Dist. 5
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-littera
----------------------------------------
### Distinction V.

*Whether the divine essence has begotten the Son, or has been begotten by the Father, or whether the Son was born of it, or the Holy Spirit proceeded [from it].*

After these things it is asked whether it is to be granted that the Father begot the divine essence, or that the divine essence begot the Son, or that essence begot essence, or whether the divine essence has altogether neither begotten nor been begotten.

To which, agreeing with catholic teachers, we say that neither did the Father beget the divine essence, nor did the divine essence beget the Son, nor did the divine essence beget essence. Here, however, by the name "essence" we understand the divine nature, which is common to the three persons and whole in each. Therefore it is not to be said that the Father begot the divine essence; for if the Father were said to have begotten the divine essence, the divine essence would be spoken of relatively to the Father, or would be put in place of a relative term. But if it were spoken of relatively or put in place of a relative term, it would not signify essence. For as Augustine says in the fifth book *On the Trinity*: «That which is said relatively does not signify substance.»

Likewise, since God the Father is the divine essence, if he were the begetter of it, he would assuredly be the begetter of that thing which he himself is; and so the same thing would have begotten itself, which Augustine denies, as we showed above.

Likewise, if the Father is the begetter of the divine essence, since he himself is the divine essence and is God, then by that very fact by which he generates, both [it] is and is God. Thus, then, it is not that which is generated which is God from the Father, but the Father, by that by which he generates, both is and is God. And if it is so, the begetter is not the cause to the begotten, but the begotten [is the cause] to the begetter, that he both be and be God. By a similar reasoning Augustine proves in the seventh book *On the Trinity* «that the Father is not wise by the wisdom which he begot, because if he is wise by it, he is by it; for there to-be is the same as to-be-wise. But if there to-be is the same as to-be-wise, the Father is not wise by that wisdom which he begot. For what else do we say, when we say: for him to-be is the same as to-be-wise, except that he is by that by which he is wise? Therefore whatever cause is to him, that he be wise, that very thing is also a cause to him that he be. If, then, the wisdom which he begot is the cause to him that he be wise, it is also a cause to him that he be. But that the cause to the Father by which he is should be a wisdom begotten by the Father — no one in any way would say so; for what is more insane? Thus then, if the Father begot the essence by which he is, the essence which he begot is the cause to him that he be.» Therefore he did not beget the very essence by which he is. «For in that simplicity», says Augustine, «since to-be-wise is not other than to-be, the wisdom there is the same as the essence»; and therefore what we say of wisdom we say also of essence. As, therefore, he did not beget the wisdom by which he is wise, so neither the essence by which he is. For as he is wise by wisdom and powerful by power, so also he is essence by essence, and the same is wisdom and power as essence. It is therefore evident from what has been said that the Father did not beget the divine essence.

But to this it seems contrary that Augustine says in his sole book *On Faith and the Creed*, chapter three: «God, when he begot the Word, begot that which he himself is, neither from nothing nor from any matter already made and created, but from himself that which he himself is.» Likewise: «God the Father, who most truly both willed and was able to make himself known to minds about to know him, for the indicating of himself begot this, which is he himself who begot.» Behold, he plainly says in these words that God the Father begot that which he himself is. But that which he himself is, is nothing other than the divine essence: it seems, therefore, that he begot the divine essence. To which we respond, saying that those words are to be understood thus: the Father from himself begot that which he himself is, that is, the Son, who is that which the Father is. For what the Father is, the Son also is this, but not who the Father is, the Son is this.

So also it is not to be said that the divine essence begot the Son, because since the Son is the divine essence, the Son would already be the thing from which he is generated; and so the same thing would generate itself. So also we say that the divine essence did not beget essence. For since the divine essence is one and a certain supreme thing, if the divine essence begot essence, the same thing would have begotten itself, which can in no way be; but the Father alone begot the Son, and from the Father and the Son proceeds the Holy Spirit.

But to what has been said it seems contrary that Augustine says in the seventh book *On the Trinity*: «This», he says, «for God is to-be the same as to-be-wise; whence the Father and the Son together are one wisdom, because one essence: and severally wisdom from wisdom, just as essence from essence.» Behold, in these words Augustine plainly says wisdom from wisdom and essence from essence, where he seems to signify that wisdom begot wisdom and essence

begot essence. The same in the book *On Faith to Peter* says: «So believe Christ the Son of God, that is, one person of the Trinity, true God, that you may not doubt his divinity to be born of the nature of the Father.» Here he seems to say that the nature of the Son was born of the nature of the Father. The same also in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity* says: «The Son is called counsel from counsel and will from will, just as substance from substance, wisdom from wisdom.» And here he seems to say that substance was begotten from substance and wisdom from wisdom. But this we so determine: «Wisdom is from wisdom, and substance is from substance», that is, the Son, who is wisdom, who is substance, is from the Father, who is the same substance and wisdom; and the Son, who is divinity, was born of the Father, who is the divine nature. And to speak more expressly, we say that the Son is wisdom from the Father wisdom, and we say that the Son is substance begotten from the Father and by the Father substance. That this is so to be understood Augustine shows in the seventh book *On the Trinity* saying: «The Father himself is wisdom; and the Son is called the wisdom of the Father, in the manner in which he is called the light of the Father, that is, just as light from light and both one light, so let wisdom be understood from wisdom; and both one wisdom and one essence.» Likewise: «Therefore Christ is called the power and wisdom of God, because from the Father, [who is] power and wisdom, he himself also is power and wisdom, just as he himself is light from the Father light, and he himself is the fount of life with God the Father, the fount of life. The Son therefore is wisdom from the Father wisdom, just as the Son is light from the Father light, and God the Son from God the Father, so that each singly is light and singly God and singly wisdom, and together one light, one God, one wisdom.» Behold in these words Augustine manifestly opens up by what sense the aforesaid words and the like are to be received, namely when it is said: substance from substance, or substance begot substance.

But to this also that seems contrary which Hilary says in the fourth book *On the Trinity*: «Nothing», he says, «does the Son have except as born; and the admiration of the begotten honor is in the honor of the begetter.» Since therefore the Son has essence — for the divine essence is whole in him — it seems that the divine essence itself was born. Likewise in the fifth book he says: «The nativity of God cannot fail to retain the nature from which it has come forth, for nothing else than God subsists, which subsists not otherwise than from God.» Behold, here he says that the nativity of God comes forth from the nature, and so from these words and what was said before it seems that the nature of God both was begotten and begot. Which he says more openly in the ninth book *On the Trinity*: «We», he says, «profess the only-begotten God, abiding in the form of God, to have abode in the nature of man, and we do not melt back the unity of the servile form into the nature of the divine unity, nor again do we preach the Father in the Son by bodily insinuation, but [we profess] that from him a nature begotten of the same kind naturally had a begotten nature in itself, which abiding in the form of the nature begetting itself, received the form of nature and of bodily infirmity. For the nature of God had not failed, so as not to be; but abiding in itself the lowliness of earthly nativity, the nature of God had taken to itself, exercising the power of its own kind in the habit of an assumed lowliness.» Behold, here he plainly says that nature both begot, and was begotten, and that nature took on nature; which is denied by very many. Likewise in the same place: «Surely is it a reproach to the only-begotten God, that the Father is to him an unbegotten God, since from the unbegotten God an only-begotten nativity subsists into an only-begotten nature?» Behold, here too he says only-begotten nature.

But because he wishes these words to be soundly understood, he himself says in the fourth book: «The understanding of things said is to be taken from the causes of speaking, because the thing is not subject to the speech, but the speech to the thing.» These words therefore can be so understood: the Son has nothing except as born, that is, he has nothing according to which he is God, except what he received in being born, and he himself in being born had the Father's nature subsisting in him. Whence the same Hilary adds in the fifth book: «The begotten has the same nature which he who begot has, yet so that he who begot is not born (for how will he himself be Father, if he is begotten?), but he who is begotten subsists in those very things in which he who begot is wholly himself; because he who is begotten is not from elsewhere. And therefore that which subsists in one from one is not referred to another. And so in the generation of the Son the unchangeable God, so to speak, follows his own nature, an unchangeable God begetting an unchangeable God, nor does the perfect nativity of the unchangeable God from the unchangeable God forsake its own nature. Therefore let us understand the nature of God subsisting in him, since in God God is within; and besides him who is God, there is no other God, because he himself is God,

and in him is God.» The truth of the nature of God the Father is therefore taught to be in God the Son, since in him is understood to be God, who is God. For he is one in one and one from one.

It is also said and frequently read in sacred Scripture that the Father begot the Son of his own substance. Whence Augustine in the book *On Faith to Peter* says: «God the Father, begotten of no God, once from his own nature without beginning begot the Son God equal to himself and coeternal in the same divinity in which he himself is naturally eternal.» Behold, here Augustine says that the Son was begotten of the nature of the Father. But there is one nature of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, the Son is begotten of the nature of the Father, he is begotten of the nature of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, indeed of the nature of the three persons. The same Augustine also in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity* says that Christ is the Son of the substance of the Father and begotten of the substance of the Father, treating that word of the Apostle speaking of God the Father thus: *Who delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his charity*. «Which is said», he says, «*the Son of his charity*, let nothing else be understood than *the Son of his beloved*, than *the Son of his substance*. For the charity of the Father, which is in his ineffably simple nature, is nothing other than the very nature and substance, as we have often said and are not loath often to repeat, and through this the Son of his charity is none other than he who is begotten of his substance.» Behold, here Augustine plainly says that the Son is begotten of the substance of the Father and is the Son of the substance of the Father. The same Augustine also in the second book *Against Maximinus the heretic* asserts that the substance of God begot the Son, and the Son was begotten of the substance of the Father, saying: «Full of carnal thoughts, you do not think that the substance of God begets the Son from itself, unless he should suffer that which the substance of flesh suffers when it begets. *You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God*. For in no way do you think the true Son of God, if you deny him to have been born of the substance of the Father. For he was not previously a son of man, and by God's gift was made the Son of God, born of God by grace, not by nature. Or perhaps, even if he was not the son of man, yet he was already some kind of creature, and was changed into the Son of God by God's changing him? But none of these is so: therefore either of nothing, or of some substance, he was born. But lest we should believe that you suppose the Son of God to be of nothing, you have affirmed that you do not say the Son of God is of nothing. Of some substance therefore he is; and if not of the substance of the Father, of what he be, say; but you will not find. Now therefore let it not irk you to confess with us that the only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, is of the substance of the Father.» The same in the same place: «Both we read, that we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ. Tell us therefore, whether this true Son of God, distinguished by a certain property from those who are sons by grace, is from no substance or from some? I do not say, you say, from none, nor will I say from nothing: therefore from some substance he is. I ask, from what? If not from the substance of the Father, seek another. If you find no other, acknowledge the substance of the Father, and confess the Son with the Father homoousios.» Likewise in the same place: «I confess that God the Father altogether incorruptibly begot, but begot that which he himself is. Likewise I say what must often be said: either from some substance the Son of God was born, or from none; if from none: therefore from nothing; which you no longer say; if however from some, yet not from the substance of the Father, he is not the true Son; if however from the substance of the Father, the Father and the Son are of one and the same substance. But you do not wish even the Son to be begotten of the substance of the Father; and yet you concede him to be neither from nothing nor from any matter, but from the Father; nor do you see how necessary it is that he who is not from nothing nor from any other thing, but from God, cannot be except from the substance of God, and that what he is is what God is, from whom he is, that is, God born of God; because there was no other before, but a coeternal nature is from God.»

By these words just put forward it seems to be hinted that the divine supreme substance begot the Son, and that the Son is begotten of the substance of the Father, and that from God is the coeternal nature, and that the Father begot that which he himself is. But that which he himself is, is the divine essence; and so it can be supposed that he begot the divine essence. These words greatly move us, as to how they should be understood; I would prefer to hear from others rather than to deliver. Yet that I may speak without prejudice and rashness, in this sense the things said can be received: the coeternal nature is from God, that is, the Son coeternal with the Father is from the Father, in such a way that he is the same nature with him or of the same nature. Which sense Augustine confirms in the same place, appending and as if explaining what he had said. For having said: «The coeternal nature is from God», he added: «The Son is no other than that from which he is, that is, he is of one and the same substance.» Then he opens more openly in the same book *Against Maximinus* that such an understanding is to be had from the aforesaid words, saying: «This Trinity is of one and the same substance, because the Son is not from any matter or from nothing, but from him from whom he is begotten. Likewise the Holy Spirit is not from any matter or from nothing, but is from there, whence he proceeds.» By these words he plainly shows that the Son is said to be of the substance of the Father by this reason, that he is begotten of the Father, in such wise that he is of the same substance with him: and the Holy Spirit is of the substance of the Father and the Son, because he proceeds from both, in such wise that he is of the same substance.

---