|
Magistri Petri Lombardi |
Master Peter Lombard |
Sententiarum Quatuor Libri |
The Four Books of Sentences |
|
LIBER SECUNDUS SENTENTIARUM.
DE RERUM CREATIONE ET
FORMATIONE CORPORALIUM ET SPIRITUALIUM |
THE SECOND BOOK OF THE SENTENCES
ON THE CREATION AND FORMATION OF THINGS CORPORAL AND SPIRITUAL AND MANY OTHERS PERTAINING TO THIS |
|
DISTINCTIO XVI. |
DISTINCTION 16 |
|
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, |
Latin
text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, |
|
Cap. I.
De hominis creatione. |
Chapter I. On the creation of man. |
|
His excursis, quae supra1 de hominis creatione praemisimus effectui mancipare atque ordine explanare nunc suscipimus, ubi haec consideranda videtur, scilicet, quare creatus sit homo, et qualiter institutus, et qualis vel quomodo factus, deinde qualiter sit lapsus, postremo, qualiter et per quae sit reparatus. Horum autem primo et secundo posita, id est causam creationis humanae et modum institutionis, superius2 pro modulo nostrae facultatis tractavimus. |
Having run through [excursis] those (considerations), which we prefaced above1 concerning the creation of man, we now undertake [sucipimus] to set forth [effectui mancipare] and explain in order, where it seems that these (are) to be considered, namely, “Why was man created?”, and “In what kind of manner (was he) instituted?”, and “Of what kind and/or in what manner (was he) made?”, then “In what kind of manner did he fall [lapsus]?”, finally, “In what kind of manner and through what (things) was he repaired?”. Moreover the first and second posited of these, that is the cause of man’s creation and the manner of (his) institution, we have treated above2 to the small extent of our ability [pro modulo nostrae facultatis]. |
|
Cap. II.
Qualis factus sit homo. |
Chapter II. What kind of man was made? |
|
Ideoque superest, ut qualis vel quomodo factus sit, discutiamus. In Genesi legitur: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram etc. In eo quod dicit faciamus, una operatio trium personarum ostenditur; in hoc vero, quod dicit ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, una et aequalis substantia trium personarum monstratur. Ex persona enim Patris hoc dicitur ad Filium et Spiritum sanctum, non, ut quidam putant, Angelis, quia Dei et Angelorum non est eadem imago et similitudo.3 |
And for that reason it remains, that we discuss in an orderly manner [discutiamus], “Of what kind and/or in what manner was he made?”. In Genesis there is read: Let Us make man to Our image and likeness [similitudinem] etc. In this that it says “Let Us make”, the one operation of the Three Persons is shown; but in this, that it says “to Our image and likeness”, the One and Equal Substance of the Three Persons is demonstrated. For this (verse) is said in the person of the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit, not, as certain (authors) think, to the Angels, because of God and the Angels there is not the same image and similitude.3 |
|
Cap. III.
De imagine et similitudine, ad quam factus est homo. |
Chapter III. On the image and similitude, to which man was made. |
|
Imago autem et similitudo in hoc loco vel increata intelligitur, id est Trinitatis essentia, ad quam factus est homo, vel creata, in qua factus est homo, et ipsa homini concreata. Increata enim imaginem, quae Deus est, intellexisse videtur Beda,4 cum dicit, « non esse unam imaginem Dei et Angelorum, sed trium personarum »; et ideo personis, non . . . |
Moreover in this passage “image” [imago] and “similitude” [similitudo] are either understood (to be) the Uncreated (Image), that is the Essence of the Trinity, to which man was made, and/or the created one, in which man was made, and the very (image) co-created with man. For it seems that (St) Bede (the Venerable)4 understood the “image” (to be) the Uncreated (Image), which is God, when he says, « that there is not one image of God and the Angels, but (there is) of the Three Persons »; and for that reason there the discourse is made / to the (Divine) Persons, . . . |
|
1 Dist. praec. c. 5. — Quoad hanc dist. cfr. Hugo, Sum. Sent. tr. 3. c. 2, et I. de Sacram. p. 6. c. 1. Cod. Erf. retegat ad Gandolph. Sent. II. c. 72. Paulo inferius pro per quae codd. B E et* edd. 1, 8 per quem. 2 Dist. I. c. 4. 5. 6. — Locus Gen. mox cit. est 1, 26. 3 August., III. de Gen. ad lit. c. 19. n. 29; et Glossa ord., sumta ex Beda. 4 Hexaëm. ad Gen. 1, 26; est etiam in Glossa ord. — Aliquanto inferius pro Improprie autem Vat. cum ceteris edd., exceptis 1, 8, inepte repetit Proprie autem imago dicitur id quod ad aliud. (cfr. S. Bonav., I. Sent. d. 31. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.). |
1 In the preceding Distinction, ch. 5. — In regard to this Distinction, cf. Hugo, Summa Sententiarum, tr. 3, ch. 2, and On the Sacraments, Bk. I, p. 6, ch. 1. The Erfurt Codex cites Gandolphus, Sent., Bk. II, ch. 72. A little below this for through what (things) [per quae] codices B and E and editions 1 and 8, have through whom [per quem]. [Trans. note: The expression effectui mancipare is cited by Du Cagne, Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis, thus: Effectui Mancipari, in chart. Dagobert. I. ann. 628. apud Brequin. nov. ed.it. nu. 245, and reckoned in the form mancipari effectum as being equivalent to sortiri, obtinere. In this passage of Lombard it appears to have this sense: to give so as to effect, taking effectui as a dative of purpose; the sense here is that Master Peter mentioned these matters beforehand so as to set forth the order in which he was to treat them, and that having completed the preliminary considerations, he now takes up what he proposed to discuss. He uses the term mancipare, which means to sell by a legal act, because, as he mentioned in the preface to Book I, the purpose of his Sentences is to tradere, that is hand over and/or betray, the ecclesiastical mysteries; which by thus enumerating and setting them forth, he is about to do herein.] 2 Distinction I, chs. 4, 5 and 6. — The passage from Genesis, next cited, is Gen. 1:26. 3 (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. III, ch. 19, n. 29; and the Glossa ordinaria, taken from (St.) Bede. 4 Hexaëmeron, on Gen. 1:26; it is also in the Glossa ordinaria. — Somewhat below this for However (in that passage) “image” is said improperly [Improprie autem] the Vatican edition, together with all the other editions, except edition 1 and 8, ineptly reads Properly an image is said to be that which is said (to be) an image to another [Proprie autem imago dicitur id quod ad aliud] (cf. St. Bonaventure, Sent, Bk. I, d. 31, p. II, a. 1, q. 1). |
|
* [Trans. nota: Hic videtur perperam quod nota originalis legivit et B E pro B E et.] |
|
p. 392
|
Angelis fit ibi sermo. Improprie tamen imago dicitur, quia imago relative ad aliud dicitur, cuius similitudinem gerit et ad quod repraesentandum facta est, sicut imago Caesaris, quae ipsius similitudinem praeferebat ipsumque quodammodo repraesentabat; improprie autem imago dicitur id ad quod aliud fit; sicut exemplum proprie dicitur quod sumitur ex aliquo, et exemplar, ex quo sumitur aliquid. Ponitur tamen aliquando abusive alterum pro altero; ita et minus proprie accipitur imago essentia Trinitatis, si tamen ea nomine imaginis in hoc loco intelligitur. |
is made / to the (Divine) Persons, not to the Angels. However (in that passage) “image” is said improperly, because “image” is said relatively regarding the other, whose similitude it bears and to represent which (the image) was made, just as (an image was said to be) “the image of Caesar”, which proffers his similitude and in a certain manner represented him; moreover, that according which another is made is improperly said (to be it’s) “image”; just as that which is taken out of something is properly said (to be) an “example” (of it), and that out of which something is taken (is said properly to be its) “exemplar”. Yet sometimes the one is abusively posited for the other; thus the Essence of the Trinity is also accepted less properly as the “image”, if, however, It is understood in this passage by that name of “image”. |
|
Filius vero proprie imago Patris dicitur, sicut supra1 in tractatu de Trinitate diximus. Unde fuerunt nonnulli, qui ita distinxerunt, ut imaginem in hoc loco intelligerent Filium; hominem vero non imaginem, sed ad imaginem factum dicerent; quos refellit Apostolus2 dicens: Vir quidem est imago et gloria Dei. Haec namque imago, id est homo, cum dicitur fieri ad imaginem, non quasi ad Filium dicitur fieri, alioquin non diceretur: Ad imaginem nostram. Quomodo enim nostram diceret, cum Filius solius Patris imago sit? — Fuerunt autem et alii, perspicacius haec tractantes, qui per imaginem Filium, et per similitudinem Spiritum sanctum intelligerent, qui similitudo est patris et Filii. Et ideo pluraliter putaverunt dici nostram, id referentes ad similitudinem tantum, ad imaginem vero subintelligendum esse meam. Hominem vero et imaginem esse et ad imaginem et similitudinem factum est, tradiderunt, et imaginem imaginis esse et similitudinis. |
However the Son is said properly (to be) the “image” of the Father, just as we have said above1 in the tract on the Trinity. Wherefore there were not a few, who thus distinguished, so that they understood the “image” in this passage as the Son; but said that man (was) not made the “image”, but “to the Image” [ad imaginem]; whom the Apostle2 refutes saying: A man [vir] is indeed the image and glory of God. For indeed this image, that is man, when he is said to be made to the image, is not said as if to be made to the Son, otherwise there would not be said: To Our image. For in what manner would He say “Our”, since the Son is the image of the Father alone? — Moreover, there were others, treating these (words) more perspicaciously, who understood through “image” the Son, and through “likeness” [similitudo] the Holy Spirit, who is the similitude of the Father and of the Son. — And for that reason they thought “Our” is said in the plural, that is referring (it) to the likeness only, but that at “image” there to be implicitly understood [subintelligendum] a “My”. However they handed down that man is both an “image” and (made) “to the image and likeness”, and that he is an image of the Image and Similitude. |
|
Verumtamen haec distinctio licet reprobabilis penitus non videatur, quia tamen de medio montium,3 id est auctoritatibus Sanctorum non manat, congruentius in ipso homine imago et similitudo Dei quaerenda est et consideranda. Factus est ergo homo ad imaginem Dei et similitudinem secundum mentem, qua irrationalibus antecellit; sed ad imaginem secundum memoriam, intelligentiam et dilectionem, ad similitudinem secundum innocentiam et iustitiam, quae in mente rationali naturaliter sunt. — Vel imago consideratur in cognitione veritatis, similitudo in amore virtutis; vel imago in aliis omnibus, similitudo in essentia, quia immortalis et indivisibilis est. Unde Augustinus in libro de Quantitate animae:4 Anima facta est similis Deo, quia immortalem et indissolubilem fecit eam Deus. Imago ergo pertinet ad formam, similitudo ad naturam. Factus est ergo homo secundum animam ad imaginem et similitudinem non Patris, vel Filii, vel Spiritus sancti, sed totius Trinitatis; ita et secundum animam dicitur homo esse imago Dei, quia imago Dei in eo est. Sicut imago dicitur et tabula et pictura,5 quae in ea est; sed propter picturam, quae in ea est, simul et tabula imago appellatur: ita propter imaginem Trinitatis etiam illud, in quo est haec imago, nomine imaginis vocatur. |
Nevertheless this distinction, though it does not seem entirely worthy of reproof [penitus reprobabilis] , yet because it does not flow from the midst of the mountains,3 that is (from) the authorities of the Saints, the image and similitude of God is to be sought and considered more fittingly [congruentius] in man himself. Therefore man was made to the image and similitude of God according to (his) mind, by which he surpasses [antecellit] irrational (things); but to the image (of God) according to (his) memory, intelligence and dilection, to the similitude (of God) according to the innocence and justice, which are naturally in the rational mind. — And/or he is considered an image in (his) cognition of truth, a similitude in (his) love [amore] of virtue; and/or an image in all (his) other (powers), a similitude in (his) essence, because (that) is immortal and indivisible. Wherefore (St.) Augustine in the book On the Quantity of the Soul (says):4 “The soul has been made similar to God, because God made it immortal and indissoluble.” Therefore ‘image’ pertains to form, ‘similitude’ to nature. Therefore man was made according to (his) soul to the image and similitude not of the Father, and/or of the Son, and/or of the Holy Spirit, but of the whole Trinity; thus too according to the soul man is said to be the “image of God”, because the image of God is in him. Just there is said (to be) an “image”, (there is) also (said to be) a “painting” [tabula] and the “picture”,5 which is in it; but on account of the picture, which is in it, a painting is also simultaneously named an “image”: thus on account of the image of the Trinity even that, in which there is this Image, is called by the name of “image”. |
|
Cap. IV.
Quare homo dicitur imago et ad imaginem, Filius non ad imaginem. |
Chapter IV. Why man is said (to be) an “image” and “(made) to the image”, (but) the Son (is) not (said to be “made) to the image”? |
|
Quocirca homo et imago dicitur et ad imaginem, Filius autem imago, non ad imaginem, quia natus, non creatus, aequalis et in nullo dissimilis; homo creatus est a Deo, non genitus, non pariliate aequalis, sed quadam similitudine accedens ei. Unde Augustinus in libro septimo de Trinitate:6 « In Genesi legitur: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Faciamus et nostram pluraliter dixit, et nisi ex relativis accipi non oportet, ut facere intelligantur Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus ad imaginem Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, ut subsisteret homo imago Dei. Sed quia non omnino aqualis fiebat illa imago, tanquam non ab illo nata, sed ab eo creata; ideo ita imago dicitur, quod et ad imaginem, quia non aequatur parilitate, sed accedit quandam similitudine. Filius autem est imago, sed non ad imaginem, quia aequalis Patri. Dictus est ergo homo ad imaginem propter imparem similitudinem; et ideo7 nostram, ut imago Trinitatis esse homo intelligatur, non Trinitati aequalis, sicut Filius Patri ». — Ecce ostensum est, secundum quid sit homo similis Deo, scilicet secundum animam. Sed et « in corpore quandam proprietatem habet, quae hoc indicat, quia est erecta statura, secundum quam corpus animae rationali congruit, quia in caelum erectum est ». |
Wherefore man is said (to be) both an “image” and “(made) to the image (of God)”, but the Son (is said to be) “the Image”, not “(made) to the image”, because (He has been) born, not created, (is) equal and in nothing dissimilar; man has been created by God, not begotten, (is) equal not by a equal likeness [pariliate], but as one approaching Him by a certain similitude. Wherefore (St.) Augustine in the seventh book On the Trinity6 (says): « In Genesis there is read: Let Us make man to Our image and likeness. He said “Let Us make” and “Our” in the plural, and it is not necessary [oportet] to accept, except on account of the relatives, that the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are understood to make (man) to the image of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, so that man might subsist as the image of God. But because that image did not come to be entirely equal, as one not born from Him, but created by Him; for that reason he is thus said (to be His) “image”, that (he is) also (said to be made) “to (His) image”, because he is not equated (to Him) by a equal likeness, but approaches by a certain similitude. Moreover the Son is the Image, but (has) not (been made) to (His) image, because (He is) equal to the Father. Therefore man has been said (to be “made) to the image (of God)” on account of the unequal similitude [imparem similitudinem]; and for that reason (it says)7 “Our”, so that man be understood to be the image of the Trinity, not equal to the Trinity, just as the Son (is) to the Father ». Behold it has been shown, according to what man is similar to God, namely according to (his) soul. But he also « has in (his) body a certain property, which indicates this, because (his) stature is erect, according to which (stature) the body befits the rational soul, because it has been raised [erectum est] unto Heaven ». |
|
1 Lib. I. Sent. d. XXVII. c. 3, et d. XXVIII. c. 6. — Quae sequuntur sunt ex August., VII. de Trin. c. 6. n. 12. 2 I. Cor. 11, 7: Vir quidem non debet velare caput suum, quoniam imago et gloria Dei est. 3 Haec verba respiciunt Zach. 6, 1: Egredientes de medio duorum montium, vel Ps. 103, 10: Inter medium montium pertransibunt aquae. — Immediate ante cum Vat. et cod. B nec non ed. 1 retinuimus tamen, quod a ceteris codd. et edd. abest. 4 Cap. 2. n. 3. Cfr. de Spiritu et anima, c. 10,* August. XII. de Trin. c. 6, et Serm. 52. c. 6. n. 17. 5 Cfr. August., XV. de Trin. c. 22. n. 43. Videsis ipsa August. verba apud Magistrum, I. Sent. d. III. c. 3. 6 Cap. 6. n. 12. — Paulo inferius post ex relativis edd. 1, 8 interserunt i. e. personis. 7 Cod. D hic bene subiicit dicit. — Ultima huius cap. propositio est ex Beda, Hexaëm. ad Gen. 1, 26, et habetur in Glossa ord. ad hunc locum. |
1 Sent., Bk. I, d. XXVII, ch. 3, and d. XXVIII, ch. 6. — (The words) which follow are from (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity, Bk. VII, ch. 6, n. 12. 2 1 Cor. 11:7: A man ought not veil his own head, since he is the image and glory of God [Vir quidem non debet velare caput suum, quoniam imago et gloria Dei est]. 3 These words respect Zach. 6:1: Stepping forth from the midst of the two mountains [Egredientes de medio duorum montium], and/or Ps. 103:10: The waters will pass through among the midst of the mountains [Inter medium montium]. — Immediately before (this), we have retained the yet [tamen], together with the Vatican edition and codex B, which is absent from all the other codices and editions. 4 Chapter 2, n. 3. Cf. On Spirit and Soul, ch. 10, (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity, Bk. XII, ch. 6, and Sermon 52, ch. 6, n. 17. 5 Cf. (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity, Bk. XV, ch. 22, n. 43. See the very words of (St.) Augustine in Master (Peter), Sent., Bk. I, d. III, ch. 3. 6 Chapter 6, n. 12. — A little below this after on account of the relatives [ex relativis] editions 1 and 8 have inserted i. e. the Persons [i. e. personis]. 7 Codex D subjoins there rightly it says [dicit]. — The final proposition of this chapter is from (St.) Bede, Hexaëmeron, Gen. 1:26, and is had in the Glossa ordinaria, on this passage. |
|
* [Trans. nota: Hic videtur perperam, quod nota originalis legivit (cf. de Spiritu et anima, c. 10).] |
|
This English Translation and the
digitization of the Latin and English texts, the HTML markup, all emendations
and corrections of the Latin text, and all notes by the Translator, are © 2007,
2008 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo. 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.