Peter Lombard’s Sentences, Book 3: On the Incarnation of the Word (Table of Contents)

Translated by Giulio Silano. His additions are in square brackets [e.g., lorem ipsum], and mine are in curved brackets {e.g., lorem ipsum}.

1. Why the Son took on flesh, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
2. Whether the Father or the Holy Spirit could have become incarnate.
3. Whether the Son, who alone took on flesh, did something that the Father or the Holy Spirit did not do.

1. Why he took the whole human nature, and what is understood by the term nature.
2. On the union of Word and flesh through the soul.
3. That the Word took on flesh and soul at the same time, nor was the flesh conceived before it was taken on.

1. On the flesh that was taken, what it was like before.
2. That no one here is without sin, apart from the Virgin.
3. Why Christ did not pay tithes in Abraham, as Levi did.
4. For what reason Christ’s flesh is said not to have been sinful, but like sinful flesh.

1. Why the incarnation is attributed to the Holy Spirit, even though it is the work of the whole Trinity.
2. For what reason Christ is said to have been conceived and born of the Holy Spirit.
3. Why the Apostle says that Christ was made, but we profess that he was born.

1. Whether a person or nature took on a person or nature, and whether God’s nature became incarnate.
2. Whether the divine nature ought to be said to have been made flesh.
3. Why [the Word] did not take the person of a man, even though it took a man; but some strive to prove the contrary.

1. On the meaning of these expressions: God is man, God was made man, etc. He sets out three opinions.
2. The first is the opinion of those who say that, in the incarnation, some man was constituted from soul and flesh, and that man was made God, and God was made that man; and he sets out the authorities on the strength of which they say this. {Note: This is classically known as the homo assumptus view.}
3. The second is the opinion of those who say that that man was constituted of three substances or two natures, and they profess this to be one person: only one simple person before the incarnation, and composite one at the incarnation; and he sets out the authorities by which these defend themselves. {Note: This is classically known as the subsistence view.}
4. The third is the opinion of those who not only deny [the existence of] a person composed of natures, but also disavow that there was any man or any substance there composed of soul and flesh. They say that these two things, namely soul and flesh, were united to the Word, not so that any substance or person was composed from those two things, but so that God might be clothed with those two as with clothing in order to appear to the eyes of mortals. These understand the order of the incarnation according to habit. {Note: This is classically known as the habitus view.}
5. Then he sets forth the authorities by which this {third} opinion is strengthened.
6. Four kinds of habit are distinguished.

1. Next, he sets out the reasons that seem to go against each of those opinions {from Distinction 6}.
2. In what sense Christ is called predestined.
3. That he is not to be called the Lord’s man.

1. Whether the divine nature ought to be said to be born of the Virgin.
2. On the twofold birth of Christ, who was born twice.

1. On the adoration to be shown to Christ’s humanity.

1. Whether Christ, according to his being a man, is a person or anything.
2. Whether Christ is an adoptive son according to his being man.
3. Whether the person or the nature was predestined.

1. Whether Christ is a creature or was made.
2. On the perfidy and punishment of Arius.

1. Whether that man always was.
2. Whether God could have taken some other form or from other than the stock of Adam.
3. If it would have been possible for that man to sin or not be God.
4. If God could have taken human form in the female sex.

1. Concerning Christ’s wisdom and grace as a man, and whether he could have made progress in them.

1. Whether the soul of Christ had wisdom equal to God’s and whether it knows all things that God knows.
2. Why God did not give to that soul the power over, as well as the knowledge of, all things.

1. Of man’s defects which Christ took on.
2. On the propassion and passion of fear or sadness.
3. On some rather obscure chapters of Hilary which appear to remove the sufferings of the passion from Christ’s flesh.
4. On Christ’s sorrow and its cause according to the same.

1. Whether in Christ there was the necessity to suffer and die, which is a general defect.
2. Of the states of man, and what Christ took from each of them.

1. Whether every prayer or will of Christ was fulfilled.
2. On the wills of Christ according to his two natures.
3. On some chapters of Ambrose and Hilary where Christ’s doubt and fear are discussed.

1. Whether Christ merited for himself and for us, and what for himself, what for us.
2. That Christ merited for himself the same things from his conception as through his passion.
3. Concerning that text: He gave to him the name which is above all other names.
4. Whether Christ could have had those things without any merit which he obtained by his merit.
5. On the cause of the passion and death of Christ.

1. How, by his death, Christ redeemed us from the devil and sin.
2. Why God{,} man{,} and dead.
3. How Christ redeemed us from punishment.
4. How he bore our punishment.
5. Whether Christ alone is to be called redeemer, as he alone is to be called mediator.
6. On the [title] mediator.
7. According to which nature is he mediator.

1. That he could have freed us in some other manner.
2. Why rather in this manner.
3. By what righteousness was the devil overcome.
4. On the litigation among God, man, and the devil.
5. On the handing over of Christ done by Judas, God, and the Jews.
6. Whether Christ’s passion is the work of God or of the Jews.

1. Whether at Christ’s death the soul or flesh was separated from the Word.
2. For what reason Christ is said to have died or suffered.

1. Whether Christ was a man in death.
2. Whether in death Christ is a man wherever he is.
3. That the whole Christ is everywhere, yet not wholly, just as he is whole man or God, yet not wholly.
4. Whether those things which are said of God or of the Son of God can be said of that man or of the son of man.

1. Whether Christ had faith and hope, as he had charity.
2. What is faith.
3. In how many ways the term faith is used.
4. What it is to believe God, or in a God, or in God.
5. Of that formless quality of mind which is in the evil Christian.
6. In what sense faith is said to be one.
7. That faith properly concerns things which are not seen, and yet it is itself seen by the one in whom it is.
8. Description of faith.
9. Why faith alone is called the foundation.

1. How that text: “When it comes to pass, you may believe” is to be understood.
2. Whether Peter had faith in the passion when he saw that man suffer.
3. Whether some things are known which are believed.

1. On the faith of the ancients.
2. On the faith of the simple.
3. What it was sufficient to believe before [Christ’s] coming.
4. On the faith of Cornelius.
5. On the equality of faith, hope, charity, and work.

1. On hope, what it is.
2. With what is hope concerned.
3. In what hope and faith differ.
4. Whether faith or hope was in Christ.
5. Whether the just in hell had faith and hope.

1. On the charity toward God and neighbour which is in Christ and in us.
2. What is charity.
3. Whether God and neighbour are loved by the same love.
4. Why there are said to be two commandments of charity.
5. On the manner of loving.
6. On the fulfillment of that commandment: You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart.
7. That the one mandate is contained in the other.
8. What things are to be loved in charity.

1. Whether we are commanded to love all of our neighbour and our whole selves.
2. That the love of angels is included in the love of neighbour.
3. What is our neighbour.
4. In what ways the term neighbour is used.

1. On the order of loving: what [comes] before, what after.
2. Whether all men are to be loved equally.
3. On the degrees of charity.

1. Whether it is better to love enemies than friends.

1. Whether charity, once had, may be lost.
2. Why faith, hope, and knowledge are said to be made void, and not charity, even though it too is only in part.
3. Whether Christ observed the same order of charity as we do.

1. On God’s charity.
2. How God is said to love this one more and that one less.
3. That God’s love is to be regarded in two ways.
4. Whether one is loved more or less by God at one time than at another.
5. Whether God loved the reprobate from all eternity.

1. On the four principal virtues.
2. Whether these virtues were in Christ and are in the angels.
3. On their uses.

1. On the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.
2. Whether they are virtues and whether they are in the angels.
3. Whether they were in Christ.
4. On the distinction of fears.
5. On chaste, servile, and initial fear.
6. How chaste and servile fear differ.
7. That servile and initial fear are called the beginning of wisdom, but differently.
8. How chaste fear remains forever.
9. Whether the fear of pain, which was in Christ, was servile or initial.

1. How wisdom and knowledge differ.
2. In what wisdom differs from understanding.
3. Whether the understanding and knowledge which numbered among the gifts [of the Holy Spirit] are the ones which man has naturally.

1. On the connection of the virtues which are not separated.
2. Whether all the virtues are equally present in anyone in whom they are.
3. How the whole Law hangs from charity.

1. On the ten commandments: how they are contained in the two [commandments of charity].
2. How an idol is said to be nothing in the world.
3. Why remission of sins is properly said to be done in the Holy Spirit.
4. On the spiritual and carnal senses of the Law.
5. On theft.
6. On lying.

1. On the threefold kind of lying.
2. On the eight kinds of lying.
3. What is lying.
4. What it is to lie.
5. That every lie is a sin, whether it is of help or not, and why.
6. In what is it dangerous to err, in what not.

1. On perjury.
2. Whether there can be a perjury which is not a lie.
3. On the triple manner of perjury.
4. Whether it is an evil to swear oaths.
5. On the oath which is sworn by creatures.
6. Which oath is more binding, whether to one done “by God,” or “by creatures,” or “by the Gospel.”
7. What it means to say: By God.
8. Concerning those who swear by false gods.
9. That an oath or promise made against God is not to be kept.
10. Whether he is a perjurer, who does not do what he has incautiously sworn.
11. Concerning those who swear with verbal artfulness.
12. Concerning him who compels another to swear.

1. Why the Law is said to restrain the hand, but not the spirit.
2. What is the letter that kills.
3. On the difference between Law and Gospel.


I write and think a lot about the Incarnation, and I think Lombard’s Sentences, in its entirety, is an important and seemingly unread classic. I couldn’t find the table of contents for Book 3 available anywhere on the Internet, so I decided to provide it. Hopefully somebody besides me finds it useful.

I would like to hear how and why you ran into this page in the comments below!

For those interested, you can find a table of contents for Book 1 (complete) and Book 2 (incomplete) of the Sentences from the Franciscan Archive.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s