Dist. 28
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/1/d/28/q/bon-sent-I-d28-littera
----------------------------------------
### DISTINCTION XXVIII.

#### Cap. I. *[Conclusion of the preceding chapter: "unbegotten" is said relatively and of the Father alone.]*

"...and *unbegotten*, yet it does not indicate a different substance, because just as *son* is referred to *father*, and *non-son* to *non-father*, so it is necessary that *begotten* be referred to *begetter*, and *non-begotten* to *non-begetter*." Behold, he plainly shows that *unbegotten* is said relatively and is taken of the Father alone, and that the notion by which He is called *unbegotten* is one thing, and the notion by which [He is called] *Father* is another. And it has the same force, when *unbegotten* is said, as *non-begotten* or *non-Son*.

#### Cap. II. *Whether the Father alone ought to be called non-begotten or non-Son, just as He is called unbegotten.*

Therefore it is wont to be asked: whether, just as the Father alone is called *unbegotten*, so He alone ought to be called *non-begotten* or *non-Son*, so that not even the Holy Spirit may be called *non-Son* or *non-begotten*. To some it seems that the Father alone ought to be called *non-begotten* or *non-Son*; but the Holy Spirit, just as He is not called *unbegotten*, so, they say, He is not to be called *non-begotten* or *non-Son*. The Holy Spirit must indeed be said and believed not to be begotten, or not to be Son, but He must not be said to be *non-begotten* or *non-Son*. — But to others it seems that, although the Holy Spirit cannot be called *unbegotten*, He can nevertheless be called *non-begotten* or *non-Son*. As to what Augustine says above, that it has the same force when *unbegotten* is said as when *non-begotten* or *non-Son* [is said], they say this by showing the etymology of the name, not on the ground of predication.

#### Cap. III. *On the property which "unbegotten" denotes.*

But if you wish to know what is the property according to which the Father is called *unbegotten*, hear Hilary calling it itself *innascibility*, in the fourth book *On the Trinity* speaking thus: "There is One from One, namely the Begotten from the Unbegotten, by a property, that is, in each one, both of innascibility and of origin. The understanding of the persons therefore having been signified in the Scriptures, and the sense of innascibility and of nativity having been distinguished, God is not to be thought of as solitary. The discretion therefore or distinction of the persons is set down in the Scriptures, but in no [way] a distinction of nature."

#### Cap. IV. *Ambrose's reply against the Arians concerning the Unbegotten.*

This too must not be passed over in silence: that the Arians strove to prove from this that the Father is of one substance and the Son of another, because the one is called *unbegotten* and the other *begotten*, since to be unbegotten and to be begotten are different. Whence Ambrose, replying to their question, says that he has not read this name, namely *unbegotten*, in the divine Scriptures, speaking thus in the book *On the Sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation*: "When some had recently heard, when we said that the Son of God who has been begotten cannot be unequal to the Father who has begotten, although the one was begotten and the other has begotten, because generation is not of power but of nature; against that question they think their voice has been silenced, but by a damnable evasion they twist their footing in the same place, supposing that a change of question can be effected by a change of words, saying: How can *unbegotten* and *begotten* be of one nature and substance? Therefore that I may answer the question put to me, first of all in the divine Scriptures I nowhere find *unbegotten*; I have not read it, I have not heard it. Of what mutability then are men of this sort, that they should say that we usurp things which are not written, when we say things which are written, and they themselves object what is not written? Do they not contradict themselves and undermine the authority of their own calumny?" Mark, reader, that Ambrose did not wish to use this name *unbegotten* on account of the heretics. So we too ought to keep silence about certain things on account of the snares of slanderers, [things] which can be safely believed by Catholic and pious readers. For there are certain matters which are not of such [weight of] religion and authority that we are bound always to confess and accept and serve them, but they can sometimes be passed over in silence; nor are they of such perversity that, when occasion requires, we may not have liberty to use them.

#### Cap. V. *Whether to be Father and to be Son differ.*

Furthermore, it is wont to be asked, since it has been said above that *to say "unbegotten"* is one thing and *[to say] "Father"* another, and that *begotten* and *unbegotten* differ, whether likewise *to be Father* and *to be Son* differ, or are the same. *Reply.* — To which we say that, from the same sense by which *begotten* and *unbegotten* are called different, and by which it is said that *to say "begotten"* and *"unbegotten"* is not the same, it can be said that *to be Father* and *to be Son*, or *to be Holy Spirit*, are not the same, but different, since the Father is not Father by the same notion by which the Son is Son, or by which the Holy Spirit is Holy Spirit. And therefore in this sense we concede that *to be Father* is one thing and *to be Son* is another, because the notion by which the Father is Father is one, and that by which the Son is Son is another. But if you transpose, so that you say, *Father to be* is one thing, *Son to be* is another, the meaning is varied and therefore [this] is not conceded. For the sense is such, as if it were said, *one thing is that by which the Father is*, not indeed *Father*, but *is*; *another is that by which the Son is*, not indeed *Son*, but *is*; which is utterly false. For the Father is by that very [account] by which

the Father is God, that is, through essence or nature; the Son is God by that [account] by which the Father is God: therefore the Son is by that [account] by which the Father is, and so *for the Father to be* and *for the Son to be* is the same; but *to be Father* and *to be Son* is not the same. Whence Augustine in the fifth book *On the Trinity* says: "Although *to be Father* and *to be Son* differ, the substance is yet not different, because this is not said according to substance, but according to a relative; which relative, however, is not an accident, since it is not mutable." Behold, he says that *to be Father* and *to be Son* are different; which must be taken according to the aforesaid reasoning, namely because the notion by which He is Father is one, and that by which He is Son is another. For the Father is not called Father according to essence, nor the Son [Son], but according to relation.

#### Cap. VI. *That "begotten wisdom" is said either according to relation or according to substance.*

It must also be known that, just as the Son alone is called *Word* or *Image*, so He alone is called *born* or *begotten Wisdom*. And therefore it is asked whether this is said relatively, and if it is said relatively, whether [it is so] according to the same relation by which *Word* and *Image* are said. On this Augustine in the seventh book *On the Trinity* speaks thus: "Let us take it that, when *Word* is said, what is signified is as if *born Wisdom* were said, so that He is also Son and Image; and when these two are said, that is, *born Wisdom*, in one of them, namely in *born*, both *Word* and *Image* and *Son* are understood — and in all these names essence is not shown, since they are said relatively — but in the other, which is *Wisdom*, essence too is shown, since [it] is said also with reference to self. For He is wise by Himself, and this is His being which is to be wise; whence Father and Son together are one Wisdom, since [they are] one essence." — Take care, reader, how you understand this which Augustine here says. For he seems to say that, when *born Wisdom* is said, *Wisdom* there signifies essence, and *born* notes the relation. Which if it is so, we are forced to say that the divine essence is born; which contradicts what was said above. — But to this we say, that *born*, in the one [term], that is, in the [word] *born*, is understood by the same notion by which it is noted when *Word* and *Image* are said. But in the other, namely *Wisdom*, essence is shown, that is, it is shown that the Son is essence, since *Wisdom* is said according to essence. And therefore, when *born Wisdom* is said, it is understood that He, since He is born, is essence. Yet there *Wisdom* effects an understanding not for essence but for hypostasis, so that, just as when *Word* or *Son* is said, the hypostasis with its property is understood, so, when *born Wisdom* is said, the same is to be understood, that is, the begotten hypostasis. Hence with vigilance he says that the same must be understood when *Word* is said and when *born Wisdom* is said — that is, the same relation and the same hypostasis, in which that property is. And by this is supported what we said above, namely that, when *Father* or *Son* or *Holy Spirit* is said, not only those properties are signified — as when paternity, filiation [are said] — but also the hypostases together with their properties.

#### Cap. VII. *On the Image.*

This too must be known: that although it has been said above that *image* is said relatively of the Son, just as *word* or *son*, it is sometimes nevertheless found to be said according to substance. Whence Augustine in the book *On the Faith to Peter* says that the divinity of the Holy Trinity essentially is one, and the Image to which man was made [is one]. Hilary too in the fifth book *On the Trinity* thus says: "Man is made to a common image. The name does not differ, the nature does not differ. For one is the species to which man was created." From these words it is shown that *image* sometimes effects an understanding of essence, and is then said with reference to self and not relatively.

---