Dist. 8, 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/3/d/8/q/bon-sent-III-d8-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On the temporal nativity in comparison with the eternal.*

Next, inquiry is made concerning the temporal nativity in comparison with the eternal. And concerning this three questions are asked.

First it is asked, supposing that in Christ there is a twofold nativity, whether it must be conceded that Christ was born twice.

Second it is asked, whether in Christ there are two filiations.

Third it is asked, whether he is a natural son by reason of each nativity, namely the temporal and the eternal.

### Question I. *Whether it must be conceded that Christ was born twice.*

Concerning the first the procedure is thus, and it is asked, whether it must be conceded that Christ was born twice. And that it must, seems [to be the case]:

*(Foundations.)* 1. Augustine, *On the Faith, to Peter*: « The Only-Begotten of God was born a second time, once from the Father, once from the Mother » ; but *to be born first and second* is nothing other than *to be born twice*: therefore it seems that the Son of God was born twice.

2. Likewise, Damascene: « In Christ we venerate two nativities » ; but wherever there is a *twofold nativity*, there is a *twofold being-born*, and wherever there is a *twofold being-born*, there is a *being-born twice*: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, Christ was once begotten of the Father, according to that text of the Psalm: *Once has God spoken* ; the Gloss, that is, « he begot the Son » ; and once he was born of the Mother; and it is established that that *once* and the other [once] are not one, just as the temporal and the eternal [are not one]: therefore they make up a number. If, then, *once* and *once* make *twice*, Christ was born twice.

4. Likewise, a doubled action doubles the passion: therefore if the generation by which the Father [begot] is one, and the generation by which the Mother begot is another, then Christ was begotten on one occasion and another by the Father and by the Mother: therefore he was born more than once; but not three times, nor four, and so on: therefore twice.

**On the contrary:** *(To the opposite.)* 1. *Twice* signifies the doubling of an action of like kind — whence one is not said to have done something *twice* because he both read and disputed — but the eternal and the temporal generation are not the same nor a like-kind act: therefore by reason of that twofold nativity he cannot be said to have been born twice.

2. Likewise, *once* and *twice* signify alternation — for it is the same thing for something *to come about twice* and *to come about on two occasions* — but in the Son there falls no change nor shadow of alternation: therefore he ought not to be said to be born twice.

3. Likewise, *twice* signifies an interruption of the act — whence it is fittingly said that someone was twice at Paris, but it is not fittingly said that someone was twice a man — but the generation that is eternal from the Father was in no way interrupted: therefore it seems simply false [to say]: Christ was born twice.

4. Likewise, this adverb *twice* implies a termination of the act, since of an act that is not terminated one cannot say that it is performed twice; but the eternal generation has no terminus, since the Son is always being generated by the Father: therefore, etc.

5. Likewise, this adverb *twice* implies an order of succession; but regarding Christ's eternal generation in respect of the temporal there falls no succession: therefore just as one is not said to be born twice who is at the same time generated by a father and by a mother; so it does not seem that Christ should be said to be born twice, since it is at the same time true to say that he is generated by the Father and by the Mother; for the Father even now generates the Son, and at the time of his nativity the Virgin Mary thus gave birth.

6. Likewise, the *now* of time and the *now* of eternity do not make up a number, since the one is enclosed in the other: therefore if the Son was begotten by the Father in the *now* of eternity and by the Mother in the *now* of time, it does not seem that he ought to be said to be born or begotten twice.

### Conclusion.

> It can and must be conceded that Christ was born twice.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Philosopher holds, *(An act is numbered in three ways.)* an act can be numbered in three ways, namely by subject and by time and by species or terminus. Whence an act is said to be multiplied either because it is in one subject and another, or because it is in one terminus and another, or because it is in one time or measure and another. Since, then, the adverb of numbering signifies the number of the act in one of those modes, it must necessarily imply that it is numbered. For the adverb, since it is an adjective of the verb, under the formal character of the verb implies that number which is of the act itself, insofar as it is an act, that is, on the part of time or duration; and this is the number which is on the part of measure. And that this adverb *twice* implies the number of the act on the part of measure is clear from the very manner of speaking. For I am not said to have eaten *twice* on account of the two things which I ate, or on account of a plurification on the part of the subject, but on account of multiplication on the part of time or measure, because I ate at one time and another. — Since, then, the generation or eternal nativity of Christ is measured by eternity itself, and the temporal nativity by time itself, in such a way that the former has its completion in the *now* of eternity, the latter in the *now* of time; *(Conclusion.)* hence it is that it can and must be conceded that Christ was born twice. — And the reasons and authorities adduced for this must be conceded.

**To the arguments for the opposite part:**
*(Solution of the opposing arguments.)* 1. To that, therefore, which is objected first to the contrary, that *twice* signifies the doubling of the same act; *(Note.)* it must be said that it is not required that it signify the doubling of the same act according to a unity of univocation, but it suffices that it signify [it] according to an agreement of analogy. Whence, just as it can be conceded that God and man are two beings or things — not that they are called two things or two beings equivocally, but analogically — so it can be conceded that the generation of Christ, both eternal and temporal, is a twofold generation. And thus it can be conceded that he was twice generated; because the number of numeral adverbs extends in respect of the verb just as far as the number of numeral nouns [extends] in respect of nouns.

*(Note.)* 2. To that which is objected, that *once* and *twice* signify alternation; it must be said that this is not true of the general signification; rather, *once* signifies the completion of the act. But that it signifies alternation, this is only because it is adjacent to a temporal act; and therefore, because Christ's eternal generation is not subject to a temporal act, it is not necessary that, as regards that [generation], they signify alternation.

*(Note.)* 3. To that which is objected, that *twice* signifies interruption; it must be said that this is true in those acts which are not numbered without interruption, such as reading, or sojourning at Paris, or anything of the kind. But in those acts which can be numbered without interruption, it does not hold true; just as the heaven is said to have revolved twice, and yet its motion is not said to be discontinuous or interrupted. For the numbering of the revolutions does not come from a discontinuation of the motion, but according to the completion of the circuit, and according to that completion of the circuit there is a numbering of days and times; and such a numbering is implied by the adverb. And since the generation of Christ from the Father and the Mother has one mode of numbering, as has been said; therefore it can soundly be conceded that Christ was born twice.

4. To that which is objected, that *twice* implies a termination of the act; *(Twofold termination.)* it must be said that the termination of an act is spoken of in two ways: in one way from completion, in another way from cessation. When, therefore, it is said that *twice* implies a termination; if the termination is understood commonly with respect to both modes, it must be said that this is true. But if a termination by cessation is meant, it does not hold true; for it happens to the numbering of some act that it cannot be without the cessation of the act, as has been touched on.

5. To that which is objected, that *twice* signifies an order of succession; it must be said likewise that this is not of necessity, but [holds] when it implies the doubling of an act and a succession and in respect of the same principle; but such is not to be found here; and so that [argument] is clear.

*(Note.)* 6. To that, finally, which is objected last, that the *now* of time and the *now* of eternity do not make up a number; it must be said that if we speak of number taken properly, it holds true; but if [taken] broadly, it is false. For eternity and time are diverse measures by essence; and the production which is measured by time is other than the production which is measured by eternity, and the latter [is posterior to it]: and therefore those two productions can also be called two measures. Nor does it avail that the one is enclosed in the other; for this is not by a containment which takes away number, as a part is contained within a whole, but by a certain presupposition, which indeed leaves an order or distinction.