Bonaventure

## Commentarius in Distinctionem XXVIII.

De proprietate non personali, quae est innascibilitas.

Praeterea considerari oportet, quod non tantum etc.

Divisio textus.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation that follows. Each note is given first in Latin (`La.`), then in literal English (`En.`).

Supra egit Magister de proprietatibus, quae sunt personarum et personales: hic incipit secunda pars, in qua agit de proprietatibus sive relationibus non personalibus. Et dividitur haec pars in duas, quia proprietas non personalis est duplex, scilicet innascibilitas et communis spiratio, quae significatur per hoc nomen principium. Ideo primo agit de innascibilitate, secundo de communi spiratione, infra distinctione vigesima nona: Est praeterea aliud nomen etc. Prima pars habet duas. In prima determinat de proprietate innascibilitatis; in secunda, quia opposita circa opposita clarius elucescunt¹, tangit incidenter de proprietate nascibilitatis et nascibilis, infra distinctione eadem: Sciendum quoque est, quod sicut Filius.

Item prima pars habet quatuor partes. In prima ostendit, quid sit significatum huius nominis ingenitus in se, ostendens, quod sit proprium personae Patris et differens a paternitate et dictum secundum relationem. Secundo determinat eius significationem in aequipollenti, sicut in hoc nomine non genitus, et in hoc nomine innascibilis, ibi: Ideo solet quaeri, utrum, sicut solus etc. Tertio² determinat huius nominis usum, ostendens, quod quamvis non habeat ortum ex Scriptura, quod tamen licet eo uti, quamvis Ambrosius videatur dicere contrarium — hoc enim facit ad reprehendendum haereticos — hoc et facit ibi: Illud etiam tacere non oportet. In quarta vero determinat³ quoddam dubium, quod ex praedeterminatis habet ortum, ibi: Praeterea quaeri solet etc.

Sciendum quoque est, quod sicut solus Filius. Haec est secunda pars huius partis⁴, in qua incidenter determinat de proprietate Filii sive Nati; et haec habet duas partes secundum duo, quae ibi tangit. Quia enim supra dictum fuerat, quod sapientia diceret commune, imago proprium, et ideo quia hoc posset generare dubium, quia invenimus e contrario aliquando, ideo primo ostendit, quod sapientia nata proprie dicitur de Filio. Secundo vero ostendit, quod imago aliquando accipitur essentialiter, ibi: Illud etiam sciri oportet.

Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam eorum quae dicuntur in praesenti distinctione, quatuor quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum hoc nomen ingenitus sive innascibilis dicatur secundum substantiam vel secundum relationem.

Secundo, supposito quod secundum relationem dicatur, quaeritur, utrum dicat eandem relationem quam hoc nomen pater.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum innascibilitas sit proprietas sive relatio personalis personae Patris.

Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum improcessibilitas dicat aliquam notionem in Patre.

---

## Commentary on Distinction XXVIII.

On the non-personal property, which is unbegottenness.

"Furthermore, it must be considered that not only etc."

Division of the text.

Above, the Master treated of the properties which are of the persons and personal: here begins the second part, in which he treats of the properties or relations which are non-personal. And this part is divided into two, because a non-personal property is twofold — namely, unbegottenness and common spiration, which is signified by this name principle. Therefore he treats first of unbegottenness, second of common spiration, below in the twenty-ninth distinction: "There is, moreover, another name etc." The first part has two [subdivisions]. In the first he determines concerning the property of unbegottenness; in the second, since opposites shine forth more clearly when set side by side with their opposites¹, he touches incidentally on the property of begottenness and of the begotten, below in the same distinction: "It must also be known, that just as the Son."

Likewise the first part has four parts. In the first he shows what is the signification of this name unbegotten in itself, showing that it is proper to the person of the Father, distinct from paternity, and said according to relation. Second, he determines its signification in an equivalent expression, as in this name not begotten, and in this name unbegettable, there: "Therefore it is wont to be asked whether, just as the only etc." Third², he determines the use of this name, showing that, although it does not arise from Scripture, it is nevertheless permitted to use it — although Ambrose seems to say the contrary, for he does this in order to refute heretics — and this he does there: "This too must not be passed over in silence." In the fourth, however, he determines³ a certain difficulty which arises from what has been previously determined, there: "Furthermore, it is wont to be asked etc."

"It must also be known, that just as only the Son." This is the second part of this part⁴, in which he incidentally determines concerning the property of the Son, or of the Begotten One; and this has two parts according to the two points which he touches there. For since it had been said above that wisdom expresses what is common, image what is proper, and therefore — because this could give rise to a difficulty, since we sometimes find the contrary — he therefore first shows that born wisdom is properly said of the Son. Second, however, he shows that image is sometimes taken essentially, there: "This too must be known."

Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of the things said in the present distinction, four [questions] are asked.

First it is asked whether this name unbegotten or unbegettable is said according to substance or according to relation.

Second, supposing that it is said according to relation, it is asked whether it expresses the same relation which this name father expresses.

Third it is asked whether unbegottenness is a property or a personal relation of the person of the Father.

Fourth and lastly it is asked whether unprocessibility expresses any notion in the Father.

---