Dist. 32, Art. 2, Q. 1
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/32/q/bon-sent-I-d32-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II.
#### *On the manner of speaking: "The Father is begotten wisdom," and on the other: "The Father is powerful by the power which he begot."*

Consequently there is a principal question concerning this manner of speaking: *The Father is wise with begotten wisdom*. And concerning this two questions are asked. First, it is asked whether that locution is to be admitted. Second, for the understanding of this, whether this is to be admitted: *The Father is powerful by the power which he begot*.

### Question I.
#### *Whether it can rightly be said: The Father is wise with begotten wisdom.*

That this first locution is to be admitted is shown in the following way.

1. *First* to the Corinthians, chapter 1: *We preach Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God*; but each one is wise by his own wisdom: therefore if Christ is the wisdom of the Father and is begotten wisdom, the Father is wise with begotten wisdom.

2. Likewise, Augustine, *On the Trinity* VI: "The Son is a certain art of the omnipotent and wise God, in which he knows all things"; but each artisan is wise by his own art: therefore the Father is wise by the Son: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this seems [to follow] by reason from a parallel: because every lover, from whom love proceeds, is one who loves with a love proceeding from himself: therefore every wise one, from whom wisdom proceeds, is wise with a wisdom emanating from himself; but the Father is of this sort: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, Augustine, *On the Trinity* XV: "God the Father knows all things in himself, and knows [them] in the Son"; but to know all things and to be most wise are the same: if therefore he knows all things, not only by himself, but also by the Son he is wise.

5. Likewise, God the Father speaks all things by the Word, as Augustine says in *Confessions* XI: "By the Word coeternal to you, you say whatever you say"; but "to speak, as Anselm says, is to understand": therefore the Father understands all things by means of the Word: therefore since to be wise and to understand are the same, it is clear etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. In the divine [things] *to be wise* is *to be*: therefore if the Father is wise with begotten wisdom, then he is begotten wisdom; but this is false: therefore the first one [is also false].

2. Likewise, generation not being understood, it is still [possible] to understand God to be wise: therefore begotten wisdom is not the ground of God's wisdom.

### Conclusion.

> *The locution "The Father is wise with begotten wisdom" is simply false.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, without distinction, since *to be wise* is said essentially, this locution is simply false; and if it is read anywhere by some Saint, it must be expounded. Whence Augustine in the book of *Retractations* retracts it, saying that he treated that question better in the book *On the Trinity*, where indeed he says the contrary, showing that the [former] reasoning does not hold: that if the Father were without the Son, since the Son is his wisdom, the Father would have been unwise; for wisdom belongs not only to the Son, but to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And he says this same thing *On the Trinity* in many places, but most of all in book six and book fifteen.

**To the arguments...**

*To 1, 2, 3.* To that which is objected, that the Son is the wisdom and art of the Father; it must be said that this is conceded: *The Son is the wisdom of the wise Father*; but not this: *The Father is wise with begotten wisdom*. Whence it must be noted that when *wisdom of someone* is said, this is said in two ways: either as of a subject, like *Peter's whiteness*, or as of a principle; for the genitive imports origin. Since therefore the Son is wisdom having origin from the Father, this is true: *The Son is the wisdom of the Father*. But when it is said: *The Father is wise with begotten wisdom*, the ablative is construed in the account of some causality, or in the relation of form or principle, and especially of form; and so it is false, because the Son is neither form nor principle of the Father. — If you ask why it is not construed in the account of formal effect, as love [is construed] with the lover from whom it proceeds; it must be said that it is not similar. And of this there is a twofold reason, one common, the other special: the common one, taken from creatures, because some acts are which express motion from things to the soul, like wisdom, and some [express motion] from the soul to things, like loving. Hence the comparison of love to the lover is in the account of [something] going out, not in the account of [something] imparting, and therefore love of itself imports form and effect; but wisdom, since it is said as [going] toward one understanding, not as [going] from one understanding, therefore the ablative imports only form, not effect: and so the locution is false. — The other reason is special in the divine [things], because proceeding love is love properly, not by appropriation, and *to love* is similarly said notionally, whence it imports origin, as was shown above; but wisdom always [is said] essentially, and that which is *to be wise* is in no way said notionally, since it in no way imports origin. And therefore the locution is false.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that the Father knows all things in the Son; it must be said that there is a difference between saying "knows by the Son" and "knows in the Son." For when it is said "he knows by the Son," the ablative imports the account of form or principle of knowing; and therefore it is simply false. This, however, must be distinguished: "he knows in the Son," because the preposition *in* with its case-form can determine this verb *novit* in comparison to the subject; and then the locution is false: for the sense is that the Son is to the Father the ground of knowing. Or the verb can determine [it] in comparison to the object; and then it is true, and the sense is that the Son is to the things known the ground and exemplar and cause of being exemplified. And that this can be the sense of the locution is clear. For he who perfectly knows someone, knows everything which is in him: if therefore the Father perfectly knows the Son, and in the Son are all things, then he knows all things in the Son. Nor yet does it follow from this that he is wise by the Son, because then it would be signified that the Son is the ground of knowing for the Father himself.

*To 5.* To that which is objected last, that the Father speaks all things by the Word; it must be said that *to speak* imports origin, [and] also imports effect in the creature, which he produces through the Word; but *to understand* of itself imports nothing except an essential act alone, in such wise that it imports of itself neither a relation to a person nor to a creature. Therefore *to say "he speaks all things by the Word"* and *"he understands all things by the Word"* are not entirely the same: for *to speak* is the same as *to understand*, but imports more.