← Back to Distinction 4

Dist. 4

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 4

Textus Latinus
p. 95

DISTINCTIO IV.

Utrum Deus Pater se Deum genuerit.

Hic oritur quaestio satis necessaria. Constat enim et irrefragabiliter verum est, quod Deus Pater genuit Filium. Ideo quaeritur, utrum concedendum sit, quod Deus genuit Deum. Si enim Deus genuit Deum, videtur quod aut se Deum, aut alium1 genuerit. Si vero alium Deum genuit, non est tantum unus Deus; si autem se ipsum Deum genuit, aliqua res se ipsam genuit.

Ad quod respondentes dicimus, sane et2 catholice concedi, quod unus unum genuit, et quod Deus Deum genuit, quia Deus Pater Deum Filium genuit. In Symbolo quoque scriptum est: « Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero ». Quod vero additur: ergo genuit se Deum vel alium Deum, neutrum concedendum esse dicimus. Quod alium Deum non genuit3, manifestum est, quia unus tantum Deus est. Quod autem se ipsum non genuit, ostendit Augustinus in primo libro de Trinitate4 dicens: « Qui putant eius potentiae esse Deum, ut se ipsum ipse genuerit, eo plus errant, quod non solum Deus ita non est, sed nec spiritualis neque corporalis creatura. Nulla enim res est, quae se ipsam gignat, ut sit »; et ideo non est credendum vel dicendum, quod Deus genuit se.

Sed adhuc opponunt garruli ratiocinatores dicentes: si Deus Pater genuit Deum, aut genuit Deum, qui est Deus Pater, aut Deum, qui non est Deus Pater. Si genuit Deum, qui non est Deus Pater: ergo Deus est qui non est Deus Pater: non ergo unus tantum Deus est. Si vero genuit Deum, qui est Deus Pater: ergo genuit se ipsum.

Ad quod respondemus determinantes istam5 propositionem, quam sic proponunt: si Deus Pater genuit Deum, aut Deum, qui est Deus Pater, aut Deum, qui non est Deus Pater. Hoc enim sane et prave intelligi potest; et ideo respondendum est ita: Deus Pater genuit Deum, qui est ipse Pater, hoc dicimus esse falsum; et concedimus alteram6, scilicet genuit Deum, qui non est Pater; nec tamen genuit alterum Deum, nec ille qui genitus est, alius Deus est quam Pater, sed unus Deus cum Patre. Si vero additur: genuit Deum, qui non est Deus Pater, hic7 distinguimus, quia dupliciter potest intelligi: genuit Deum, qui non est Deus Pater, scilicet Deum Filium, qui Filius non est Pater, qui Deus est; hic sensus verus est. Si vero intelligatur sic: genuit Deum, qui non est Deus Pater, id est, qui non est Deus, qui Pater est; hic sensus falsus est. Unus enim et idem Deus est Pater et8 Filius et Spiritus sanctus; et e converso Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus unus est Deus.

Cap. II.

Utrum Trinitas de uno Deo praedicetur[^9] sicut unus Deus de tribus personis.

Quidam tamen veritatis adversarii concedunt, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum sive tres personas esse unum Deum, unam substantiam, sed10 nolunt concedere, unum Deum sive unam substantiam esse tres personas, dicentes, substantiam divinam praedicari de tribus personis, non tres personas de substantia divina. Fides autem catholica tenet ac praedicat, et tres personas esse unum Deum, unam substantiam sive essentiam sive naturam divinam, et unum Deum sive essentiam divinam esse tres personas. Unde Augustinus in primo libro de Trinitate11 ita ait: « Recte ipse Deus Trinitas intelligitur, beatus et solus potens ». Ecce, quam expresse dixit ipse Deus Trinitas, ut ostenderet, et ipsum Deum esse Trinitatem et Trinitatem ipsum Deum. Item in eodem: « In verbis, inquit, illis Apostoli, quibus de adventu Christi agens dicit12: Quem ostendet beatus et solus potens, Rex regum et Dominus dominantium, qui solus habet immortalitatem etc., nec Pater proprie nominatus est nec Filius nec Spiritus sanctus, sed beatus et solus potens, id est unus et solus Deus verus, qui est ipsa Trinitas ». Ecce et hic aperte dicit, unum solum verum Deum esse ipsam Trinitatem; et si unus Deus Trinitas est, ergo unus Deus est tres personae. Item in libro quinto de Trinitate13: « Non tres deos, sed unum Deum dicimus esse ipsam praestantissimam Trinitatem ». Item in libro, qui dicitur Enchyridion ad Laurentium, capitulo nono: « Satis est christiano, rerum creatarum causam visibilium sive invisibilium non nisi bonitatem credere Creatoris, qui est Deus unus et verus, nullamque esse naturam, quae non aut ipse sit, aut ab ipso, eumque esse Trinitatem, Patrem scilicet et Filium et Spiritum sanctum ». Item Augustinus in sermone de Fide14: « Credimus, unum Deum unam esse divini nominis

p. 96

Trinitatem ». Idem in sexto libro de Trinitate15: « Dicimus, Deum solum esse ipsam Trinitatem ». Ecce, his et aliis pluribus auctoritatibus evidenter ostenditur, dicendum esse et credendum, quod unus Deus est Trinitas, et una substantia tres personae; sicut e converso Trinitas dicitur esse unus Deus, et tres personae dicuntur esse una substantia.

Nunc ad praemissam quaestionem revertamur, ubi quaerebatur, an Deus Pater genuerit se Deum, an alium Deum. Ad quod dicimus, neutrum fore concedendum. Dicit tamen Augustinus in Epistola ad Maximum16, quod Deus Pater se alterum genuit, his verbis: « Pater, ut haberet Filium de se ipso, non minuit se ipsum, sed ita genuit de se alterum se, ut totus maneret in se et esset in Filio tantus, quantus et solus ». Quod ita intelligi potest, id est, de se alterum a se genuit, non utique alterum Deum, sed alteram personam; vel genuit se alterum, id est, genuit alterum, qui hoc est quod ipse. Nam etsi alius sit Pater quam Filius, non est tamen aliud quam Filius, sed unum.

---

English Translation

DISTINCTION IV.

Whether God the Father begot Himself as God.

Here arises a question sufficiently necessary. For it is settled and irrefragably true that God the Father begot the Son. Therefore it is asked whether it should be conceded that God begot God. For if God begot God, it seems that He begot either Himself as God or another1. But if He begot another God, then there is not only one God; whereas if He begot Himself as God, then some thing begot itself.

In response to this we say that it is soundly and2 catholically conceded that one begot one, and that God begot God, because God the Father begot God the Son. In the Symbol it is also written: « Light from Light, true God from true God ». But as to what is added: therefore He begot Himself as God, or another God — neither, we say, is to be conceded. That He did not beget another God3 is manifest, because there is only one God. That He did not beget Himself, however, Augustine shows in the first book On the Trinity4, saying: « Those who think that it belongs to God's power that He should beget Himself, err the more, in that not only is God not so, but neither any spiritual nor corporeal creature. For there is no thing which begets itself, that it may be »; and therefore it is not to be believed or said that God begot Himself.

But still the garrulous reasoners object, saying: if God the Father begot God, He either begot God who is God the Father, or God who is not God the Father. If He begot God who is not God the Father: therefore there is a God who is not God the Father: therefore there is not only one God. But if He begot God who is God the Father: therefore He begot Himself.

To which we respond by determining this5 proposition, which they thus propound: if God the Father begot God, He begot either God who is God the Father, or God who is not God the Father. For this can be understood soundly and perversely; and therefore it must be answered thus: that God the Father begot God who is the Father Himself — this we say to be false; and we concede the other6, namely, that He begot God who is not the Father; nor however did He beget another God, nor is He who was begotten another God than the Father, but one God with the Father. But if it is added: He begot God who is not God the Father, here7 we distinguish, because this can be understood in two ways: He begot God who is not God the Father, namely, God the Son, who as Son is not the Father, who is God; this sense is true. But if it is so understood: He begot God who is not God the Father, that is, who is not God who is the Father — this sense is false. For one and the same God is Father and8 Son and Holy Spirit; and conversely, Father and Son and Holy Spirit are one God.

Cap. II.

Whether the Trinity is predicated of the one God[^9] just as the one God is predicated of the three persons.

Yet certain adversaries of the truth concede that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, or the three persons, are one God, one substance, but10 are unwilling to concede that the one God or the one substance is three persons, saying that the divine substance is predicated of the three persons, but not the three persons of the divine substance. The catholic faith, however, holds and preaches both that the three persons are one God, one substance or essence or divine nature, and that the one God or divine essence is three persons. Whence Augustine in the first book On the Trinity11 thus says: « Rightly is God Himself understood as the Trinity, blessed and alone powerful ». Behold, how expressly he said God Himself is the Trinity, in order to show both that God Himself is the Trinity and that the Trinity is God Himself. Likewise in the same: « In those words, he says, of the Apostle, by which, treating of the coming of Christ, he says12: Whom the blessed and only powerful, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, will show forth etc., neither was the Father properly named nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit, but the blessed and only powerful, that is, the one and only true God, who is the Trinity itself ». Behold, here too he openly says that the one only true God is the Trinity itself; and if the one God is the Trinity, therefore the one God is three persons. Likewise in the fifth book On the Trinity13: « We say not three gods, but one God to be that most excellent Trinity itself ». Likewise in the book called Enchiridion to Laurentius, chapter nine: « It is enough for the Christian to believe the cause of created things, visible or invisible, to be nothing but the goodness of the Creator, who is the one and true God, and that there is no nature which is not either Himself, or from Him, and that He is the Trinity, namely the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit ». Likewise Augustine in the sermon On Faith14: « We believe that one God is one

p. 96

Trinity of the divine name ». The same in the sixth book On the Trinity15: « We say that God alone is the Trinity itself ». Behold, by these and many other authorities it is evidently shown that it must be said and believed that one God is the Trinity, and one substance is three persons; just as conversely the Trinity is said to be one God, and the three persons are said to be one substance.

Now let us return to the foregoing question, where it was asked whether God the Father begot Himself as God, or another God. To which we say that neither is to be conceded. Yet Augustine says in the Letter to Maximus16 that God the Father begot Himself as another, in these words: « The Father, that He might have a Son from Himself, did not diminish Himself, but so begot from Himself another self, that He remained whole in Himself and was in the Son as great as, and alone ». This can be understood thus, that is, He begot from Himself another from Himself — not indeed another God, but another person; or He begot Himself as another, that is, He begot another, who is the same as He Himself. For although the Father is other than the Son, yet He is not another thing than the Son, but one.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vat. hic addit Deum.
    The Vatican edition here adds Deum ("God").
  2. Vat. male omittit et.
    The Vatican edition wrongly omits et ("and").
  3. Solummodo codd. B C D E genuerit, quod ponendum videretur, nisi paulo infra iidem codd. posuissent genuit.
    Only codd. B C D E read genuerit ("had begotten"), which would seem to be the correct reading, except that a little below the same codices have placed genuit ("begot").
  4. Cap. 1, n. 1, ubi pro putant et errant legitur in singulari putat etc., et codd. B C pro eius potentiae male legunt eiusdem potentiae.
    Chapter 1, no. 1, where for putant ("they think") and errant ("they err") it is read in the singular putat etc., and codd. B C for eius potentiae ("of His power") wrongly read eiusdem potentiae ("of the same power").
  5. Omnes codd. illam.
    All codd. read illam ("that").
  6. Sola Vat. male alterum.
    Only the Vatican edition wrongly reads alterum ("the other [masc.]").
  7. Edd. 2, 3, 7, 8 hoc.
    Editions 2, 3, 7, 8 read hoc ("this").
  8. Codd. B C omittunt hic et mox post Pater particulam et.
    Codd. B C omit here, and likewise after Pater below, the particle et ("and").
  9. Codd. D E et edd. omnes, exceptis 1, 8, adiiciunt tamen.
    Codd. D E and all editions, except 1 and 8, add tamen ("nevertheless").
  10. Vat. et ed. 4 addunt et; mox codd. C D unam essentiam pro sive essentiam.
    The Vatican edition and edition 4 add et ("and"); shortly after, codd. C D read unam essentiam ("one essence") for sive essentiam ("or essence").
  11. Cap. 6. n. 10, ubi et proximus locus, sed nonnullis omissis et mutatis.
    Chapter 6, no. 10, where also the next passage is found, but with some things omitted and changed.
  12. I. Tim. 6, 15. Quem suis temporibus ostendet beatus etc. Apud Augustinum: Quem temporibus propriis ostendet Pater beatus etc. Perperam mss. D E cum edd. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 ostendit loco ostendet.
    1 Tim. 6:15. Whom in his times the blessed [one] shall show etc. In Augustine: Whom the blessed Father shall show forth in His own times etc. Wrongly the manuscripts D E together with editions 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 [read] ostendit ("shows") in place of ostendet ("shall show").
  13. Cap. 8, n. 9. Proximi loci citatio in omnibus mss. et edd., demptis Vat. et ed. 4, ita fertur: Item in libro de Fide ad Petrum in expositione Symboli; at perperam, cum verba subsequentia non in eo, sed in Enchyridion legantur.
    Chapter 8, no. 9. The citation of the next passage in all manuscripts and editions, except the Vatican and edition 4, is given thus: Likewise in the book On Faith to Peter, in the exposition of the Symbol; but wrongly, since the subsequent words are not read in that work, but in the Enchiridion.
  14. Serm. 233. de Fide cathol., n. 1, sed paulo aliter, nempe: Credimus in unum Deum... Hunc unum Deum et hanc unam esse divini nominis Trinitatem.
    Sermon 233, On the Catholic Faith, no. 1, but somewhat differently, namely: We believe in one God... [we believe] this one God and this one [to be] the Trinity of the divine name.
  15. Cap. 7, n. 9. — Immediate ante Vat. et edd. 1, 2 habent item pro idem; mox post Ecce Vat. et ed. 4 addunt et. Deinde codd. A B C D et edd. 1, 8 concedendum pro credendum, sed non bene nec congrue ad duo testimonia Augustini, qui loquitur tum de interiore fide (Credimus), tum de confessione fidei (Dicimus).
    Chapter 7, no. 9. — Immediately before, the Vatican edition and editions 1, 2 have item ("likewise") for idem ("the same"); shortly after Ecce, the Vatican and edition 4 add et ("and"). Then codd. A B C D and editions 1, 8 [read] concedendum ("to be conceded") for credendum ("to be believed"), but not well nor congruously with the two testimonies of Augustine, who speaks both of interior faith (We believe) and of the confession of faith (We say).
  16. Epistola 170. ad Maximum medicum, n. 5. — Paulo infra in explicatione verborum Augustini Vat. male omittit a post de se alterum.
    Letter 170 to Maximus the physician, no. 5. — A little below in the explanation of Augustine's words, the Vatican edition wrongly omits a ("from") after de se alterum ("another from Himself").
Dist. 4, Divisio Textus→