Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 4
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 13
QUAESTIO IV.
Utrum Spiritus sanctus sit ingenitus.
Supposita differentia generationis et processionis, quaeritur hic quarto, utrum Spiritus sanctus sit ingenitus. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Auctoritate Hieronymi, quam Magister ponit in littera1.
2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione Hieronymi: «Quia omne quod est, aut est ingenitum, aut genitum, aut factum»; sed Spiritus sanctus non est genitus, aut factus: ergo est ingenitus.
3. Item, negatio privativa cum constantia subiecti aequipollet termino privativo. Unde non par circa numerum idem est quod impar2; et sic, cum Spiritus sanctus genitus non sit, ergo est ingenitus.
4. Item, plus distat a ratione generationis Spiritus sanctus quam Pater; quia Pater generat, quamvis non generetur, Spiritus vero sanctus nec generat nec [generatur]: ergo aeque vere privatur generatio a Spiritu sancto ut a Patre: ergo, sicut Pater dicitur ingenitus, sic et Spiritus sanctus.
Contra:
1. Augustinus ad Orosium3 dicit, quod «solus Pater est ingenitus»: ergo secundum hoc non convenit Spiritui sancto.
2. Item, ingenitus aut dicitur secundum substantiam, aut secundum relationem. Si secundum relationem, ergo est notio: ergo Spiritus sanctus habet duas notiones, et ita essent sex; quod est contra communem opinionem. Si secundum substantiam: ergo pari ratione diceretur de Filio, cum illud quod secundum substantiam dicitur, conveniat tribus.
3. Item, cum divina essentia non sit genita, nec Spiritus sanctus sit genitus, nec Pater sit genitus, nec etiam aliquod istorum sit factum: ergo ratio ingeniti secundum Hieronymum omnibus convenit; [quaestio incidens] quaeritur ergo, quo modo differenter4 [singulis conveniat].
CONCLUSIO.
Spiritus sanctus dici potest ingenitus in sensu privativo, non autem quatenus ingenitus est notio Patris.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aliqui voluerunt5 distinguere de hoc nomine ingenitum, quod potest scribi per unum n, et sic tantum valet quantum increatum; vel per duo, et sic opponitur ei quod est genitum proprie dictum. Sed haec distinctio, etsi valeat apud Graecos, non tamen valet apud Latinos, quia ingenitum per duo n est vox non significativa apud nos. Damascenus6 autem assignat hanc differentiam in lingua sua, quia Graecus erat. Praeterea, non valet ad propositum; quia nihil quaeritur hic de ingenito prout tantum valet quantum increatum, sed prout tantum valet quantum non genitum sive innascibile.
Et propterea aliter dicendum est, et breviter, quod ingenitum uno modo pure accipitur privative, scilicet quod non generatur7; et hoc modo dicitur de Spiritu sancto et de essentia. Alio modo, prout8 ingenitum tantum valet quantum non ens ab alio, et a quo alii; et hoc modo dicit notionem solius Patris, quia dicit proprietatem et dignitatem in Patre. Et secundum primum sensum loquitur Hieronymus, secundum alium loquitur Augustinus. Unde autem habeant ortum isti sensus, et quare innascibilis sit notio et non improcessibilis, infra dicetur9.
Ex his patet solutio contrarietatis; patent etiam obiecta.
Quod ergo obiicitur, quod negatio cum constantia subiecti aequipollet termino privativo, verum est, si sit mere10 privativum; sed illa ratio concludit solum de hoc nomine secundum quod privat, non secundum quod aliquid ponit.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, aut praedicat11 essentiam, aut relationem; dicendum, quod, secundum quod dicitur de essentia, solum privative sive negative tenetur. Et ideo non praedicat aliquid, sicut quando dicitur: «essentia non generat». Cetera alia12 manifesta sunt.
SCHOLION.
I. Haec quaestio orta esse videtur ex diverso modo loquendi, quo in hac re SS. Doctores Augustinus et Hieronymus usi sunt. S. Bonav. duas istorum sententias apte conciliat. Plurima de ratione innascibilitatis habentur infra d. 28. per totam.
II. Quoad ordinem solutionum ad opposita notandum, quod verba in fine corporis: «patent obiecta» referuntur ad 1, 2, 4 pro parte affirmativa. Deinde explicite solvit argum. 3 pro affirm.; et ultimo respondet ad distinctionem in 2 pro parte negativa.
III. Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 69. m. 3. — Scot., hic q. unic., et d. 28. q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 33. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 8. seq. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.
---
Question IV.
Whether the Holy Spirit is unbegotten.
With the difference of generation and procession supposed, it is asked here in the fourth place whether the Holy Spirit is unbegotten [ingenitus]. And that he is, is shown:
1. By the authority of Jerome, which the Master sets down in the littera1.
2. Likewise, the same point is shown by the reasoning of Jerome: "Since everything that is, is either unbegotten, or begotten, or made"; but the Holy Spirit is neither begotten nor made: therefore he is unbegotten.
3. Likewise, a privative negation, with the subject standing fast, is equivalent to a privative term. Hence non-even concerning number is the same as odd2; and so, since the Holy Spirit is not begotten, therefore he is unbegotten.
4. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is more distant from the account of generation than the Father; for the Father generates, although he is not generated; the Holy Spirit, however, neither generates nor [is generated]: therefore generation is denied of the Holy Spirit just as truly as of the Father: therefore, as the Father is called unbegotten, so also the Holy Spirit.
On the contrary:
1. Augustine ad Orosium3 says that "the Father alone is unbegotten": therefore on this account it does not belong to the Holy Spirit.
2. Likewise, unbegotten is said either according to substance or according to relation. If according to relation, then it is a notion: therefore the Holy Spirit has two notions, and so there would be six [notions in all] — which is against common opinion. If according to substance: then by parity of reasoning it would be said of the Son too, since what is said according to substance belongs to all three.
3. Likewise, since the divine essence is not begotten, nor is the Holy Spirit begotten, nor is the Father begotten, nor moreover is any of these made: therefore the account of unbegotten according to Jerome belongs to all; [an incidental question:] it is asked, then, in what differing way4 [it belongs to each].
Conclusion.
The Holy Spirit can be called unbegotten in a privative sense, but not insofar as unbegotten is a notion of the Father.
I respond: It must be said that some have wished5 to distinguish concerning this name ingenitum, [namely] that it can be written with one n — and so it has the value of uncreated [increatum] — or with two, and so is opposed to that which is begotten properly so called. But this distinction, although it holds among the Greeks, does not hold among the Latins, since ingenitum with two n's is not a significative utterance among us. Damascene6, however, assigns this difference in his own language, since he was a Greek. Moreover, it is not relevant to the matter at hand; since nothing is asked here about ingenitum as it is equivalent to uncreated, but as it is equivalent to not-begotten or unbegettable.
And therefore it must be said otherwise, and briefly, that ingenitum is taken in one mode purely privatively, namely that which is not generated7; and in this mode it is said both of the Holy Spirit and of the [divine] essence. In another mode, insofar as8 ingenitum has the value of not being from another, and one from whom others are; and in this mode it signifies the notion of the Father alone, since it signifies a property and dignity in the Father. And in the first sense Jerome speaks; in the second, Augustine. Whence, however, these senses arise — and why unbegettable [innascibilis] is a notion and not unproceedable [improcessibilis] — will be said below9.
From these things the solution of the apparent contrariety is plain; the [other] objections are likewise plain.
To what is objected, then — that negation with the subject standing fast is equivalent to a privative term — it is true if [the term] is merely10 privative; but that reasoning concludes only of this name [ingenitum] insofar as it deprives, not insofar as it posits something.
To what is objected — [whether ingenitum] predicates11 essence or relation — it must be said that, insofar as it is said of essence, it is taken only privatively or negatively. And therefore it does not predicate something, as when it is said: "the essence does not generate." The other matters12 are clear.
Scholion.
I. This question seems to have arisen from the different mode of speaking which the Holy Doctors Augustine and Jerome have used in this matter. St. Bonaventure aptly reconciles their two opinions. Much on the account of unbegettability is found below at d. 28 throughout.
II. As to the order of the solutions of the opposing arguments, it is to be noted that the words at the end of the corpus — "the objections are plain" — refer to [arguments] 1, 2, 4 on the affirmative side. Then he explicitly solves argument 3 on the affirmative; and finally he replies to the distinction in [argument] 2 on the negative side.
III. Cf. Alex. Hales, Summa p. I, q. 69, m. 3. — Scotus, here q. unic., and d. 28, q. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; Summa I, q. 33, a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 8 ff. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 1. — Aegidius of Rome, here 2. princ. q. 2. — Durandus, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.
---
- Vide lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Mox aliqui codd. ut A W X Y Quod loco Quia.See the Master's littera [Lombard, Sententiae I, d. 13], c. 4. — Shortly after, some codices such as A, W, X, Y read Quod ("That") in place of Quia ("Since") [opening pro-arg 2's quotation].
- Cfr. Aristot., II. Periher. c. 1. (c. 10.) et Comment. Boethii in hunc locum, ubi ait: Idem enim valet ad intelligentiam quod dicitur «iniustus», tanquam si dicatur «non iustus». — Paulo infra ope mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus sanctus.Cf. Aristotle, On Interpretation II, c. 1 (c. 10), and Boethius's commentary on this place, where he says: "For iniustus ['unjust'] has the same value for understanding as if one said non iustus ['not just']." — A little below, with the help of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have added sanctus ["nor Spiritus (sanctus) generates," in pro-arg 4].
- Quaest. 2. et 8. Vide lit. Magistri, c. 4.[Augustine, ad Orosium,] qq. 2 and 8. See the Master's littera, c. 4.
- Sequimur multos codd. loco differunt ponendo differenter, supple: singulis conveniat.We follow many codices in placing differenter ("differently") in place of differunt ("they differ"); supply: singulis conveniat ("[in what differing way] it belongs to each").
- In cod. V additur dicere sive.In codex V is added dicere sive [reading "have wished to say or to distinguish"].
- Libr. I. de Fide orthod. c. 8: Sciendum enim vocem ἀγένητον, cum scribitur cum unico ν, increatum significare seu quod minime factum est; ἀγέννητον autem, cum scribitur cum duplici νν, id indicare quod non est genitum.[John Damascene,] On the Orthodox Faith I, c. 8: "It must be known that the word agenēton, when it is written with a single nu, signifies uncreated or what has by no means been made; whereas agennēton, when it is written with a double nu, indicates that which is not begotten."
- Vat. minus distincte, et mss. cum ed. 1 refragantibus, quod ingenitum dicitur uno modo, prout accipitur privative, scilicet pro eo quod non generatur.The Vatican edition, less distinctly — and with the manuscripts and ed. 1 resisting — reads: "that ingenitum is said in one way, insofar as it is taken privatively, namely for that which is not generated" [conflating the two phases of Bonaventure's distinction].
- Cod. K quantum ens non ab alio, sed.Codex K reads quantum ens non ab alio, sed [inverting the order: "as a being not-from-another, but…"].
- Dist. 28. per totam.[See below, I Sent.] d. 28, throughout.
- Multi codd. ut AGHISTUVWX etc. cum edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 minus bene vere loco mere; ed. 1 autem pure.Many codices — A, G, H, I, S, T, U, V, W, X, etc. — with edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 read, less well, vere ("truly") in place of mere ("merely"); ed. 1, however, reads pure ("purely").
- Plurimi codd. cum edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 incongrue privat loco praedicat.Most codices, with edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, incongruously read privat ("deprives") in place of praedicat ("predicates").
- Ex mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus alia.From the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied alia ("other [matters]"; reading Cetera alia).