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 VI.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VI

ARTICULUS UNICUS.

 

Quaestio III.

ARTICLE SOLE

 

Question 3

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 129-130.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 129-130.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO III.

 

Utrum generatio Filii sit secundum rationem exemplaritatis.

QUESTION 3

 

Whether the generation of the Son is according to a reckoning of exemplarity.

ULTIMO QUAERITUR, utrum generatio Filii a Patre sic secundum rationem exemplaritatis. Et quod sic, videtur hoc modo.

LAST THERE IS ASKED, whether the generation of the Son by the Father is according to a reckoning of exemplarity. And that (it is) so, seems in this manner.

1. Super illud Psalmi:1 Semel locutus est Deus, Glossa: « id est, Filium genuit, in quo omnia disposuit »; sed dispositio aeterna dicit rationem exemplaris: ergo si Filius procedit ut verbum, procedit per modum exemplaritatis.

1. On that (verse) of the Psalm:1 Once has God spoken, the Gloss (says): « that is, He begot the Son, in whom He has disposed all (things) »; but an "eternal disposition" means that (there is) a "reckoning of an exemplar": therefore if the Son proceeds as Word, He proceeds through a manner of exemplarity.

2. Item, generatio Filii a Patre est similis productioni notitiae ex mente;2 sed notitia procedit ex mente secundum rationem exemplaris, quia exemplar est ratio cognoscendi: ergo etc.

2. Likewise, the generation of the Son by the Father is similar to the production of knowledge from [notitiae ex] the mind;2 but knowledge proceeds from the mind according to a reckoning of an exemplar, because an exemplar is the reason for cognizing: ergo etc..

3. Item, quod est imago in producto, hoc est exemplar in producente; quando enim productum expresse repraesentat, imago dicitur. Similiter quando3 producens expresse repraesentat, exemplar dicitur: ergo cum Filius procedat ut imago, eadem ratione per modum exemplaritatis.

3. Likewise, (that) which is the image in the product, this is the exemplar in the one producing; for when the product represents in an express manner, it is said (to be) an image. Similarly when3 one producing represents in an express manner, it is said (to be) an exemplar: therefore since the Son proceeds as Image, (He does so) for the same reason through a manner of exemplarity.

4. Item, omne principium cognitivum rei producendae4 producit secundum rationem exemplandi; sed Pater est principium Filii cognitivum: ergo producit Filium secundum rationem exemplaris. Si dicas, quod illud non sufficit, immo necesse est, quod exemplar et exemplatum differant in forma et natura; hoc nihil est, quia si homo, dum generat hominem, posset talem generare, qualem cogitat, tunc generatio illa non tantum esset secundum naturam, sed etiam secundum exemplar. Sed Pater omnino produxit Filium, ut scivit et voluit: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod nec illud sufficit, sed necesse est, exemplar praecedere; obiicitur: si Deus ab aeterno creasset mundum per impossibile, nihilominus mundus esset productus secundum rationem exemplaritatis.

4. Likewise, every cognitive principle of a thing to be produced4 produces according to a reason for exemplifying [exemplandi]; but the Father is the cognitive principle of the Son: therefore He produces the Son according to a reckoning of an exemplar. If you say, that that does not suffice, nay rather it is necessary, that the exemplar and the exemplified [exemplatum] differ in form and nature; this is nothing, because if a man, while he generates a man, could generate such a one, which he cognizes, then that generation would not only be according to nature, but also according to an exemplar. But the Father has entirely produced a Son, as He knew and willed: ergo etc.. If you say, that neither is that sufficient, but it is necessary, that the exemplar precede (the act of generation); it is objected: (even) if God from eternity would have created a world through the impossible, nevertheless the world would be a product according to a reckoning of exemplarity.

CONTRA: 1. In inferioribus agens per naturam et per exemplar ex opposito dividuntur, sicut natura et intellectus:5 ergo qui producitur secundum naturam, non producitur secundum rationem exemplaris, sed Filius secundum naturam producitur a Patre: ergo etc.

ON THE CONTRARY: 1. In inferior (beings) one acting through nature and through exemplar are divided by opposition [ex opposito], just as (are) nature and intellect:5 therefore he who is produced according to nature, is not produced according to a reckoning of an exemplar, but the Son is produced by the Father according to nature: ergo etc..

2. Item, omne producens aliquid6 secundum rationem exemplaritatis producit secundum rationem voluntatis; sed Pater, ut ostensum est supra,7 non producit Filium per voluntatem: ergo etc.

2. Likewise, everything producing something6 according to a reckoning of exemplarity produces according to a reckoning of will; but the Father, as has been shown above,7 does not produce the Son through the Will: ergo etc..

3. Item, formae non est forma,8 ergo nec exemplaris exemplar; sed Filius est ars et exemplar omnium: ergo non habet exemplar in Patre: ergo non procedit secundum rationem exemplaritatis.

3. Likewise, of a form there is not a form,8 therefore neither of an exemplar an exemplar: but the Son is the Art and Exemplar of all (things): therefore He does not have an exemplar in the Father: therefore He does not proceed according to a reckoning of exemplarity.

4. Item, quod est in alio secundum veritatem, non est in illo secundum exemplar;9 sed Filius est in Patre secundum veritatem: ergo non secundum exemplar; sed quod non est in alio secundum exemplar, non procedit secundum rationem exemplaris: ergo etc.

4. Likewise, what is in an other according to truth, is not in that according to an exemplar;9 but the Son is in the Father according to truth: therefore not according to an exemplar; but what is not in another according to exemplar, does not proceed according to a reckoning of an exemplar: ergo etc..

CONCLUSIO.

 

Filius procedit a Patre sicut ratio exemplandi, non sicut exemplatum ab exemplari.

CONCLUSIO

 

The Son proceeds from [a] the Father as a reason for exemplifying, not as an exemplified from [a] an exemplar.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod, sicut procedere per modum voluntatis et liberalitatis est dupliciter — uno enim modo procedit per modum liberalitatis ipsum quod non est liberalitas, sed quod fit vel datur ex liberalitate; et sic creaturae procedunt a Deo; alio modo sicut illud10 quod est ratio liberalitatis, ut amor; et sic procedit Spiritus sanctus ut amor, qui est donum, in quo omnia dona donantur — sic per modum exemplaritatis est procedere dupliciter. Uno modo sicut exemplatum proprie; et11 sic creatura procedit a Deo tanquam exemplatum ab exemplari, et sic exemplar importat causalitatem formalem respectu exemplati. Alio modo dicitur procedere per modum exemplaritatis12 sicut ratio exemplandi. Et sic videtur procedere ipse Filius, qui dicitur Verbum Patris,

I RESPOND: It must be said, that, just as to proceed through a manner of will and liberality is in a twofold manner — for in one manner there proceeds through a manner of liberality that which is not liberality, but which becomes and/or is given out of liberality; and in this manner creatures proceed from [a] God; in another manner as that10 which is a reason for liberality, as love is [ut amor]; and in this manner there proceeds the Holy Spirit as the Love, who is the Gift, in whom all gifts are given — so through a manner of exemplarity "to proceed" is in a twofold manner. In one manner as an exemplified properly; and11 in this manner a creature proceeds from [a] God as an exemplified from [a] an exemplar, and in this manner an exemplar conveys a formal causality in respect of the exemplified. In another manner “to proceed” is said through a manner of exemplarity12 as a reason for exemplifying. And in this manner the Son Himself seems to proceed, He who is said (to be) the Word of the Father,

1 61, 12. — Glossa apud Lyranum: Apud se semel (locutus est), quia unum Verbum genuit, per quod omnia facta et in quo simul omnia facta sunt. — Vat. cum cod. cc disponit loco disposuit, sed obstant ceteri codd. cum ed. 1.
2 Cfr. Basil., H. contra Eunomium, circa medium, et Serm. super verba In principio erat Verbum, circa medium.
3 Vat. contra multos codd. et ed. 1 cum. — De varia acceptione exemplaris et imaginis vide infra. d. 31. p. II. a. 1. q. 1; si proprie accipiuntur, tunc sunt termini correlativis, imago siquidem est in producto sive est similitudo producta, exemplar vero est id, ad cuius imitationem aliquid producitur; si vero improprie accipiuntur, tunc non raro unus terminus pro altero adhibetur.
4 Mss. et ed. 1 hic productae, sed infra in responsione producendae.
5 Vide supra d. 2. q. 4. fundam. 2. — Mox Vat. cum cod. cc, sed contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 quod loco quid et paulo infra exemplaritatis pro exemplaris.
6 Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 substituimus aliquid loco aliud.
7 Quaest. praeced.
8 Cfr. Alan. ab Insulis, Theol. Regul., reg. 16.
9 Cfr. supra d. 2, q. 1. fundam. 5. — Mox mutila lectio Vat. et cod. cc, in qua omittuntur verba ergo non usque ad non procedit, resarcitur ex aliis mss. et ed. 1.
10 Vat. contra plurimos codd. et ed. 1 id.
11 Supplevimus ex mss. F G H K S T Y et ed. 1 et.
12 Sequimur multos codd. ut F G H I K S T Y etc. cum ed. 1 ponendo exemplaritatis pro exemplantis; lectio in textum recepta magis contextui correspondet. Paulo infra aliqui mss. cum ed. 1 dicitur loco videtur. Mox ope vetustiorum mss. et ed. 1 post loquitur adiecimus Pater.

1 61:12. — The Gloss in (Nicholas) of Lyra (reads): With Himself (He has spoken) once, because He begot one Word, through which all (things) have been made and in which all (things) have been made simultaneously. — The Vatican text together with codex cc has disposes in place of has disposed, but the rest of the codices together with edition 1 oppose this.
2 Cf. (St.) Basil (the Great), Against Eunomius, Bk. II, near the middle, and his sermon on the the words In the beginning was the Word, near the middle.
3 The Vatican text contrary to many codices and edition 1 has when [cum]. — Concerning the various acceptance of the exemplar and the image see below d. 31, p. II, a. 1, q. 1; if they are accepted properly, then they are correlative terms, since an image is in the product or is a produced similitude, but the exemplar is that, for the imitation of which something is produced; however if they are accepted improperly, then one term is not infrequently employed in place of the other.
4 The manuscripts and edition 1 here read produced [productae], but below in the response to be produced [producendae]. [Trans. note: A little after this at for exemplifying [exemplandi], the English has no equivalent for this late-Latin verb exemplo, -are, which first appears in St. Augustine's 149th Epistle, with the sense of to adduce as an example (Lewis & Short); moreover in this context St. Bonaventure clearly uses it in the sense of to cause in the manner that an exemplar causes; the perfect past participle, here a little below this, exemplatum is accordingly that which is thus caused by an exemplar. Hence the English to exemplify and its inflected forms will be employed to translate exemplo, -are, though this is clearly a sui generis use of the English verb.]

5 See above d. 2, q. 4, fundament 2. — Then the Vatican text together with codex cc, but contrary to the more ancient codices and edition 1 reads what [quod] in place of he who [qui] and a little below this of exemplarity [exemplaritatis] in place of of an exemplar [exemplaris].
6 From the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted something [aliquid] in place of an other [aliud].
7 In the preceding question.
8 Cf. Alan of Lille, Rules of Theology [Trans. note: cited with the title On the Rules of the Faith in the Prologmena, p. LXXXIV, n.1, of this volume of St. Bonaventure's Opera Omnia.], rule 16.
9 Cf. above d. 2, q. 1, fundament 5. — Then the mutilated reading of the Vatican text and of codex cc, in which there are omitted the words therefore not up to does not proceed, are restored from the other manuscripts and edition 1.
10 The Vatican text, contrary to very many codices and edition 1, reads that [id].
11 We have supplied from manuscripts F G H K S T Y and edition 1 and [et].
12 We follow many codices as F G H I K S T Y etc. together with edition 1 by putting of exemplarity [exemplaritatis] in place of of the one exemplifying [exemplantis]; the reading received in the text corresponds more to the context. A little below this some manuscripts together with edition 1 have is said [dicitur] in place of seems [videtur]. Then with the help of the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have inserted the Father after by whom [trans. note: on p. 130].

p. 130

quo non tantum se loquitur Pater, sed etiam cetera disponit. Unde Filius secundum Augustinum sexto de Trinitate1 dicitur « ars plena omnium rationum viventium ». Et hinc habet ortum illud quod consuevit dici, quod qui negat ideas esse, negat Filium Dei esse. Et iste modus procedendi2 secundum exemplaritatem non repugnat processui naturali, immo non potest esse nisi naturalis. Alius vero modus repugnat processui naturali; est enim secundum voluntatis imperium, ita quod producens et productum differunt sicut causa et causatam, et unum secundum veritatem non est in alio.

by whom the Father not only speaks Himself, but even disposes all other (things). Whence the Son, according to (St.) Augustine in the sixth (book) On the Trinity, is said (to be) « the Art full of all the reasons for living (beings) ». And hence there has arisen that which is accustomed to be said, that he who denies that there are ideas, denies that there is a Son of God. And that manner of proceeding of His2 according to exemplarity is not repugnant to a natural processing [processui naturali], nay rather it cannot be but natural. However the other manner is repugnant to a natural processing; for it is according to the command [imperium] of the will, so that the one producing and the product differ as cause and caused, and the one according to truth is not in the other.

Unde rationes inductae ad hanc partem procedunt secundum hanc viam et secundum hanc verum concludunt; secundum aliam vero nulla concludit, immo ad omnes solvendum3 est per interemptionem.

Whence the reasons induced for this side (of the argument) proceed according to this way and according to this they truly conclude; according to the other, however, none conclude, nay rather regarding all (of them) the solution must be [solvendum est]3 through interemption.

Illae autem, quae obiiciuntur in contrarium, omnes procedunt secundum aliam viam, quia dicunt, quod4 procedit per modum exemplaritatis, quod est ratio exemplandi; quod patet, quia sumuntur a ratione aeternae dispositionis, cognitionis et imaginis. Ultima vero ratio concludit, quod procedat per modum exemplaritatis, sicut exemplatum, et propterea solvenda est per interemptionem.

Moreover those (reasons), which are objected to the contrary, all proceed according to the other way, because they say, that (the Son)4 proceeds through a manner of exemplarity, because He is a reason for exemplifying; which is clear, because they are taken from [a] a reckoning of the eternal disposition, cognition and image. However the last reason does conclude, because it proceeds through a manner of exemplarity, as an exemplified (does), and on this account it is to be solved through interemption.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omne principium rei producendae, si habet cognitionem, producit per exemplar; dicendum est, quod illud falsum est, nisi ratio cognitionis praecedat, ita quod habeat praecognitionem saltem secundum rationem causae ad effectum; quae ordinatio exigit essentialem diversitatem sive substantialem. Exemplatum enim, secundum quod exemplatum, non est in exemplante secundum veritatem, sed per similitudinem, quae, inquam, similitudo, cum sit ratio cognoscendi et exemplandi, dicitur exemplar. Procedit igitur Filius secundum rationem exemplaritatis, non sicut exemplatum per exemplar, sed sicut ipsum exemplar vel ratio exemplandi cetera. Et si tu obiicias, quod exemplar commune est toti Trinitati, respondet ad hoc Altissiodorensis in quaestione5 de mundo archetypo sive de ideis, quod idea sive mundus archetypus non tantum appropriatum est ipsi Filio, verum etiam proprium.

4. To that which is objected, that every principle of a thing to be produced, if it has cognition, produces through an exemplar; it must be said, that that is false, unless a reason for cognition precedes, so that it has a precognition at least according to a reckoning of the cause to the effect; which ordination exacts [exigit] an essential or substantial diversity. For the exemplified, according to which (it is) an exemplified, is not in the one exemplifying according to truth, but through a similitude, which similitude, I say, since it is a reason for cognizing and exemplifying, is said (to be) an exemplar. Therefore the Son proceeds according to a reckoning of exemplarity, not in the same manner as [sicut] an exemplified through an exemplar, but in the same manner as [sicut] the exemplar itself and/or the reason for exemplifying all other (things). And if you object, that the exemplar is common to the whole Trinity, (William) of Auxerre responds to this in (his) question5 concerning the world-archetype [mundus archetypus] or concerning ideas, that an idea or world-archetype is not only appropriated to the Son Himself, but is also proper (to Him).

Vel aliter potest dici, quod6 secundum quod exemplar dicit rationem cognoscendi, sic commune est toti Trinitati et appropriatur Filio, sicut sapientia. Secundum vero quod ultra hoc dicit rationem emanandi, sic est proprium Filii; et sic importatur per hoc nomen Verbum, ut melius patebit infra.7

And/or it can otherwise be said, that6 according to which an exemplar means a reason for cognizing, in this manner it is common to the whole Trinity and is appropriated to the Son, just as Wisdom (is); and so He is introduced through this name the Word, as will be better explained [melius patebit] below.7

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

Sensus huius quaestionis est, utrum Filius producatur secundum modum exemplaritatis, sicut creaturae. — Paucos ex antiquis Scholasticis invenimus explicite tractantes hanc quaestionem, nempe Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 4. — Aegid R., hic 2. princ. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

The sense of this question is, whether the Son is produced according to a manner of exemplarity, just as creatures (are). — We find few of the ancient Scholastics explicitly treating this questions, namely, (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 1, a. 4. — Richard of Middleton, here in q. 4. — Giles the Roman, here in the 2nd princ. of q. 1. — (Bl.) Denis the Carthusian, here in q. 1.

1 Cap. 10. n. 11: Ars quaedam omnipotentis atque sapientis Dei, plena omnium rationum viventium incommutabilium. S. Thomas, QQ. disp de Ver. q. 3. a. 1 proxime sequentem propositionem ita exhibet: Augustinus dicit in libro de Civ. Dei: Qui negat ideas esse infidelis est, quia negat Filium esse.
2 Vat. praeter fidem mss. et sex primarum edd. ille modus producendi, sed minus iuste.
3 Vat. respondendum, sed obstant mss. cum edd. 1, 2, 3, 6.
4 Supple cum codd. I Z Filius. Mox et antiquis mss. et ed 1 substituimus per loco secundum. Paulo infra ed. 1 satis bene prout est pro quod est. Dein multi codd. cum ed. 1 sunt loco sumuntur. Mox codd. L O post imaginis addunt et hae sunt primae rationes.
5 Adiecimus auctoritate antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 in quaestione. — Iste locus invenitur in Summa dicit auctoris in fine libr. I., quae Summa fertur impressa Parisiis 1500. Haec pluries extat manuscripta in bilioth. Laurentiana Florentiae. Ibi in cod. (11. plut. sin. VII.) sub rubica: de Creatione mundi, legitur: « Dicimus, quod exemplar sive idea dicitur de Filio Dei et proprie et appropriate . . . Sed quia dispositio ad sapientiam pertinet, per appropriationem potest dici de Filio, quod sit exemplar vel idea rerum. Sed secundum quod ipse dicitur proprie Imago Pataris eadem ratione, qua ipse est Verbum, et in illa Imagine per dictam rationem relucent omnia: et secundum hoc proprie dicitur ipse idea vel exemplar rerum » etc. Paulo post sequitur: « Secundum quaeritur, utrum Filius Dei sit mundus archetypus »; ad quod respondet: « Unde Filius Dei quodam modo est mundus archetypus appropriate, quodam modo proprie, ut dictum est de exemplari ».
6 Vat. cum cod. cc quia, sed minus bene et contra alios codd. cum ed. 1.
7 Dist. 27. p. II. praecipue q. 3.

1 Chapter 10, n. 11: A certain Art of the Omnipotent and also of the Wisdom of God, full of all the reasons for incommutable living (beings). St. Thomas, Disputed Questions on the Truth, q. 3, a. 1 exhibits the next proposition that follows thus: (St.) Augustine says in the book On the City of God: He who denies that there are ideas is an infidel, because he denies that there is a Son.
2 The Vatican text, not trusting in the manuscripts and the six first editions, reads that manner of producing [ille modus producendi], but less well.
3 The Vatican text has the response must be [respondendum est], but the manuscripts together with editions 1, 2, 3 and 6 are opposed.
4 Supply with codices I and Z the Son. Then from the ancient manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted through [per] for according to [secundum]. A little below this edition 1, well enough, has insofar as it is [prout est] in place of because He is [quod est]. Then many codices together with edition 1 have are [sunt] in place of are taken [sumuntur]. Then codices L and O after image [imaginis] adds and these are the first reasons [et hae sunt primae rationiones].
5 We have inserted on the authority of the more ancient manuscripts and edition 1 in (his) question [in quaestione]. — That passage of his is found in the Summa dicit auctoris, at the end of Bk. I, which Summa was publishing at Paris in 1500 A. D.. Many copies of this manuscript exist in the Laurentiana Library at Florence. There in the codex (11. plut. sin. VII.) under the rubric: “de Creatione mundi”, there is read: « We say, that “exemplar” or “idea” is said of the Son of God both properly and appropriately . . . But because disposition pertains to wisdom, through appropriation (this) can be said of the Son, because He is the Exemplar and/or Idea of things. But according to which He Himself is said properly (to be) the Image of the Father for the same reason, by which He Himself is the Word, there also glitter in that Image through the said reason all (things): and according to this there He Himself properly called the Idea and/or Exemplar of things » etc.. A little after this there follows: « Second it is asked, whether the Son of God is the world-archetype »; to which he responds: « Whence the Son of God in a certain manner is the World-Archetype in an appropriated manner [appropriate], in a certain manner properly, as has been said concerning an exemplar ».
6 The Vatican text together with codex cc has because [quia: and hence the main clause should read it can be said in another manner], but less well and contrary to the other codices and edition 1.
7 Distinction 27, p. II, chiefly q. 3.

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.