Dist. 8, 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/3/d/8/q/bon-sent-III-d8-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether in Christ there are two filiations.*

Secondly it is asked whether in Christ there are two filiations. And that there are, it seems thus.

*(To the contrary [for the affirmative].)* 1. Generation is the ground or cause of filiation, just as action is the cause of relation; but in Christ there is a twofold generation: therefore there is a twofold filiation; for when the cause is multiplied, the effect too seems to be multiplied.

2. Likewise, when one of two correlatives is multiplied, the other is necessarily multiplied also, because « it belongs to correlatives to be related to one another », and « as often as one of the opposites is said, so often is the other said », as the Philosopher holds: but Christ according to the eternal generation is the Son of the Father, according to the temporal generation he is the son of the Mother: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, of diverse productions the terms are diverse; but the temporal and the eternal generation are diverse productions: therefore if each is terminated at Christ, insofar as he is a son, it is necessary that Christ be one and another son: therefore in him there are several filiations.

4. Likewise, to be born and to be a son are the same; but if some things are the same, when one is numbered, the other is numbered also: therefore if Christ was born twice, he has a twofold filiation.

5. Likewise, with the eternal filiation abstracted, the temporal filiation can be understood, and conversely: therefore if those are diverse, one of which can be understood when the other is abstracted, then the eternal and the temporal filiation are one and another in Christ.

*(Foundations [for the contrary].)* **On the contrary:** 1. Filiation is a personal property; but in Christ there is but one person: therefore there is but one single filiation.

2. Likewise, just as Christ has a Father and a Mother, so anyone else is born of a father and of a mother; but no one is said to have two filiations because he was begotten of a father and of a mother: therefore by parity of reasoning there will not be two filiations in Christ because Christ was born of the Father and of the Virgin.

3. Likewise, from the fact that some master has several disciples, today one and tomorrow another, he does not have diverse masterships: therefore by parity of reasoning neither ought Christ be said to have several filiations from the fact that he was begotten of the Father first and of the Mother afterward.

4. Likewise, if another person had been born of the Virgin, there would be confusion in the personal properties on account of the plurality of filiations, as Anselm says: if

therefore in the incarnation of the Word no confusion of properties was made, it seems that no plurification of filiations was made.

5. Likewise, when a property is numbered, the subject is numbered, just as if there are two whitenesses there are two white things: therefore if there are two filiations there are two sons: therefore if in Christ there are two filiations, in Christ there are two sons, and if Christ is two sons, Christ is two. But this is false, as was disproved above, and is held in the Creed: « Yet not two, but one is Christ »: therefore it is false that there are two filiations in Christ.

> ### Conclusion.
>
> Since in Christ there are not several persons, there are not several filiations in him, although he is said to have been born twice, because filiation properly regards the person and not the nature except by reason of the person.

**I respond:** It must be said that although it is conceded that in Christ there are two nativities, it ought not nonetheless be conceded that there are two filiations. — *(Three comparisons in filiation.)* And the reason for this is that, since filiation is a relation, it has a comparison to three things: to the subject in which it is, and to the term to which it is, and to the principle from which it is. *(Principle.)* Now the number of a relation according to formal or specific difference is caused by the principle from which it is, just as paternity and lordship are two relations in some man, which are numbered not by reason of that in which they are, principally, but by reason of that from which they are; for there can be two relations in a man with respect to the same thing. *(Subject.)* — But the plurification of a relation according to number does not come principally by reason of that from which it is, nor by reason of that to which it is, but by reason of the subject in which it is, since a property of a subject must be numbered by reason of the supposit. *(Conclusion.)* And since the subject of filiation is the person itself, not the nature except by reason of the person; hence it is that, since in Christ there are not several persons, there cannot be several filiations. — Therefore the reasons adduced for this are to be conceded.

*(Solution of the contrary arguments.)* 1. To that, then, which is objected first, that generation is the cause of filiation; the response is already clear, because the relation is not multiplied on the part of the cause, but on the part of the subject. — *(An incidental question.)* But if it be asked why generation is multiplied in Christ and not filiation, since each regards the person; it must be said, *(Reason 1.)* that generation signifies by the mode of action; but action and passion receive numeration not only on the part of the subject, but also on the part of the measure, and on the part of the principle. And since the principle is one thing, and the measure another, the temporal and the eternal; therefore the generation can be called one and another, although the filiation cannot. — *(Reason 2.)* There is also another reason, because, even if generation regards the person, nonetheless by consequence it can also regard the nature. Hence the human nature in Christ can be said to be born, yet it cannot be said to be a daughter, because filiation properly regards the person. And because in Christ there is a plurality of natures and a unity of person; therefore several generations can be said, although several filiations cannot be said.

*(Note.)* 2. To that which is objected, that when one of two correlatives is multiplied the other is multiplied also; it must be said that this is true of formal multiplication and of that correlative on which the correlative depends with an essential dependence; but when the correlative is multiplied by a material multiplication, it does not hold true; as is the case when one man begets several sons, and one master teaches several disciples; for then the relation which is in him does not depend on each one of them except with an accidental dependence, and when one ceases, the relation is preserved in the other. Hence when one begets, after the first son, another, no new paternity is born in him, but to the first paternity a new respect is born, because he is the father of more than he was before. So it is to be understood in the matter at hand; hence Christ by the temporal generation does not acquire a new filiation, but begins to be the son of another, namely of the Virgin.

*(Note.)* 3. To that which is objected, that of diverse productions the terms are diverse; it must be said that this is true when those productions are disparate, such that one does not presuppose the other; but it is not so in the matter at hand, because the temporal nativity presupposes the eternal nativity. And therefore it is not necessary that the son be one and another, although he is begotten by one and another generation; for it suffices, as was said, for the plurality of generations that there be a plurality of natures, but not so for the plurality of filiations.

*(Note.)* 4. To that which is objected, that to be born and to be a son are the same; it must be said that although it is said of the same thing, nonetheless filiation properly states a relation, and nativity or generation [states] the production itself; for re-

lation and action are numbered from one and another cause. And therefore it does not follow that if the production is plurified, the filiation is plurified.

*(Note.)* 5. To that which is objected last, that the temporal filiation can be understood with the eternal filiation abstracted; it must be said that this is not on account of a diversity of the relation in itself, but on account of a diversity of respects; just as if someone is the father of two, he can be understood to be the father of one, such that he is not [the father] of the other; and if someone is seen by two, he can be understood to be seen by one, such that he is not [seen] by the other. From this, however, it cannot be concluded that there is a diversity according to the thing, but according to reason. And I call that a diversity according to reason which is only according to respect and comparison.