← Back to Distinction 5

Dist. 5

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 5

Textus Latinus
p. 108

Distinctio V.

Utrum divina essentia genuerit Filium, vel genita sit a Patre, vel de ipsa natus sit Filius, vel Spiritus sanctus processerit.

Post haec quaeritur, utrum concedendum sit, quod Pater genuit1 divinam essentiam, vel quod divina essentia genuit Filium, vel essentia genuit2 essentiam, an omnino non genuit nec genita est divina essentia.

Ad quod catholicis tractatoribus consentientes dicimus, quod nec Pater genuit divinam essentiam, nec divina essentia genuit Filium, nec divina essentia genuit essentiam. Hic autem nomine essentiae intelligimus divinam naturam, quae communis est tribus personis et tota in singulis. Ideo non est dicendum, quod Pater genuit divinam essentiam; quia si Pater diceretur genuisse divinam essentiam, essentia divina relative diceretur ad Patrem vel pro relativo poneretur. Si autem relative diceretur vel pro relativo poneretur, non indicaret essentiam. Ut enim ait Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate3: «Quod relative dicitur, non indicat substantiam».

Item, cum Deus Pater sit divina essentia, si eius esset genitor, esset utique genitor eius rei, quae ipse est; et ita eadem res se ipsam genuisset, quod Augustinus negat, ut supra4 ostendimus.

Item, si Pater est genitor essentiae divinae, cum ipse essentia divina sit et Deus sit, eo ergo5 quod generat, et est et Deus est. Ita ergo non illud quod generatur, est a Patre Deus, sed Pater eo quod generat, et est et Deus est. Et si ita est, non genito gignens, sed gignenti genitus6 causa est, ut et sit et Deus sit. Simili ratione probat Augustinus in libro septimo de Trinitate7, «quod Pater non est sapiens sapientia, quam genuit, quia si ea sapiens est, ea est; hoc enim est ibi esse quod sapere. Quodsi hoc est ibi esse quod sapere, non per illam sapientiam, quam genuit, sapiens Pater est. Quid enim aliud dicimus, cum dicimus: hoc illi est esse quod sapere, nisi, eo est quo sapiens est? Ergo quae causa illi est, ut sapiens sit, etiam ipsa illi causa est, ut sit. Si ergo sapientia, quam genuit, illi causa est, ut sapiens sit, et causa illi est, ut sit. Sed causam Patri, qua sit, a Patre genitam, nullo modo quisquam dixerit sapientiam; quid enim est insanius? Ita ergo, si Pater genuit essentiam, qua est, essentia, quam genuit, causa est illi, ut sit». Non ergo ipsam, qua8 est, essentiam genuit. «Nam in illa simplicitate, inquit Augustinus9, quia non est aliud sapere quam esse, eadem est ibi sapientia quae essentia»; ideoque quod de sapientia, hoc de essentia dicimus. Sicut ergo non genuit sapientiam, qua sapiens est, ita nec essentiam, qua est. Ut enim sapientia sapiens est et potentia potens, ita et essentia ipse est, eademque est sapientia et potentia, quae essentia. Patet itaque ex praedictis, quia10 Pater essentiam divinam non genuit.

Huic autem videtur contrarium quod Augustinus ait in libro unico de Fide et symbolo, capitulo tertio11: «Deus, cum Verbum genuit, id quod ipse est genuit, nec de nihilo nec de aliqua iam facta conditaque materia, sed de se ipso id quod est ipse». Item12: «Deus Pater, qui verissime se indicare animis cognituris et voluit et potuit, hoc ad se ipsum indicandum genuit, quod est ipse qui genuit». Ecce aperte dicit his verbis, Deum Patrem genuisse illud quod ipse est. Illud autem quod ipse est, non est nisi essentia divina: videtur ergo divinam essentiam genuisse. Ad quod respondemus, illa verba sic intelligenda esse dicentes: Pater de se ipso genuit illud quod ipse est, id est Filium, qui est illud quod Pater est. Nam quod Pater est, et Filius hoc est, sed non qui Pater est, et Filius hic est.

Ita etiam non est dicendum, quod divina essentia genuit Filium, quia cum Filius sit divina essentia, iam esset Filius res, a qua generatur; et ita eadem res se ipsam generaret. Ita etiam dicimus, quod essentia divina non genuit essentiam. Cum enim una et summa quaedam res sit divina essentia, si divina essentia essentiam genuit, eadem res se ipsam genuit, quod omnino esse non potest; sed Pater solus genuit Filium, et a Patre et Filio procedit Spiritus sanctus13.

Praedictis autem videtur contrarium esse quod dicit Augustinus in libro septimo de Trinitate14: «Hoc, inquit, est Deo esse quod sapere; unde Pater et Filius simul sunt una sapientia, quia una essentia: et singillatim sapientia de sapientia, sicut essentia de essentia». Ecce his verbis aperte dicit Augustinus, sapientiam de sapientia et essentiam de essentia, ubi videtur significare, quod sapientia sapientiam et essentia es-

p. 109

sentiam genuerit. Idem in libro de Fide ad Petrum15 ait: «Sic Christum Dei Filium, id est unam ex Trinitate personam, Deum verum crede, ut divinitatem eius de natura Patris natam esse non dubites». Hic videtur dicere, quod natura Filii sit nata de natura Patris. Idem etiam in libro decimo quinto de Trinitate16 ait: «Dicitur Filius consilium de consilio et voluntas de voluntate, sicut substantia de substantia, sapientia de sapientia». Et hic videtur dicere, quod substantia sit genita de substantia et sapientia de sapientia. Sed hoc17 ita determinamus: «sapientia de sapientia, et substantia de substantia est», id est Filius, qui est sapientia, qui est substantia, est de Patre, qui est eadem substantia et sapientia; et Filius, qui est divinitas, natus est de Patre, qui est natura divina. Et ut expressius dicamus, dicimus, Filium sapientiam esse de Patre sapientia, et dicimus, Filium substantiam esse genitum de Patre et a Patre substantia. Quod autem ita intelligi debeat Augustinus, ostendit in libro septimo de Trinitate18 dicens: «Pater ipse sapientia est; et dicitur Filius sapientia Patris, quomodo dicitur lumen Patris, id est, sicut lumen de lumine et uterque unum lumen, sic intelligatur sapientia de sapientia; et uterque una sapientia et una essentia». Item19: «Ideo Christus dicitur virtus et sapientia Dei, quia de Patre, virtute et sapientia, etiam ipse virtus et sapientia est, sicut ipse lumen de Patre lumine est, et ipse fons vitae est apud Deum Patrem, fontem vitae. Filius ergo sapientia de Patre sapientia est, sicut Filius lumen de Patre lumine, et Deus Filius de Deo Patre, ut et singulus sit lumen et singulus Deus et singulus sapientia, et simul unum lumen, unus Deus, una sapientia». Ecce his verbis manifeste aperit Augustinus, ex quo sensu accipienda sint praedicta verba et his similia, scilicet cum dicitur: substantia de substantia, vel substantia genuit substantiam.

Huic vero etiam id contrarium videtur, quod Hilarius ait in quarto libro de Trinitate20: «Nihil, inquit, nisi natum habet Filius; et geniti honoris admiratio in honore generantis est». Cum ergo Filius essentiam habeat — tota enim in eo est divina essentia — videtur quod ipsa divina essentia nata sit. Item in quinto libro21 ait: «Nativitas Dei non potest eam ex qua profecta est non tenere naturam, nec enim aliud quam Deus subsistit, quod non aliunde quam de Deo subsistit». Ecce hic dicit nativitatem Dei profectam ex natura, et ita videtur ex his verbis atque praedictis natura Dei et genita et genuisse. Quod apertius dicit in libro nono de Trinitate22: «Nos, inquit, unigenitum Deum, in forma Dei manentem, in natura hominis mansisse profitemur, nec unitatem formae servilis in naturam divinae unitatis refundimus, nec rursus corporali insinuatione Patrem in Filio praedicamus, sed ex eo eiusdem generis genitam naturam naturaliter in se gignentem habuisse naturam, quae in forma naturae se gignentis manens, formam naturae et infirmitatis corporalis accepit. Non enim defecerat Dei natura, ne esset; sed in se humilitatem terrenae nativitatis manens sibi Dei natura susceperat, generis sui potestatem in habitu assumtae humilitatis exercens». Ecce hic aperte dicit, et naturam genuisse, et naturam genitam, et naturam assumsisse naturam; quod a plerisque negatur. Item in eodem23: «Nunquid unigenito Deo contumelia est, Patrem sibi innascibilem Deum esse, cum ex innascibili Deo nativitas unigenita in naturam unigenitam subsistat»? Ecce et hic dicit unigenitam naturam.

Sed quia haec verba sane vult intelligi, ipse idem dicit in quarto libro24: «Intelligentia dictorum ex causis est assumenda dicendi, quia non sermoni res, sed rei est sermo subiectus». Haec ergo verba ita intelligi possunt: nihil habet Filius nisi natum, id est, nihil habet secundum quod Deus est, nisi quod nascendo accepit, et ipse nascendo Patris in se subsistentem habuit naturam. Unde idem Hilarius addit in quinto libro25: «Eandem naturam habet genitus, quam ille qui genuit, ita tamen, ut natus non sit ille qui genuit (nam quomodo erit Pater ipse, cum genitus sit?), sed in his ipsis subsistat ille qui genitus est, in quibus totus est ipse qui genuit; quia non est aliunde qui genitus est. Et ideo non refertur ad aliud quod in uno subsistit ex uno. Ac sic in generatione Filii et naturam suam, ut ita dicam, sequitur indemutabilis Deus indemutabilem gignens Deum, nec naturam suam deserit ex indemutabili Deo indemutabilis Dei perfecta nativitas. Subsistentem ergo in eo Dei naturam intelligamus, cum in Deo Deus insit; nec praeter eum qui Deus est, quisquam Deus alius sit, quia ipse Deus,

p. 110

et in eo Deus». Naturae ergo Dei Patris veritas in Deo Filio esse docetur, cum in eo Deus intelligatur26 esse, qui Deus est. Est enim unus in uno et unus ab uno.

Dicitur quoque et frequenter in Scriptura sacra legitur, Patrem de sua substantia genuisse Filium. Unde Augustinus in libro de Fide ad Petrum27 ait: «Pater Deus, de nullo genitus Deo, semel de sua natura sine initio genuit Filium Deum sibi aequalem et eadem qua ipse naturaliter aeternus est divinitate coaeternum». Ecce hic dicit Augustinus, Filium genitum de natura Patris. Est autem una natura Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. Si ergo de natura Patris genitus est Filius, genitus est de natura Filii et Spiritus sancti, immo de natura trium personarum. Idem quoque Augustinus in libro decimo quinto de Trinitate28 dicit, Christum esse Filium substantiae Patris et de substantia Patris genitum, tractans illud verbum Apostoli loquentis de Deo Patre sic: Qui eruit nos de potestate tenebrarum et transtulit in regnum Filii caritatis suae. «Quod dictum est, inquit, Filii caritatis suae, nihil aliud intelligatur29 quam Filii sui dilecti, quam Filii substantiae suae. Caritas quippe Patris, quae in natura eius est ineffabiliter simplici, nihil est aliud quam ipsa natura atque substantia, ut saepe diximus et saepe iterare non piget, ac per hoc Filius caritatis eius nullus est alius, quam qui de substantia eius est genitus». Ecce aperte hic dicit Augustinus, Filium esse genitum de substantia Patris et Filium substantiae Patris. Idem quoque Augustinus in libro secundo contra Maximinum haereticum30, substantiam Dei genuisse Filium, et Filium genitum de substantia Patris asserit dicens: «Carnalibus cogitationibus pleni, substantiam Dei de se ipsa gignere Filium non putatis, nisi hoc patiatur, quod substantia carnis patitur, quando gignit. Erratis nescientes Scripturas neque virtutem Dei31. Nullo enim modo verum Dei Filium cogitatis, si eum natum esse de substantia Patris negatis. Non enim iam erat hominis Filius et Deo donante factus est Dei Filius, ex Deo natus gratia, non natura. An forte, etsi non hominis filius erat, tamen aliqua iam erat qualiscumque creatura et in Dei Filium, Deo mutante, conversa est? Sed nihil horum est: ergo aut de nihilo, aut de aliqua substantia natus est. Sed ne crederemus, vos putare de nihilo esse Dei Filium, affirmastis32, non vos dicere de nihilo esse Dei Filium. De aliqua ergo substantia est; et si non de substantia Patris, de qua sit, dicite; sed non invenietis. Iam igitur unigenitum Dei Filium, Iesum Christum, de Patris esse substantia, non vos nobiscum pigeat confiteri». Idem in eodem33: «Utrique legimus, ut simus in vero Filio eius, Iesu Christo. Dicite ergo nobis, utrum iste verus Dei Filius ab eis qui gratia filii sunt, quadam proprietate discretus de nulla substantia sit, an de aliqua? Non dico, inquis, de nulla, nec dicam de nihilo: ergo de aliqua substantia est. Quaero, de qua? Si non de Patris substantia est, aliam quaere. Si aliam non invenis, Patris agnosce substantiam, et Filium cum Patre homoousion confitere». Item in eodem34: «Confiteor, Deum Patrem omnino incorruptibiliter genuisse, sed quod est ipse genuisse. Item dico quod saepe dicendum est: aut de aliqua substantia natus est Dei Filius, aut de nulla; si de nulla: ergo de nihilo; quod vos iam non dicitis; si vero de aliqua, nec tamen de Patris substantia, non est verus Filius; si vero de Patris substantia, unius eiusdemque substantiae sunt Pater et Filius. Vos autem nec Filium35 de substantia Patris genitum vultis; et tamen eum nec ex nihilo nec ex aliqua materia, sed ex Patre esse conceditis; nec videtis, quam necesse sit, ut qui non est ex nihilo nec ex aliqua alia re, sed ex Deo, nisi ex Dei substantia esse non possit, et hoc esse quod Deus est, de quo est, id est Deus de Deo natus; quia non alius prius fuit, sed natura coaeterna de Deo est».

His verbis praemissis innui videtur, quod divina summa substantia36 Filium genuerit, et quod Filius sit genitus de substantia Patris, et quod de Deo est natura coaeterna, et quod Pater id quod ipse est genuit. Id autem quod ipse est, essentia divina est; et ita putari potest, divinam essentiam genuisse. Vehementer movent nos haec verba, quae quomodo intelligenda sint, mallem ab aliis audire quam tradere37. Ut tamen sine praeiudicio atque temeritate loquar, ex hoc sensu dicta possunt accipi: natura coaeterna de Deo est, id est, Filius coaeternus Patri de Patre est, ita quod est eadem cum eo natura vel eiusdem naturae. Quem sensum confirmat Augustinus, ibidem38 subiiciens et quod dixerat quasi explanans. Dicto enim: «Natura coaeterna de Deo est», addidit: «Non est aliud Filius quam illud de quo est, id est, unius eiusdemque substantiae est». Deinde apertius talem intellectum ex praedictis verbis fore habendum aperit in eodem libro contra Maximinum dicens: «Trinitas haec unius eiusdemque substantiae est, quia non de aliqua materia vel de nihilo est Filius, sed de quo est genitus. Itemque Spiritus sanctus non de aliqua materia vel de nihilo est, sed inde est, unde procedit». His utique verbis aperte ostendit, ea ratione dici Filium esse de substantia Patris, quia est de Patre genitus, ita quod est eiusdem substantiae cum eo: et39 Spiritum sanctum esse de substantia Patris et Filii, quia ab utroque procedit, ita quod est eiusdem substantiae.

---

English Translation

Distinction V.

Whether the divine essence has begotten the Son, or has been begotten by the Father, or whether the Son was born of it, or the Holy Spirit proceeded [from it].

After these things it is asked whether it is to be granted that the Father begot1 the divine essence, or that the divine essence begot2 the Son, or that essence begot essence, or whether the divine essence has altogether neither begotten nor been begotten.

To which, agreeing with catholic teachers, we say that neither did the Father beget the divine essence, nor did the divine essence beget the Son, nor did the divine essence beget essence. Here, however, by the name "essence" we understand the divine nature, which is common to the three persons and whole in each. Therefore it is not to be said that the Father begot the divine essence; for if the Father were said to have begotten the divine essence, the divine essence would be spoken of relatively to the Father, or would be put in place of a relative term. But if it were spoken of relatively or put in place of a relative term, it would not signify essence. For as Augustine says in the fifth book On the Trinity3: «That which is said relatively does not signify substance.»

Likewise, since God the Father is the divine essence, if he were the begetter of it, he would assuredly be the begetter of that thing which he himself is; and so the same thing would have begotten itself, which Augustine denies, as we showed above4.

Likewise, if the Father is the begetter of the divine essence, since he himself is the divine essence and is God, then by that very fact5 by which he generates, both [it] is and is God. Thus, then, it is not that which is generated which is God from the Father, but the Father, by that by which he generates, both is and is God. And if it is so, the begetter is not the cause to the begotten, but the begotten6 [is the cause] to the begetter, that he both be and be God. By a similar reasoning Augustine proves in the seventh book On the Trinity7 «that the Father is not wise by the wisdom which he begot, because if he is wise by it, he is by it; for there to-be is the same as to-be-wise. But if there to-be is the same as to-be-wise, the Father is not wise by that wisdom which he begot. For what else do we say, when we say: for him to-be is the same as to-be-wise, except that he is by that by which he is wise? Therefore whatever cause is to him, that he be wise, that very thing is also a cause to him that he be. If, then, the wisdom which he begot is the cause to him that he be wise, it is also a cause to him that he be. But that the cause to the Father by which he is should be a wisdom begotten by the Father — no one in any way would say so; for what is more insane? Thus then, if the Father begot the essence by which he is, the essence which he begot is the cause to him that he be.» Therefore he did not beget the very essence by which8 he is. «For in that simplicity», says Augustine9, «since to-be-wise is not other than to-be, the wisdom there is the same as the essence»; and therefore what we say of wisdom we say also of essence. As, therefore, he did not beget the wisdom by which he is wise, so neither the essence by which he is. For as he is wise by wisdom and powerful by power, so also he is essence by essence, and the same is wisdom and power as essence. It is therefore evident from what has been said that10 the Father did not beget the divine essence.

But to this it seems contrary that Augustine says in his sole book On Faith and the Creed, chapter three11: «God, when he begot the Word, begot that which he himself is, neither from nothing nor from any matter already made and created, but from himself that which he himself is.» Likewise12: «God the Father, who most truly both willed and was able to make himself known to minds about to know him, for the indicating of himself begot this, which is he himself who begot.» Behold, he plainly says in these words that God the Father begot that which he himself is. But that which he himself is, is nothing other than the divine essence: it seems, therefore, that he begot the divine essence. To which we respond, saying that those words are to be understood thus: the Father from himself begot that which he himself is, that is, the Son, who is that which the Father is. For what the Father is, the Son also is this, but not who the Father is, the Son is this.

So also it is not to be said that the divine essence begot the Son, because since the Son is the divine essence, the Son would already be the thing from which he is generated; and so the same thing would generate itself. So also we say that the divine essence did not beget essence. For since the divine essence is one and a certain supreme thing, if the divine essence begot essence, the same thing would have begotten itself, which can in no way be; but the Father alone begot the Son, and from the Father and the Son proceeds the Holy Spirit13.

But to what has been said it seems contrary that Augustine says in the seventh book On the Trinity14: «This», he says, «for God is to-be the same as to-be-wise; whence the Father and the Son together are one wisdom, because one essence: and severally wisdom from wisdom, just as essence from essence.» Behold, in these words Augustine plainly says wisdom from wisdom and essence from essence, where he seems to signify that wisdom begot wisdom and essence

p. 109

begot essence. The same in the book On Faith to Peter15 says: «So believe Christ the Son of God, that is, one person of the Trinity, true God, that you may not doubt his divinity to be born of the nature of the Father.» Here he seems to say that the nature of the Son was born of the nature of the Father. The same also in the fifteenth book On the Trinity16 says: «The Son is called counsel from counsel and will from will, just as substance from substance, wisdom from wisdom.» And here he seems to say that substance was begotten from substance and wisdom from wisdom. But this17 we so determine: «Wisdom is from wisdom, and substance is from substance», that is, the Son, who is wisdom, who is substance, is from the Father, who is the same substance and wisdom; and the Son, who is divinity, was born of the Father, who is the divine nature. And to speak more expressly, we say that the Son is wisdom from the Father wisdom, and we say that the Son is substance begotten from the Father and by the Father substance. That this is so to be understood Augustine shows in the seventh book On the Trinity18 saying: «The Father himself is wisdom; and the Son is called the wisdom of the Father, in the manner in which he is called the light of the Father, that is, just as light from light and both one light, so let wisdom be understood from wisdom; and both one wisdom and one essence.» Likewise19: «Therefore Christ is called the power and wisdom of God, because from the Father, [who is] power and wisdom, he himself also is power and wisdom, just as he himself is light from the Father light, and he himself is the fount of life with God the Father, the fount of life. The Son therefore is wisdom from the Father wisdom, just as the Son is light from the Father light, and God the Son from God the Father, so that each singly is light and singly God and singly wisdom, and together one light, one God, one wisdom.» Behold in these words Augustine manifestly opens up by what sense the aforesaid words and the like are to be received, namely when it is said: substance from substance, or substance begot substance.

But to this also that seems contrary which Hilary says in the fourth book On the Trinity20: «Nothing», he says, «does the Son have except as born; and the admiration of the begotten honor is in the honor of the begetter.» Since therefore the Son has essence — for the divine essence is whole in him — it seems that the divine essence itself was born. Likewise in the fifth book21 he says: «The nativity of God cannot fail to retain the nature from which it has come forth, for nothing else than God subsists, which subsists not otherwise than from God.» Behold, here he says that the nativity of God comes forth from the nature, and so from these words and what was said before it seems that the nature of God both was begotten and begot. Which he says more openly in the ninth book On the Trinity22: «We», he says, «profess the only-begotten God, abiding in the form of God, to have abode in the nature of man, and we do not melt back the unity of the servile form into the nature of the divine unity, nor again do we preach the Father in the Son by bodily insinuation, but [we profess] that from him a nature begotten of the same kind naturally had a begotten nature in itself, which abiding in the form of the nature begetting itself, received the form of nature and of bodily infirmity. For the nature of God had not failed, so as not to be; but abiding in itself the lowliness of earthly nativity, the nature of God had taken to itself, exercising the power of its own kind in the habit of an assumed lowliness.» Behold, here he plainly says that nature both begot, and was begotten, and that nature took on nature; which is denied by very many. Likewise in the same place23: «Surely is it a reproach to the only-begotten God, that the Father is to him an unbegotten God, since from the unbegotten God an only-begotten nativity subsists into an only-begotten nature?» Behold, here too he says only-begotten nature.

But because he wishes these words to be soundly understood, he himself says in the fourth book24: «The understanding of things said is to be taken from the causes of speaking, because the thing is not subject to the speech, but the speech to the thing.» These words therefore can be so understood: the Son has nothing except as born, that is, he has nothing according to which he is God, except what he received in being born, and he himself in being born had the Father's nature subsisting in him. Whence the same Hilary adds in the fifth book25: «The begotten has the same nature which he who begot has, yet so that he who begot is not born (for how will he himself be Father, if he is begotten?), but he who is begotten subsists in those very things in which he who begot is wholly himself; because he who is begotten is not from elsewhere. And therefore that which subsists in one from one is not referred to another. And so in the generation of the Son the unchangeable God, so to speak, follows his own nature, an unchangeable God begetting an unchangeable God, nor does the perfect nativity of the unchangeable God from the unchangeable God forsake its own nature. Therefore let us understand the nature of God subsisting in him, since in God God is within; and besides him who is God, there is no other God, because he himself is God,

p. 110

and in him is God.» The truth of the nature of God the Father is therefore taught to be in God the Son, since in him is understood26 to be God, who is God. For he is one in one and one from one.

It is also said and frequently read in sacred Scripture that the Father begot the Son of his own substance. Whence Augustine in the book On Faith to Peter27 says: «God the Father, begotten of no God, once from his own nature without beginning begot the Son God equal to himself and coeternal in the same divinity in which he himself is naturally eternal.» Behold, here Augustine says that the Son was begotten of the nature of the Father. But there is one nature of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, the Son is begotten of the nature of the Father, he is begotten of the nature of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, indeed of the nature of the three persons. The same Augustine also in the fifteenth book On the Trinity28 says that Christ is the Son of the substance of the Father and begotten of the substance of the Father, treating that word of the Apostle speaking of God the Father thus: Who delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his charity. «Which is said», he says, «the Son of his charity, let nothing else be understood29 than the Son of his beloved, than the Son of his substance. For the charity of the Father, which is in his ineffably simple nature, is nothing other than the very nature and substance, as we have often said and are not loath often to repeat, and through this the Son of his charity is none other than he who is begotten of his substance.» Behold, here Augustine plainly says that the Son is begotten of the substance of the Father and is the Son of the substance of the Father. The same Augustine also in the second book Against Maximinus the heretic30 asserts that the substance of God begot the Son, and the Son was begotten of the substance of the Father, saying: «Full of carnal thoughts, you do not think that the substance of God begets the Son from itself, unless he should suffer that which the substance of flesh suffers when it begets. You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God31. For in no way do you think the true Son of God, if you deny him to have been born of the substance of the Father. For he was not previously a son of man, and by God's gift was made the Son of God, born of God by grace, not by nature. Or perhaps, even if he was not the son of man, yet he was already some kind of creature, and was changed into the Son of God by God's changing him? But none of these is so: therefore either of nothing, or of some substance, he was born. But lest we should believe that you suppose the Son of God to be of nothing, you have affirmed32 that you do not say the Son of God is of nothing. Of some substance therefore he is; and if not of the substance of the Father, of what he be, say; but you will not find. Now therefore let it not irk you to confess with us that the only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, is of the substance of the Father.» The same in the same place33: «Both we read, that we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ. Tell us therefore, whether this true Son of God, distinguished by a certain property from those who are sons by grace, is from no substance or from some? I do not say, you say, from none, nor will I say from nothing: therefore from some substance he is. I ask, from what? If not from the substance of the Father, seek another. If you find no other, acknowledge the substance of the Father, and confess the Son with the Father homoousios.» Likewise in the same place34: «I confess that God the Father altogether incorruptibly begot, but begot that which he himself is. Likewise I say what must often be said: either from some substance the Son of God was born, or from none; if from none: therefore from nothing; which you no longer say; if however from some, yet not from the substance of the Father, he is not the true Son; if however from the substance of the Father, the Father and the Son are of one and the same substance. But you do not wish even the Son35 to be begotten of the substance of the Father; and yet you concede him to be neither from nothing nor from any matter, but from the Father; nor do you see how necessary it is that he who is not from nothing nor from any other thing, but from God, cannot be except from the substance of God, and that what he is is what God is, from whom he is, that is, God born of God; because there was no other before, but a coeternal nature is from God.»

By these words just put forward it seems to be hinted that the divine supreme substance36 begot the Son, and that the Son is begotten of the substance of the Father, and that from God is the coeternal nature, and that the Father begot that which he himself is. But that which he himself is, is the divine essence; and so it can be supposed that he begot the divine essence. These words greatly move us, as to how they should be understood; I would prefer to hear from others rather than to deliver37. Yet that I may speak without prejudice and rashness, in this sense the things said can be received: the coeternal nature is from God, that is, the Son coeternal with the Father is from the Father, in such a way that he is the same nature with him or of the same nature. Which sense Augustine confirms in the same place38, appending and as if explaining what he had said. For having said: «The coeternal nature is from God», he added: «The Son is no other than that from which he is, that is, he is of one and the same substance.» Then he opens more openly in the same book Against Maximinus that such an understanding is to be had from the aforesaid words, saying: «This Trinity is of one and the same substance, because the Son is not from any matter or from nothing, but from him from whom he is begotten. Likewise the Holy Spirit is not from any matter or from nothing, but is from there, whence he proceeds.» By these words he plainly shows that the Son is said to be of the substance of the Father by this reason, that he is begotten of the Father, in such wise that he is of the same substance with him: and39 the Holy Spirit is of the substance of the Father and the Son, because he proceeds from both, in such wise that he is of the same substance.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Solus cod. A ter habet genuerit pro genuit.
    Codex A alone has genuerit three times for genuit.
  2. Vat. et edd. 1, 9 supervacue addunt divinam.
    The Vatican edition and editions 1, 9 superfluously add divinam.
  3. Cap. 7. n. 8, ubi: Quod autem relative pronuntiatur etc. Paulo supra edd. 1, 8 post indicaret addunt divinam.
    Chapter 7, no. 8, where: Quod autem relative pronuntiatur etc. Slightly above, editions 1, 8 after indicaret add divinam.
  4. Dist. IV. c. 1.
    Distinction IV, chapter 1.
  5. Vat. et ed. 4 non bene omittunt ergo; paulo ante codd. A B C E et ed. 1 addendo et legunt: essentia divina et sit et Deus sit; cod. vero D etiam pro et.
    The Vatican edition and edition 4 not well omit ergo; slightly before, codices A B C E and edition 1, by adding et, read: essentia divina et sit et Deus sit; codex D, however, has etiam in place of et.
  6. Cod. D et edd. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 minus bene genitum; in principio huius propositionis cod. C Quodsi pro Et si.
    Codex D and editions 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 less well [read] genitum; at the beginning of this proposition codex C [reads] Quodsi for Et si.
  7. Cap. 1. n. 2; in quo textu Vat. et edd. 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 bis pro ibi legit sibi; ed. 5 bis illi; codd. bis ibi, exceptis D E, qui primo loco habent ei; ed. Augustini modo ibi, modo illi.
    Chapter 1, no. 2; in which text the Vatican edition and editions 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 twice read sibi for ibi; edition 5 twice illi; the codices twice ibi, except D E, which in the first place have ei; the edition of Augustine sometimes ibi, sometimes illi.
  8. Sola Vat. perperam quae.
    The Vatican edition alone wrongly [reads] quae.
  9. Loc. cit. — Vat. et edd. 4, 5, 6, 9 addunt ut ante inquit.
    The same passage. — The Vatican edition and editions 4, 5, 6, 9 add ut before inquit.
  10. Cod. D cum edd. 1, 8 elegantius quod.
    Codex D with editions 1, 8 more elegantly [reads] quod.
  11. Num. 4. — Omnes codd. et edd., exceptis Vat. et edd. 4, 9, falso sic: in libro de Fide ad Petrum.
    Number 4. — All codices and editions, except the Vatican edition and editions 4, 9, falsely thus: in libro de Fide ad Petrum.
  12. Loc. cit., in quo textu codd. B D E se pro se ipsum; post indicandum genuit ed. 8 adiicit id est; edd. 1, 3 omittunt quod est ipse, qui genuit.
    The same passage, in which text codices B D E [read] se for se ipsum; after indicandum genuit edition 8 adds id est; editions 1, 3 omit quod est ipse, qui genuit.
  13. Haec doctrina Magistri oppugnata est ab abbate Ioachim, sed approbata a Concilio Lateranensi IV; cfr. infra Bonav. ad hanc dist. a. 1. q. 1. et dub. 4.
    This doctrine of the Master was attacked by Abbot Joachim, but approved by the Fourth Lateran Council; cf. below Bonaventure on this distinction, article 1, question 1, and dubium 4.
  14. Ex cap. 1. n. 2 et c. 2. n. 3. passim excerptum. — Vat. omittit in libro septimo de Trinitate.
    Excerpted passim from chapter 1, no. 2 and chapter 2, no. 3. — The Vatican edition omits in libro septimo de Trinitate.
  15. Cap. 2. n. 15.
    Chapter 2, no. 15.
  16. Cap. 19. n. 37. — Immediate ante Vat. cum aliis edd., exceptis 1, 8, omittit etiam.
    Chapter 19, no. 37. — Immediately before, the Vatican edition with the other editions, except 1, 8, omits etiam.
  17. Omnes codd. contra edd. bene haec.
    All codices, against the editions, rightly [read] haec.
  18. Cap. 1. n. 2; ubi post sapientia de sapientia edd. 1, 8 addunt et essentia de essentia.
    Chapter 1, no. 2; where after sapientia de sapientia editions 1, 8 add et essentia de essentia.
  19. Cap. 3. n. 4. — Circa finem huius textus codd. bis addendo sit legunt: singulus sit Deus et singulus sit sap., quibus secundo loco accedunt edd. 1, 5, 6, 8. Pro singulus et simul edd. 2, 3, 7 quater legunt male singulis; in fine edd. 1, 8 addunt et post unus Deus.
    Chapter 3, no. 4. — Toward the end of this text the codices, by twice adding sit, read: singulus sit Deus et singulus sit sap., with which in the second place editions 1, 5, 6, 8 agree. For singulus and simul editions 2, 3, 7 four times wrongly read singulis; at the end editions 1, 8 add et after unus Deus.
  20. Num. 10.
    Number 10.
  21. Num. 37, in quo textu et paulo post Vat. et edd. 4, 7, 9 bis legunt provecta pro profecta, sed mendose.
    Number 37, in which text and slightly after the Vatican edition and editions 4, 7, 9 twice read provecta for profecta, but erroneously.
  22. Num. 51, in quo textu codd. A B C et edd. 5, 9 legunt: in forma servi manentem in natura Dei mansisse. Editores Maurini vero habent: in forma Dei manentem in natura Dei mansisse. Iidem lectionem nostram, quam praeter codd. D E et ceteras Magistri edd. etiam antiquae Hilarii edd. exhibent, depravatam esse censent, cum Hilarius formae nomine aliud a natura ipsa intellexerit, scil. habitum, quem prae se tulit Christus. Iuxta ipsos sensus est, Christum secundum formam Dei semper mansisse in natura, unitate et gloria Dei, etsi secundum formam servi non statim ab ipsa hominis assumtione naturae divinae assecutus sit gloriam, sed tantum per resurrectionem. Cfr. ibid. n. 38. Licet textus Maurinorum multo probabilior esse videatur, ipsum tamen contra codd. et edd. Magistro non obtrudendum esse censuimus. — In eodem textu cum Hilario codd. A C acceperit pro accepit et in fine pro humilitatis Vat. et plures edd. humanitatis.
    Number 51, in which text codices A B C and editions 5, 9 read: in forma servi manentem in natura Dei mansisse. The Maurist editors however have: in forma Dei manentem in natura Dei mansisse. The same think our reading, which besides codices D E and the other editions of the Master also the old editions of Hilary exhibit, to be corrupted, since Hilary by the name "form" understood something other than the nature itself, namely the habit which Christ bore. According to them, the sense is that Christ according to the form of God always abode in the nature, unity, and glory of God, even though according to the form of a servant he did not at once from the very assumption of man attain the glory of the divine nature, but only through the resurrection. Cf. ibid., no. 38. Although the Maurist text seems much more probable, we have judged that it should not be forced upon the Master against the codices and editions. — In the same text, with Hilary, codices A C [read] acceperit for accepit, and at the end the Vatican edition and several editions [read] humanitatis for humilitatis.
  23. Loc. cit. n. 53.
    The same passage, no. 53.
  24. Num. 14; cod. A et ed. 4 addunt de Trinitate.
    Number 14; codex A and edition 4 add de Trinitate.
  25. Num. 37, sed multis a Magistro mutatis et omissis. — Vat. et ed. 4 omittunt idem ante Hilarius. In ipsa auctoritate a codd., ed. 1 et textu Hilarii omittitur Pater post quomodo erit. Mox contra originale, codd. A B C E et ed. 1 Vat. cum ceteris edd., mutata constructione et reiectis signis parentheseos, legit subsistit pro subsistat. Denique eadem Vat. et edd. 1, 5, 6, 9 addendo et habent subsistit et ex uno.
    Number 37, but with many things changed and omitted by the Master. — The Vatican edition and edition 4 omit idem before Hilarius. In the very authority by the codices, edition 1 and the text of Hilary, Pater is omitted after quomodo erit. Soon thereafter, against the original, codices A B C E and edition 1, the Vatican edition with the other editions, the construction having been changed and the signs of parenthesis having been thrown out, read subsistit for subsistat. Finally the same Vatican edition and editions 1, 5, 6, 9, by adding et, have subsistit et ex uno.
  26. Ita codd. A B E; ceteri codd. et edd. intelligitur.
    So codices A B E; the other codices and editions [read] intelligitur.
  27. Cap. 2. n. 10. — Paulo ante post Scriptura Vat. cum paucis edd. omittit sacra.
    Chapter 2, no. 10. — Slightly before, after Scriptura the Vatican edition with a few editions omits sacra.
  28. Cap. 19. n. 37. — Locus Apostoli est Col. 1, 13, in quo textu Vulgata habet filii dilectionis.
    Chapter 19, no. 37. — The passage of the Apostle is Col. 1:13, in which text the Vulgate has filii dilectionis.
  29. Vat. et edd. 4, 9 intelligitur.
    The Vatican edition and editions 4, 9 [read] intelligitur.
  30. Cap. 14. n. 2.
    Chapter 14, no. 2.
  31. Matth. 22, 29, ubi Vulgata: errantes nescientes, cui concordant nostri codd. et edd. 1, 8; Vat. cum aliis edd. non scientes.
    Matthew 22:29, where the Vulgate has: errantes nescientes, with which our codices and editions 1, 8 agree; the Vatican edition with the other editions [has] non scientes.
  32. Vat. cum edd. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 affirmatis; Augustinus: affirmasti.
    The Vatican edition with editions 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 [reads] affirmatis; Augustine: affirmasti.
  33. Loc. cit. n. 3. — Pro utrique codd. A B D et edd. 3, 7, 8 utique, sed contra originale. — Respicitur locus sacrae Scripturae 1 Ioan. 5, 20.
    The same passage, no. 3. — For utrique codices A B D and editions 3, 7, 8 [read] utique, but against the original. — The passage of sacred Scripture referred to is 1 John 5:20.
  34. Loc. cit. n. 4 et 2. — Immediate ante Vat. idem loco item contra codd. et edd. 1, 8.
    The same passage, no. 4 and 2. — Immediately before, the Vatican edition [has] idem in place of item against the codices and editions 1, 8.
  35. Vat. cum cod. A et paucis edd. hic adiicit Dei.
    The Vatican edition with codex A and a few editions here adds Dei.
  36. Codd. C D addunt vel essentia, et mox post genuerit codd. D E vel pro et.
    Codices C D add vel essentia, and soon after genuerit codices D E [read] vel for et.
  37. Vat. cum edd. 4, 6, 8 praemittit ipse.
    The Vatican edition with editions 4, 6, 8 prefixes ipse.
  38. Libr. II. c. Maxim. c. 14. n. 2; quae sequuntur ibidem inveniuntur. — Paulo post Vat. addit pro addidit.
    Book II Against Maximinus, chapter 14, no. 2; what follows is found in the same place. — Slightly after, the Vatican edition adds pro [for] addidit.
  39. Sola Vat. omittit et; in principio huius propositionis loco utique cod. D itaque.
    The Vatican edition alone omits et; at the beginning of this proposition, in place of utique, codex D [has] itaque.
Dist. 5, Divisio Textus→