Dist. 5, Art. 2, Q. 2
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/5/q/bon-sent-I-d5-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II

*Whether the divine substance or essence is communicated through generation.*

Last, it is asked whether substance is communicated through generation; and that it is, is shown thus.

**1.** A thing is communicated through that by which it comes about that it is in many; but substance is in many persons, and is so only through generation and procession: therefore it is communicated through generation.

**2.** Likewise, the cause is that with which posited the thing is posited, and with which removed it is removed; but with emanation posited in God, commonality and distinction are posited; with generation or emanation removed, the essence is in only one, just as the hypostasis: therefore generation is the principle of communicating the essence.

**3.** Likewise, what is given to one and does not cease to be possessed by the giver is communicated through that through which it is given; but substance is given by the Father to the Son through generation, and does not cease to be possessed by the Father while it is given to the Son: therefore it is communicated through generation.

**4.** Likewise, generation in inferior beings is the principle of communicating substance or nature; but in God the nature is to them much more communicable, because more simple: therefore in God substance or essence is communicated through generation.

*On the contrary:*

**1.** Generation is the principle of distinguishing; but the principle of distinguishing and of communicating is not the same: therefore generation is not the principle of communicating in God: therefore through generation nothing is communicated.

**2.** Likewise, what makes something to be in this [supposit] is not the principle of communicating, but of appropriating and individuating; but generation makes substance to be in such a person — namely in the person of the Son: therefore it is not the principle of communicating, but of appropriating.

**3.** Likewise, all that is communicated through generation is, through generation, common. If therefore substance is communicated through generation, then with generation removed, it will not be common: therefore [it would be] proper; but the proper cannot be communicated through generation: therefore neither can substance.

**4.** Likewise, what is communicated through generation is given and received through generation, and every such thing — if it is not accidental to generation — is begotten; but substance is not accidental to generation: therefore, etc.

### Conclusion

> *The divine essence is communicated through generation, because through generation it comes to be that one [essence] is in many.*

**I respond:** For understanding this it should be noted that *common*, considered in itself, is indifferently disposed to act and to potency. For *common* can be said of that which is *communicable*, although it not be in many — as is clear in many universals, such as the sun and the moon and the like. *Common* is also said of what is *communicated*, which is actually in many.

I say therefore that, just as the universal form, considered in itself, is communicable, but yet is actually communicated through the propagation of many,

so the divine nature or essence is in itself indeed communicable, but its being actually communicated is only through that which multiplies or pluralizes the supposits — and this is generation.

Since, therefore, through generation the persons are pluralized, and the substance in them is not numbered, hence it is that most truly substance or essence is communicated through generation, because through generation it comes to be that one [substance] is in many.

**1.** To the objection that generation is the principle of distinguishing: it must be said that generation is *per se* the principle of distinguishing one supposit from another, because it is *per se* terminated at it; it is also the principle of communicating the common nature, because [it produces] the like from the like. But because the nature in inferior beings is numbered in supposits, therefore it is also the principle of distinguishing the common, but *per accidens*; in God, however, it is neither *per se* nor *per accidens*.

**2.** To the objection that *to make the common to be in this* is the principle of appropriating: it must be said that this is true when the common is appropriable or appropriated through *being in this*. But the divine essence is not thus appropriable, nor appropriated through *being in this*, because it is not appropriable as to its signified or as to its supposit, since it signifies and supposits the same, as was shown above; and its signified is not distinguished by any addition. For this is true: *the essence of the Father, and the essence which is in the Father, is the Son*.

Or it can be said otherwise: *to make to be in this* is in two ways — either absolutely, and in this way it is the principle of appropriating; or by comparison, that what was previously in one comes to be afterward in another, and in this way it is the principle of communicating the nature. But there is a certain nature which is distinguished in supposits — namely that to which addition is made — and a certain nature [which is] not, such as the divine; and in the first there is the principle of communicating and of distinguishing, in the divine [nature] only [the principle] of communicating.

**3.** To the objection that, if [substance] is communicated through generation, generation makes the substance common: it must be said that this is true according as *common* is said *in act*, because [it is] in many; but not according to *potency*. Hence with generation set aside, substance is common because *communicable*; but it is not common as *communicated*.

**4.** To the objection that what is given through generation is begotten: it must be said that this is false: because *to be begotten* expresses production and distinction, but *giving* expresses authority and communication; and since through generation substance is not distinguished, although it be communicated: therefore, etc.