S.  Bonaventurae Bagnoregis
S.  R.  E.  Episc.  Card.  Albae
atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis

St.  Bonaventure of Bagnoregio
Cardinal Bishop of Alba
& Doctor of the Church

Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum

Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences

Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc.  Parisiensis

of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris

PRIMI LIBRI

BOOK ONE

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IV

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION IV

 

ARTICULUS I.

 

Quaestio II.

 

ARTICLE I

 

Question 2

 

Opera Omnia S.  Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp.  99-101.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S.  Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol.  1, pp.  99-101.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO II.

 

Utrum admitti possit haec locutio:  Deus generat alium Deum.

QUESTION 2

 

Whether this saying can be admitted:  “God generates another God”.

SECUNDO QUAERITUR, utrum unitas essentiae admittat hanc:  Deus generat alium Deum.  Et quod non, videtur.

SECOND THERE IS ASKED, whether the Unity of the Essence admits this:  “God generates another God” [Deus generat alium Deum].  And it seems that (it does) not.

1. Anselmus de Processione Spiritus sancti:1  « Cum dicimus Deum de Deo, non intelligimus alium Deum, sed eundem de se ipso ».

1. (St.) Anselm On the Procession of the Holy Spirit (says):1  « When we say “God from God”, we do not understand another God, but the Same from His very self ».

2. Item, si genuit alium Deum; sed ubi est unus et alius, ibi sunt duo:  ergo si genuit alium, sunt duo dii.

2. Likewise, if He begot another God; but where there is one and another, there are two:  therefore if He begot another, there are two gods.

3. Item, alius dicit alietatem in generali:  ergo cum generale specificetur per adiunctum, hoc nomen Deus specificat ipsum; sed si specificat, specificat ratione formae:  ergo notatur alietas in forma; ergo non est admittenda talis locutio, cum non sit ibi alietas in forma.

3. Likewise, “another” [alius] means ‘anotherness’ [alietatem] in general:  therefore since the general is specified through an adjunct, this name “God” specifies Him; but if it specifies, it specifies by reason of a form:  therefore there is noted anotherness in form; therefore such a saying must not be admitted, since anotherness in form is not there.

SED CONTRA:  Generatio importat distinctionem;2 sed distinctio alietatem aliquam:  ergo et generatio; ergo si haec est vera:  Deus genuit Deum, et haec per consequens:  Deus distinguitur a Deo, vel genuit alium Deum.  Si dicas, quod non sequatur, quia generare importat distinctionem ut modum sed distingui vel esse alium ut rem; contra:  ad / consequentiam .  .  .

ON THE CONTRARY:  Generation conveys a distinction;2 but distinction (conveys) some ‘anotherness’:  therefore generation also (does); therefore if this is true:  “God begot God”, these also (are true) consequently [per consequens]:  “God is distinguished by God” and/or “He begot an other God”.  If you say, that it does not follow, because to generate conveys a distinction as manner but ‘to be distinguished’ and/or ‘to be another’ (conveys a distinction) as a thing; on the contrary:  to . . .

1 Cap.  24:  Nam cum dicimus Deum de Deo, Filium de Patre, non alium intelligimus Deum de Deo alio, sed eundem ipsum Deum de eodem ipso Deo.  —  Codd. cum Vat.  falso ponunt in Prosologio.
2 Nam ut ait Aristot., II. de Anima, text.  47. (c. 4.):  Generat autem nihil ipsum se ipsum.  —  De propositione minore Aristot., XIV Metaph. c. 3. (XIII. c. 1.):  Alterum (contrarium est) eidem, aliud ipsi (auto).  —  In hac propositione minore Vat.  et loco sed, obstantibus mss. et ed. 1. 

1 Chapter 24:  For when we say “God from God”, “Son from the Father”, we do not understand one God from an other God, but the same God Itself from the same God Itself.  — The codices together with the Vatican edition falsely have in the Proslogion [in Prosologio].
2 For as Aristotle says, On the Soul, Bk. II, text 47 (ch. 4):  Moreover nothing itself generates its very self.  —  On the minor proposition Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk.  XIV, ch. 3 (Bk. XIII, ch. 1), says:  “The other” (is the contrary) to “the same”, “another” to “this one” (auto).  —  In this minor proposition the Vatican edition has and [et] in place of but [sed], contrary to the manuscripts and edition 1. 

p.  100

 ad / consequentiam ut modum sequitur consecutio ut res; unde si haec est vera:  si homo est, animal est,1 ad hominem sequitur animal.  Et praeterea, constat quod distinctio generationis non tantum est a parte intelligentis, verum etiam a parte rei:  ergo illi distinctioni ut exercitae respondet distinctio realis.

the consequence [consequentiam] as manner there follows the consecution [consecutio] as thing; whence if this is true:  ‘if there is a man, there is an animal’,1  to man there follows animal.  And moreover, it is established that the distinction of generation is not only on the part of the one understanding, but also on the part of the thing:  therefore to that distinction as exercised there responds a real distinction.

2.  Item, affirmativa est falsa:  Deus genitus est Deus generans; ergo negativa est vera:  Deus genitus non est Deus generans.  Sed sicut affirmativa significat identitatem, ita negativa diversitatem:  ergo sicut Deum generantem et genitum contingit ad invicem comparari mediate negatione, ita mediante alietate:  ergo haec est vera:  Deus genuit alium Deum.

2. Likewise, the affirmative is false:  ‘The begotten God is the generating God’; therefore the negative is true:  ‘The begotten God is not the generating God’.  But just as the affirmative signifies an identity, so the negative a diversity:  therefore just as it happens that God generating and begotten are compared to One another by means of a negation, so by means of an anotherness:  therefore this is true:  “God begot an other God”.

3. Item, Pater sive Deus genuit alium; haec est vera, constat:  ergo aut alium Deum, aut alium non Deum; sed non alium non Deum:  ergo etc.

3. Likewise, the Father or God begot another; this is true, it is established:  therefore either another God, or another not God; but not another not God:  ergo etc..

4. Item, alius est terminus masculini generis; sed terminus masculini generis2 stat pro persona in partitivis terminis:  ergo alius dicit alietatem personalem; sed haec est vera:  Deus genuit Deum alium in persona; ergo simpliciter est vera haec:  Deus genuit alium Deum.

4. Likewise, “another” [alius] is a term of the masculine genus; but a term of the masculine genus2 stands for a person among partitive terms:  therefore “another” means a personal anotherness; but this is true:  ‘God begot the God other [alium] in person’; therefore simply (speaking) this is true:  ‘God begot another God’.

CONCLUSIO.

 

In stricto verborum sensu falsa est locutio:  Deus genuit alium Deum.

CONCLUSION

 In the strict sense of the words, the saying:  “God begot an other God”, is false.

1. RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod haec consuevit distingui:  Deus genuit alium Deum, quia alius potest teneri adiective; et sic ponit alietatem circa forma istius termini Deus, et sic locutio est falsa; potest etiam teneri substantive, ut3 substantivetur; et tunc est appositiva constructio, sicut animal homo, et est sensus hoc modo:  Deus genuit alium Deum, id est, genuit alium qui est Deus; et in hoc sensu est locutio vera.

1. I RESPOND:  It must be said, that this (saying):  “God begot another God”, is accustomed to be distinguished, because “another” can be held adjectively; and thus it posits an anotherness about the form of that term “God”, and thus the saying is false; it can also be held substantively, to3 be substantiated [substantivetur]; and then there is an appositive construction, as “the animal:  man ”, and the sense is in this manner:  “God begot another God”, that is, “He begot Another who is God”; and in this sense the saying is true.

Sed licet ista distinctio in locutionibus theologicis propter quendam proprium modum loquendi locum habeat, tamen quantum esset de virtute4 sermonis, non esset distinguenda; quia adiectivum adiunctum substantivo, ut homo albus, non dicitur substantivari, nec appositiva constructio dicitur ibi esse, maxime cum illa sit minus communis respectu magis communis.5 Unde cum hoc nomen alius sit adiectivum habens substantivum coniunctum, in praedicta locutione ponit alietatem circa ipsum ratione suppositi et formae.

But though that distinction on account of a certain proper manner of speaking has a place among theological sayings, however as much as it would concern the virtue4 of the expression [sermonis], it should not be distinguished; because an adjective adjoined to a substantive, as “white man”, is not said to be substantiated, nor is an appositive construction said to be there, most of all when that (construction) is less common in respect of the more common.5 Whence since this name “another” is an adjective having a substantive conjoined, in the aforesaid saying it posits an anotherness about it by a reckoning of supposit and of form.

Et propterea, si velimus artificialiter6 procedere, iudicanda est talis locutio falsa.  Propter hoc ad intelligentiam dictae locutionis notanda est regula communis:  non habet locum7 distinctio, ubi non est ex diversis causis unio, verbi gratia, Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus uniuntur in hoc nomine Deus, non ex diversis causis sive ratione diversorum, sed ratione unius deitatis sive essentiae.  Unio ex diversis causis est, ut in homine uniuntur Petrus et Ioannes ratione diversarum humanitatum, quia alia est humanitas Petri, et alia Ioannis.

And on that account, if we wish to proceed in an technical manner [artificialiter],6 such a saying is to be judged false.  On account of this, for the understanding of the said saying, a common rule must be noted:  ‘distinction7 has no place, where there is no union out of diverse causes’, for example, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are united in this name “God”, not out of diverse causes or by reason of diverse (things), but by reason of the one Deity or Essence.  There is a union out of diverse causes, as (when) in “man” there is united Peter and John by reason of diverse humanities, because the one is the humanity of Peter, and the other (that) of John.

Et iuxta hanc regulam ab oppositis8 est alia regula accipienda:  non habet locum omnimoda unio, ubi est simul cum unione distinctio, ut Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus uniuntur in una deitate sive essentia, sed distinctionem habent ratione pluralitatis personarum.

And in accord with this rule, ab opposites,8 there must be accepted another rule:  ‘an omnimodal union does not have a place, where there is a distinction together with the union’, as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are united in one Deity or Essence, but have a distinction by reason of the plurality of the Persons.

Secundum hoc est attendendum, quod in divinis quaedam vocabula important distinctionem solum, quaedam omnimodam unionem, quaedam medio modo.  Quoniam igitur Deus generans et Deus genitus, etsi sint personaliter distincti, tamen in deitate uniuntur ex eadem causa, quia una deitate:  ideo non recipiuntur9 nomina importantia simpliciter distinctionem.  Ideo haec non admittitur:  Deus distinguitur a Deo, similiter:  Deus genuit alium Deum.  Item, ratione distinctionis non recipiuntur vocabula omnimodam importantia unionem in supposito et forma; unde haec non recipitur:  Deus genuit se.  Sed illa quae medio modo se habent, recipiuntur, quale est hoc verbum generat, quia dicit distinctionem in persona cum10 unitate essentiae.  Similiter haec conceditur:  Pater generat alterum se.  Unde Augustinus ad Maximinum:11  « Pater genuit alterum se »; et similiter super Ioannem:  « Pater mittens Filium misit alterum se ».  Et ex hoc est, quod non sequitur ad generationem verbum simpliciter importans distinctionem; et sic patet primum.

According to this, one must pay attention, that among the divine certain words convey only a distinction, certain ones an omnimodal union, certain ones in a middle manner.  Since, therefore, the generating God and the begotten God, even if They are personally distinct, yet they are united in the Deity from the same cause, because (They are) one according to deity:  for that reason nouns conveying a simple distinction are not received9 (in God).  For that reason this is not admitted:  “God is distinguished from God”, similarly:  “God begot another God”.  Likewise, by reason of the distinction words conveying an omnimodal union in supposit and form are not received; wherefore, this is not received:  “God begot Himself”.  But those which hold themselves in a middle manner, are received, such as is this word “generates”, because it means a distinction in person with10 a unity of essence.  Similarly this is conceded:  “The Father generates the other-Himself [alterum se]”.  Whence (St.) Augustine (says in his letter) To Maximinus:11  « The Father begot the other-Himself »; and similarly On John:  « The Father sending the Son sent the other-Himself ».  And from this it is, that there does not follow after generation a word conveying simply a distinction; and thus the first (objection) is clear.

2. Ad illud quod secundo obiicitur de negatione, bene concedo, quod est alietas; sed tamen non sequitur, quod possit dici alietas in essentia sive forma deitatis.  Unde non sequitur:  genitus est alius a generante, ergo12 alius Deus, quia mutatur suppositio huius termini Deus.

2. To that which is objected second concerning negation, I rightly concede, that there is an anotherness; but, yet, it does not follow, that there can be meant an anotherness in the essence or form of the Deity.  Whence there does not follow:  “the Begotten is other than the One generating, therefore (He is)12 another God”, because the supposition of this term “God” is changed.

1  Auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 expunximus hic additum etiam; cod. I autem addit similiter haec est vera.  Cod. O post homo est addit ergo.  —  Plura de hac consequentia vide apud Boeth., de Syllolgismo hypothetico.
2  Vat., obnitentibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1, minus bene qui loco sed terminus masculini generis; et circa finem argumenti similiter loco simpliciter.
3  Ed. 1 sic ut.  Cod R et si substiantivetur tunc.
4  Aliqui codd. ut R cc veritate, et paulo infra plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 contra Vat. iunctum pro adiunctum.
5  Sensus est:  maxime cum appositiva constructio fiad coniunctione termini minus communis cum magis communi.
6  Hoc est, stricte secundum regulas artium, scilicet grammaticae et logicae.
7  Codd. cum primis sex edd. omittunt omnimoda, quod a Vat. termino distinctio praefigitur.
8  Vat. prater fidem codd. et ed. 1 opposito.
9  Fide mss. et ed. 1 substituimus recipiuntur loco recipiunt.  Paulo infra multi codd. omittunt similiter.
10  Cod. X distinctionem personarum in.
11  Vide in lit. Magistri, c. 2.  in fine; et super Ioannem, c. 3. Tract 14. n. 11:  Pater mittens Filium se alterum misit.
12  Codd. M X addunt est. 

1  On the authority of the manuscripts and edition 1 we have expunged the also [etiam] added here; codex I moreover adds similarly this is true [similiter haec est vera].  Codex O after there is a man [homo est] adds therefore [ergo].  —  See the very many things concerning this consequence in (St. Severinus) Boethius, On the Hypothetical Syllogism.
2  The Vatican edition, disagreeing with the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1, has the less well which [qui] in place of but a term of the masculine genus [sed terminus masculini generis]; and near the end of the argument similarly [similiter] in place of simply (speaking) [simpliciter].
3  Edition 1 so that [sic ut].
4  Some codices as R and cc have truth [veritate], and a little below this very many codices together with edition 1, against the Vatican edition, have joined [iunctum] in place of adjoined [adiunctum].
5  The sense is:  most of all when an appositive construction is made by a conjunction of a term less common with one more common.
6  That is, strictly according to the rules of the arts, that is, of grammar and of logic.
7  The codices together with the first six editions omit an omnimodal [omnimoda], to which term the Vatican edition prefixes distinction [distinctio].
8  The Vatican edition not trusting the codices and edition 1 has ab opposito.
9  Trusting in the manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted they are .  .  .  received  [recipiuntur] in place of they do .  .  .  receive [recipiunt].  A little below this many codices omit similarly [similiter].
10  Codex X has a distinction of persons in [distinctionem personarum in].
11  See the text of Master (Peter), ch. 2, a the end; and On John, ch. 3, tract. 14, n. 11:  The Father sending the Son sent Himself-the-other [Pater mittens Filium se alterum].
12  Codices M and X add He is [est]. 

 

p.  101

 

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur tertio:  aut alium Deum, aut alium non Deum; dico, quod non sufficienter dividit; quia non est contradictio, nisi accipiatur negatio respectu totius.  In hac enim:  genuit alium Deum, duo dicuntur, scilicet quod Deus1 Deum, et quod alium in deitate:  et ideo ad hoc, quod sumatur contradictio, necesse est, quod feratur supra totum.  Unde sicut non valet, demonstrato monacho nigro, qui est albus per naturam:  iste aut est albus monaschus, aut albus non monachus, quia utraque falsa; similiter intelligendum est in proposito.  Nec valet:  est Deus et est alius:  ergo est Deus alius, immo est ibi accidens, sicut hic:  est bonus et est citharoedus:  ergo est bonus citharoedus.2

3. To that which is objected third:  either another God, or another not God; I say, that (this) does not sufficiently divide (the matter); because there is no contradiction, unless there is accepted a negation in respect of the whole.  For in this (saying):  “He begot another God”, two (things) are said, that is, that God (begot)1 a God, and that (He has begot) an other in deity:  and for that reason, for this, that a contradiction be obtained [sumatur], it is necessary, that it be brought upon the whole.  Whence just as it is not valid, that having demonstrated that ‘black is the monk, who is white by nature’, (to say):  “that one is either a white monk, or a white non-monk”, because each (is) false; similarly it must be understood in the proposed.  Nor is it valid (to say):  “There is a God and there is an Other:  therefore there is another God”, nay there is (a fallacy of) the accident there, as here:  “There is a good (man) and there is a kithara-player [citharoedus]:  therefore there is a good kitara-player”.2

4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, dicendum, quod alius, quamvis sit masculini generis, tamen quia ponit rem circa substantivum,3 ab illo trahit suppositionem; et ideo non tenetur personaliter, nisi secundum quod substantivatur, sicut et hoc nomen unus; unde sicut si dicatur unus Deus, unus dicit unitatem substantialem, ita si dicatur alius Deus, alius dicit alietatem substantialem.  Et ratio huius venit non tantum, quia adiectivum, sed quia generale, quod specificatur per adiunctum.

4. That which is objected last, it must be said, that another [alius], although it belong to the masculine genus, however because it posits a thing about a substantive,3 it draws away from it a supposition; and for that reason it is not held personally, except according to which it is substantiated, just as also this name “one” (is); whence just as if there were said “one God”, “one” means a substantial unity, so if there were said “another God”, “another” means a substantial anotherness.  And the reason for this comes not only, because (it is) an adjective, but because (it is) a general one, which is specified through (its) adjunct.

 SCHOLION.

 SCHOLIUM

I. Distinctionem in principio responsionis positam, quod alius hic possit teneri vel adiective vel substantive (nempe ut appositio), S. Doctor improbat, cum sit regula grammaticorum, quod adiectivum, si immediate sibi coniunctum habet substantivum, non potest accipi ut substantivum sive ut appositio.  Si autem alius est adiectivum, tunc valet regula logicae, quod alius, quando immediate ad suum subiectivum ponitur, importat « alietatem » circa suum substantivum tum ratione suppositi, tum ratione formae.  Consequenter in casu nostro hic terminus importaret diversitatem in Deitate.

I. The distinction posited at the beginning of the response, that “another” [alius] here can be held as an adjective and/or a substantive (namely as an apposite), the Seraphic Doctor disproves, since there is a rule of grammarians, that an adjective, if it has a substantive immediately conjoined with itself, cannot be accepted as a substantive or as an apposite.  If moreover “another” is an adjective, then is valid the rule of logic, that “another”, when it is placed immediately adjacent [ad] to its substantive, conveys an « anotherness » about its substantive both by a reckoning of a supposit, and by a reckoning of form.  Consequently in our case this term would introduce a diversity in the Deity.

II. In conclusione et solutione obiectorum principales doctores conveniunt.  Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 50. m. 3. a. 2. §. 2.  — Scot., hic q. 1.  — S. Thom., hic a. 3; S. I. q. 31. a.  2.  — B. Albert., hic a. 5.  — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2.  a. 2.  — Richard. a Med., hic q. 2.

II.  n the conclusion and solution of the objections the principle doctors agree.  Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. I, q. 50, m.  3, a. 2, §. 2.  — (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, here in q. 1.  — St. Thomas, here in a. 3; Summa., I, q. 31, a. 2.  — Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), here in a. 5.  — (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 2, a. 2.  — Richard of Middleton, here in q. 2.

1  Cod. R addit genuit.
2  Exemplum sumtum est ex Aristot., II. Periherm. c. 2. (c. 11), ubi secundum translationem Boethii habetur si citharoedus est et bonus, est et citharoedus bonus, licet aliae translationes ponunt coriarius (sxuteus) pro citharoedus.  —  De hac fallacia accidentis vide supra d. 2. q. 4. ad 1.
3  Vat.  hic subiectum loco substantivum, et paulo infra post substantivatur ponit Sicut ergo, cum dicitur unus Deus, hoc nomen unus dicit unitatem, sed contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1. 

1  Codex R adds begot.
2  The example taken from Aristotle, On Interpretation, Bk.  II, ch.  2 (ch.  11), where according to the translation of (St. Severinus) Boethius there is had if the kitara-player is also good, he is also a good kithara-player [si citharoedus est bonus, est et citharoedus bonus], though other translations have a tanner [coriarius] (sxuteus) in place of kitara-player [citharoedus].  —  Concerning this fallacy of the accident see above d.  2, q.  4, at n.  1.
3  Here the Vatican edition has subject [subiectum] in place of substantive [substantivum], and a little below this after is substantiated [substantivatur] it puts Therefore just as, when there is said "one God", this name "one" means a unity [Sicut ergo, cum dicictur unus Deus, hoc nomen unus dicit unitatem], but contrary to the more ancient codices and edition 1.

The English translation here has been released to the public domain by its author.  The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition.  The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation than that which is necessitated by the body of the text.  Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator.  Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.