Sentences, Books I–II

Chapter 1 (13).

1. Here it is asked whether it should be granted that God begot himself. Here arises a quite necessary question. It is established and is irrefragably true that God the Father begot the Son; therefore it is asked whether it should be granted that God begot God. For if God begot God, it seems that he either begot himself or another God.

^{1 2 3}

⁴ Quod in LNV. 6 etiam] enim in OPV. 26–27 etiam ibi transposed in BCMN. 30 libro IX transposed in LMT.]

⁵ est added in MOV. 17 I libro transposed in OPW. 22 constat] enim added in BCRV.]

⁶

⁷

Solution. In reply, we say that it may rightly and in Catholic fashion be granted that one begot one, and that God begot God, because God the Father begot God the Son. The Creed⁸ also says: “Light from Light, true God from true God.” — We say that neither of the conclusions added—“therefore he begot himself as God, or another God”—should be granted. It is clear that he did not beget another God, because there is only one God. Augustine shows in Book I of On the Trinity⁹ that he did not beget himself, saying: “Those who think it belongs to God's power that God begot himself err all the more, because not only is God not such, but no spiritual or bodily creature is either. For there is no thing that begets itself so as to exist.” Therefore we must not believe or say that God begot himself.

2. Another question on the same subject. But loquacious reasoners¹⁰ still object: If God the Father begot God, did he beget God who is God the Father, or God who is not God the Father? If he begot God who is not God the Father, then there is a God who is not God the Father; therefore there is not only one God. But if he begot God who is God the Father, then he begot himself. — Reply. We answer by making a distinction in the proposition they put forward: “If God the Father begot God, he begot either God who is God the Father, or God who is not God the Father.” This can be understood soundly or unsoundly. We should reply as follows: “God the Father begot God who is himself the Father”—this we say is false; and we grant the other proposition, namely, “he begot God who is not the Father.” Yet he did not beget another God, nor is the one begotten another God than the Father, but one God with the Father. — If the additional phrase is, “He begot God who is not God the Father,” we distinguish, for it can be understood in two ways: “He begot God who is not God the Father,” namely, God the Son, who is Son and not the Father who is God; this sense is true. But if it is understood as “He begot God who is not God the Father,” that is, who is not the God who is the Father, this sense is false. For the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the same God; and conversely, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God.

Chapter 2 (14).

1. The opinion of certain people who say that the three persons are one God and one substance, but not conversely, namely, that one God or one substance is three persons. Certain adversaries of the truth grant that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or the three persons, are one God and one substance, but do not wish to grant that one God or one substance is three persons. They say that the divine substance is predicated of the three persons, but the three persons are not predicated of the divine substance.

2. He adduces authorities against them. The Catholic faith holds and proclaims that the three persons are one God, one substance, essence, or divine nature, and that one God or divine essence is three persons. Hence Augustine says in Book I of On the Trinity¹¹: “God himself, the Trinity, is rightly understood to be blessed and alone powerful”¹². See how explicitly he says “God himself, the Trinity,” to show that God himself is the Trinity and the Trinity is God himself. — Again, in the same work: “In those words of the Apostle,” where, speaking of Christ's coming, he says, Whom the blessed and only powerful one will show, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality, etc., “neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit is named specifically, but ‘the blessed and only powerful one,’ that is, the one and only true God, who is the Trinity itself.” Here too he plainly says that the one and only true God is the Trinity itself; and if the Trinity is one God, then one God is three persons.

3. Likewise, in Book V of On the Trinity¹³: “We say that this most excellent Trinity itself is not three gods, but one God.” — Likewise, in the book On On Faith to Peter¹⁴, in his exposition of the Creed: “It is enough for a Christian to believe that the cause of created things, visible and invisible, is nothing other than the goodness of the Creator, who is the one and true God; that no nature exists which is not either he himself or from him; and that he is the Trinity, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” — Again, Augustine says in his sermon On Faith¹⁵: “We believe in one God, that there is one Trinity of the divine name.” — Likewise, in Book VI of On the Trinity¹⁶: “We say that God alone is the Trinity itself.” By these and many other authorities it is clearly shown that we must say and grant that the one God is the Trinity, and that one substance is three persons; just as, conversely, the Trinity is said to be one God, and the three persons are said to be one substance.

¹⁷ et added in OP.] ¹⁸

¹⁹ “if it were spoken relatively or a relative term were substituted” added in O (margin), P. 8 genuit] genuit BCV. 9 quia] quod OP. 10 esse potentiae transposed in NRTX. 13 credendum vel dicendum transposed in OP. 17 aut] genuit added in OP. 25 Nec non] Nec BMC. 26 ille omitted in LMNX. 32 et² omitted in BCTV. 33 et¹ omitted in BMW.]

4. He returns to the question proposed above, namely, whether the Father begot himself as God or another God. Let us now return to the question proposed above, where it was asked whether the Father begot himself as God or another God. We say that neither should be granted. — Nevertheless, Augustine says in his letter To Maximus²⁰ that the Father begot another self from himself, in these words: “The Father, in order to have a Son from himself, did not diminish himself, but so begot another self from himself that he remained wholly in himself and was as great in the Son as he was alone.” — This can be understood as follows: he begot another from himself, not another God, but another person; or “he begot another self,” that is, he begot another who is what he himself is. For although the Father is another than the Son, he is not another thing, but one.