo alia constructione, recte accidit.

7  Psalm. 17, 2, et passim; alius locus s. Scripturae est Ioan. 1, 12.

1  Chapter 13, n. 14.  —  A little above this, trusting in codices B C E and edition 1, we have put which accedes not to God [non quod accidat Deo] for which accedes not to God [non quod accidit Deo].

2  Ibid., ch. 16, n. 17; in which text the Vatican edition, together with the other editions, except edition 1, reads Let it not move anyone [Non aliquem moveat], contrary to the codices and the original, and a little after this the same, together with the other editions, has the Holy  Spirit [Spiritus sanctus] for the Spirit [Spiritus].

3  Codex A and edition 1 transpose the words well in this manner:  time was not, before it began [non erat tempus, antequam inciperet].

4  Our codices here add this short note:  When time began, God began to be a lord, nor was He a lord before time, but with time not on account of time, and/or in a time, because time was not before He (was) a lord, but (they were such) together. [Quando coepit tempus, Deus copeit esse dominus, nec ante tempus fuit dominus, sed cum tempore non ex tempore, vel in tempore, quia non ante fuit tempus quam ispe dominus, sed simul.]  Cf. S. Bonaventure, here dubium 2.

5  Loc. cit..  But not a few (words) have been omitted and/or changed by Master (Peter).

6  All the codices and editions 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8, have accede [acciderit] in the perfect subjunctive, but incongruously [trans. note:  because the clause must be in indirect discourse, which requires an infinitive].

7  Ps. 17:2, and passim; the other passage from Sacred Scripture is Jn. 1:12.

 

* [Trans. note:  See ex tempore in the Rationale on the Translation of Peculiar Latin Terms]

 

p. 520

refu- / - geremus ad eum, non erat?  In nobis ergo fit aliqua mutatio, qui ad eum refugiendo efficimur meliores; in illo autem nulla.  Sic et pater noster esse incipit, cum per eius gratiam regeneramur, qui dedi nobis potestatem filios Dei fieri.  Substantia igitur nostra mutatur in melius, cum filii eius efficimus.  Similiter et ille pater noster esse incipit, sed nulla suae commutatione substantiae.  Quod ergo temporaliter dici incipit Deus quod antea non dicebatur, manifestum est relative dici, non tamen secundum accidens Dei, quod ei aliquid acciderit, sed plane secundum accidens eius, ad quod dici aliquid Deus incipit relative ».  —  Ex his aperte ostenditur, quod quaedam de Deo temporaliter dicuntur relative ad creaturas sine mutatione deitatis, sed non sine mutatione creaturae; et ita accidens est in creatura, non in Creatore, et appellatio, qua creatura relative dicitur ad Creatorem, relativa est et relationem notat, quae est in ipsa creatura.  Appellatio vero illa, qua Creator relative dicitur ad creaturam, relativa quidem est, sed nullam notat relationem, quae sit in Creatore.

before we fled back to Him?  In us, therefore, there comes to be some change, we who, by fleeing back to Him, are made better; but in Him nothing (does).  Thus too He began to be Our Father, since we are regenerated through the grace of Him, who gave us power to be made the sons of God.  Therefore, our substance is changed for the better [in melius], when we become His sons.  Similarly, too, He began to be Our Father, but without any commutation of His own Substance.  What, therefore, God began to be said temporally, which He did not used (to be said to be), is manifest that it is said relatively, yet not according to an accident  in God [Dei], because something accedes to Him, but plainly according to an accident in that [eius], regarding which God is said to be something relatively ».  —  From these he openly shows, that certain (names) are said of God temporally in a manner relative to creatures without a change of the Deity, but not without a change of the creature; and thus it is an accident in the creature, not in the Creator, and the appellation, by which the creature is said relatively to the Creator, is a relative one and notes a relation, which is in the creature itself.  But that appellation, by which the Creator is said relatively to the creature, is indeed a relative one, but does not note a relation, which is in the Creator.

Cap. II.

 

An Spiritus sanctus dicatur datum vel donatum relative ad se, cum a se detur.

Chapter II.

Whether the Holy Spirit is said (to have been) given and/or granted relatively to Himself, since He is given by Himself.

Hic potest solvi quaestio superius1 proposita, ubi quaerebatur, cum Spiritus sanctus dicatur datum vel donatum — quod autem datur refertur et ad eum qui dat, et ad illum cui datur — et cum Spiritus sanctus de se ipsum, utrum ad se ipsum relative dicatur, cum dicitur dari vel donari.  Cui quaestioni respondentes dicimus, Spiritum sanctum dici datum vel donatum relative et ad dantem, et ad illum cui datur.2  Dans autem sive donator est Pater cum Filius et Spiruts sancto.  Nec tamen dicimus, Spiritum sanctum referri ad se, sed appellatio dati vel donati refertur et ad dantem et ad recipientem, quia non potest aliquid dici datum, nisi ab aliqua et alicui detur.  Cum autem Spiritus sanctus dari a se vel datus a se dicitur, relative quidem dicitur ad illum cui datur; et est appellatio relativa, et in illo cui datur mutatio fit, non in dante.

Here can be solved the question proposed above,1 where it was asked, since the Holy Spirit is said (to have been) given and/or granted — moreover, what is given is referred to him who gives, and to the one to whom it is given — and since the Holy Spirit (is also said to be such) from Himself, whether,  when He is said to be given and/or granted, He is said (to be such) in a manner relative to Himself.  To which question, responding, we say, that the Holy Spirit is said (to have been) given and/or granted in a manner relative, both to the One giving, and to the one to whom He is given.2  Moreover the One giving, or the Grantor, is the Father with the Son and the Holy Spirit.  And yet we do not say, that the Holy Spirit is referred to Himself, but the appellation of a given and/or a granted is referred both to the One giving and to the one receiving, because nothing can be said (to have been) given, unless it is given from someone and to someone.  Moreover, when the Holy Spirit is said to be given and/or (to have been) given by Himself, He indeed is said (to be such) in a manner relative to the one to whom He is given; and the appellation is a relative one, and in the one to whom He is given there comes to be a change, not in the One giving.

1  Dist. XVIII. c. 6.

2  Codd. D E donatur.

1  Distinction XVIII, ch. 6.

2  Codices D and E have is granted [donatur].

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.