Bonaventure

DISTINCTIO VI.

Utrum Pater voluntate genuerit Filium, an necessitate; et an volens vel nolens sit Deus.

Praeterea quaeri solet, utrum Pater genuerit Filium voluntate, an necessitate. De hoc Orosius ad Augustinum¹ ita ait: «Voluntate genuit Pater Filium, vel necessitate? Nec voluntate, nec necessitate, quia necessitas in Deo non est, praeire voluntas sapientiam non potest». «Quocirca, ut Augustinus ait in decimoquinto libro de Trinitate², ridenda est dialectica Eunomii, a quo Eunomiani haeretici orti sunt, qui cum non potuisset intelligere nec credere voluisset, unigenitum Dei Verbum Filium Dei esse natura, id est de substantia Patris genitum, non naturae vel³ substantiae dixit esse Filium, sed Filium voluntatis Dei, volens asserere accedentem⁴ Deo voluntatem, qua gigneret Filium, sicut nos aliquid aliquando volumus, quod antea non volebamus; propter quod⁵ mutabilis intelligitur nostra natura, quod absit, ut in Deo esse credamus»⁶. Dicamus ergo, Verbum Dei esse Filium Dei natura, non voluntate, ut docet Augustinus in libro decimoquinto de Trinitate⁷, ubi quendam catholicum haeretico respondentem commendat dicens: «Acute⁸ sane quidam respondit haeretico versutissime interroganti, utrum Deus Filium volens, an nolens genuerit, ut si diceret nolens, absurdissima Dei miseria sequeretur; si autem volens, continuo quod intendebat concluderet, scilicet non naturae esse Filium, sed voluntatis⁹. At ille vigilantissime vicissim quaesivit ab eo, utrum Deus Pater¹⁰ volens, an nolens sit Deus, ut si responderet nolens, sequeretur grandis absurditas et miseria, quam de Deo credere magna est insania; si autem diceret volens, responderetur ei: ergo et ipse¹³ voluntate sua Deus est, non¹¹ natura.

Quid ergo restabat, nisi ut obmutesceret, sua interrogatione obligatum insolubili vinculo se videns»? Ex praedictis docetur, non esse concedendum, quod Deus voluntate vel necessitate, vel volens vel nolens sit Deus; item, quod voluntate vel necessitate, vel volens vel nolens genuerit Filium¹².

Sed contra hoc opponitur sic [obiectio]: voluntas Dei est natura sive essentia Dei, quia non est aliud Deo esse, aliud velle; et¹⁴ ideo, sicut una est essentia trium personarum, ita et una voluntas. Si ergo Deus natura Deus est, et voluntate Deus est; et si Verbum Dei natura Filius Dei est, et voluntate Filius Dei est.

Hoc autem facile est refellere [refellitur]. Nam et praescientia Dei sive scientia, qua scit vel praescit bona et mala, divina natura sive essentia est; et praedestinatio sive voluntas eius eadem divina essentia est, nec est aliud Deo scire vel¹⁵ velle quam esse. Et cum sit unum et idem scientia Dei vel voluntas, non tamen dicitur de voluntate, quidquid dicitur de scientia, et e converso. Nec omnia illa sua voluntate Deus vult, quae sua scientia scit, cum scientia sua noverit tam bona quam mala, voluntate autem non velit nisi bona. Scientia quippe Dei et praescientia de bonis est et malis, voluntas vero et praedestinatio de bonis est tantum; et tamen unum et idem est in Deo scientia et voluntas, et praescientia et praedestinatio. Ita cum unum sit natura Dei et voluntas, dicitur tamen Pater genuisse Filium natura, non voluntate, et esse Deus natura, non voluntate.

Praedicta tamen verba [explanantur verba praedicta], quibus prudenter dictum est, quod Deus Pater nec volens nec nolens est Deus, nec volens nec nolens genuit Filium, sive¹⁶ voluntate sive necessitate, ex tali sensu mihi videntur accipienda, ut voluntatem praecedentem vel accedentem intelligamus, qualiter Eunomius intelligebat. Non enim ipse est Deus¹⁷ voluntate praecedenti vel efficienti, vel volens, priusquam Deus; nec voluntate praecedenti vel accedenti genuit Filium, nec prius volens quam generans genuit Filium, nec prius generans quam volens genuit Filium. Volens tamen genuit, sicut potens genuit et bonus genuit et sapiens genuit et huiusmodi. Si enim Pater sapiens et bonus dicitur genuisse Filium, cur non et volens? cum ita sit Deo idem esse volentem, quod est esse Deum; sicut idem est esse sapientem, quod est esse Deum. Dicamus ergo, quia Pater sicut sapiens, ita volens genuit Filium, sed non voluntate praecedenti vel accedenti. Quem sensum aperit Hieronymus et confirmat, ita dicens super Epistolam ad Ephesios¹⁸: «De Filio Dei, id est Domino Nostro Iesu Christo scriptum est, quia cum Patre semper fuit, et nunquam eum, ut esset, voluntas paterna praecessit; et ille quidem natura Filius est».

Notula. Hilarius in libro de Synodis¹⁹: «Eos qui dicunt, de non exstantibus esse Filium Dei, similiter qui dicunt, quod neque consilio neque voluntate Pater genuit Filium, anathematizat sancta Ecclesia. Item si quis nolente Patre dicat natum Filium, anathema sit. Non enim, nolente Patre, coactus Pater vel naturali necessitate ductus, cum nollet, genuit Filium, sed mox ut voluit, sine tempore et impassibiliter ex se Unigenitum demonstravit».

Apparatus note. The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation that follows. Page 123 carries textual-variant notes (Vat. = Vatican edition; codd. = codices; ed. 1 = 1st edition) from the main band and source-citation notes from the Notae ad librum Sententiarum footer band; page 124 likewise. Numbering is sequential in reading order, one entry per raw OCR footer note.

---

DISTINCTION VI.

Whether the Father begot the Son by will or by necessity; and whether He is God willingly or unwillingly.

It is moreover customarily asked whether the Father begot the Son by will or by necessity. Concerning this, Orosius to Augustine¹ says thus: "Did the Father beget the Son by will, or by necessity? Neither by will, nor by necessity, because necessity is not in God, [and] will cannot precede wisdom." "Wherefore, as Augustine says in the fifteenth book On the Trinity², the dialectic of Eunomius is to be derided — from whom the Eunomian heretics took their origin — who, since he could not understand and would not believe that the only-begotten Word of God was the Son of God by nature, that is, begotten of the substance of the Father, said that He was the Son not of nature or³ substance, but the Son of the will of God, wishing to assert in God an acceding⁴ will, by which He begot the Son, just as we sometimes will something which we did not previously will; on account of which⁵ our nature is understood to be mutable — far be it that we should believe this to be in God."⁶ Let us say, therefore, that the Word of God is the Son of God by nature, not by will, as Augustine teaches in the fifteenth book On the Trinity⁷, where he commends a certain Catholic answering a heretic, saying: "Aptly⁸ indeed did a certain man answer a heretic who was most cunningly asking whether God begot the Son willingly or unwillingly, so that if he should say 'unwillingly,' the most absurd misery of God would follow; but if 'willingly,' he would at once conclude what he intended, namely that the Son is not of nature, but of will⁹. But that man most vigilantly in turn asked of him whether God the Father¹⁰ is God willingly or unwillingly, so that if he should answer 'unwillingly,' great absurdity and misery would follow, which to believe of God is great madness; but if he should say 'willingly,' it would be answered him: therefore He Himself¹³ also is God by His own will, not¹¹ by nature.

What then remained, except that he should fall silent, seeing himself bound by his own questioning in an insoluble bond?" From the foregoing it is taught that it must not be conceded that God is God by will or by necessity, willingly or unwillingly; likewise, that He begot the Son by will or by necessity, willingly or unwillingly¹².

But against this it is objected thus [objection]: the will of God is the nature or essence of God, because for God to be is not other than to will; and¹⁴ therefore, just as there is one essence of the three persons, so also there is one will. If, then, God is God by nature, He is also God by will; and if the Word of God is the Son of God by nature, He is also the Son of God by will.

This, however, is easy to refute [it is refuted]. For the foreknowledge of God, or knowledge by which He knows or foreknows good and evil things, is also the divine nature or essence; and predestination, or His will, is the same divine essence, nor is it other for God to know or¹⁵ to will than to be. And although the knowledge or will of God is one and the same, yet whatever is said of will is not said of knowledge, and conversely. Nor does God will by His will all those things which He knows by His knowledge, since by His knowledge He knows both good and evil things, but by His will He wills only good things. For the knowledge and foreknowledge of God is of good and evil things, but the will and predestination is of good things only; and yet in God knowledge and will, and foreknowledge and predestination, are one and the same. Thus, although the nature and will of God are one, the Father is nevertheless said to have begotten the Son by nature, not by will, and to be God by nature, not by will.

Yet the foregoing words [the foregoing words are explained], by which it has been prudently said that God the Father is God neither willingly nor unwillingly, and begot the Son neither willingly nor unwillingly, whether¹⁶ by will or by necessity, seem to me to be taken in such a sense that we understand a preceding or acceding will, in the manner in which Eunomius understood it. For He Himself is not God¹⁷ by a preceding or efficient will, nor willing before being God; nor did He beget the Son by a preceding or acceding will, nor was He willing before begetting when He begot the Son, nor was He begetting before willing when He begot the Son. He nevertheless begot willingly, just as He begot powerfully, and begot good, and begot wise, and the like. For if the Father is said to have begotten the Son wisely and good, why not also willingly? — since to be willing is the same thing for God as to be God, just as to be wise is the same as to be God. Let us say, therefore, that the Father, just as wise, so willing begot the Son, but not by a preceding or acceding will. This sense Jerome opens up and confirms, speaking thus on the Epistle to the Ephesians¹⁸: "Concerning the Son of God, that is, Our Lord Jesus Christ, it is written, that He was always with the Father, and the paternal will never preceded Him, that He might be; and He indeed is the Son by nature."

Notula. Hilary in the book On the Synods¹⁹: "Those who say that the Son of God is from non-existent things, likewise those who say that the Father begot the Son neither by counsel nor by will, holy Church anathematizes. Likewise if anyone should say that the Son was born with the Father unwilling, let him be anathema. For not, with the Father unwilling, did the Father, compelled or led by natural necessity, when He would not, beget the Son; but as soon as He willed, without time and impassibly He showed forth from Himself the Only-begotten."

---