Dist. 23, Divisio Textus
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 23
DIVISIO TEXTUS.
Supra egit Magister de diversitate divinorum nominum in generali. Hic incipit secunda pars, in qua agit de eadem1 in speciali. Et quoniam quaedam nomina sunt substantialia, quaedam relativa, et haec contingit considerare absolute, et ad se invicem2: ideo haec pars habet tres partes. In prima agit de nominibus substantialibus. In secunda de relativis, infra distinctione vigesima sexta: Nunc de proprietatibus personarum, quas frequenter etc. In tertia de his3 relativis ad invicem, infra distinctione trigesima tertia: Post supra dicta interius considerari.
Et quoniam inter nomina substantialia hoc nomen persona excipitur a generali regula, quae est, quod substantiale dicitur de tribus singulariter: ideo nomen istud4 primo a generali regula excipit, ostendens, quod debemus dicere tres personas; et hoc in praesenti distinctione. Secundo vero determinat quid significetur per hoc nomen tres et per hoc nomen personas, cum dicimus tres personas, infra distinctione proxima: Hic diligenter inquiri oportet.
Prima pars habet quatuor. In prima Magister illud nomen excipit a generali regula. In secunda rationem huius exceptionis investigat, ibi: Ideo oritur hic quaestio difficilis, ostendens, quod fuit inopia humani eloquii. In tertia Magister contra assignationem opponit et determinat, ibi: Sed quaeritur hic, cum dicamus Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum. In quarta epilogat determinata, ut addat, ibi: Iam sufficienter, ut puto, ostensum est. Harum partium subdivisiones per se patent. Nam quaelibet pars subdividitur in duas iuxta duo capitula, quae continet5.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad intelligentiam eorum quae dicuntur in praesenti distinctione de his nominibus persona, substantia et essentia, duo principaliter quaeruntur.
Primo quaeritur de translatione istorum nominum ad divina.
Secundo de numeratione eorundem in divinis.
Circa primum quaeruntur tria.
Primo, utrum debuerit ibi6 transferri nomen personae.
Secundo vero, utrum nomen substantiae.
Tertio, utrum nomen essentiae.
---
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
Above the Master treated of the diversity of the divine names in general. Here begins the second part, in which he treats of the same1 in particular. And since certain names are substantial, certain relative, and these may be considered absolutely and in relation to one another2: therefore this part has three parts. In the first he treats of the substantial names. In the second of the relative, below in the twenty-sixth distinction: Now concerning the properties of the persons, which frequently etc. In the third of these3 relatives in relation to one another, below in the thirty-third distinction: After the foregoing, to be considered more inwardly.
And since among the substantial names this name person is excepted from the general rule, which is that what is substantial is said of the three in the singular: therefore this name4 is first excepted from the general rule, showing that we ought to say three persons; and this in the present distinction. Secondly, however, he determines what is signified by this name three and by this name persons, when we say three persons, below in the next distinction: Here it must be diligently inquired.
The first part has four [parts]. In the first the Master excepts that name from the general rule. In the second he investigates the reason for this exception, there: Hence arises here a difficult question, showing that it was the poverty of human speech. In the third the Master raises objections against the assignment and resolves them, there: But it is asked here, when we say Father and Son and Holy Spirit. In the fourth he epilogizes the matters determined, so as to add, there: Now sufficiently, as I think, it has been shown. The subdivisions of these parts are clear of themselves. For each part is subdivided into two according to the two chapters which it contains5.
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
For the understanding of those things which are said in the present distinction concerning these names person, substance, and essence, two questions are principally asked.
First it is asked concerning the translation of these names to divine matters.
Secondly concerning the numeration of the same in divine matters.
Concerning the first, three questions are asked.
First, whether the name of person ought to have been transferred there6.
Secondly indeed, whether the name of substance.
Thirdly, whether the name of essence.
---
- In plurimis mss. et ed. 1 minus congrue deest de eadem.In very many manuscripts and edition 1, the words de eadem ("of the same") are less aptly missing.
- Lectio plurimorum codd. et ed. 1, in qua omittitur invicem, ambiguitatem generat et est contra subnexa; codd. aa bb, omisso invicem, verbis ad se praefigunt per comparationem.The reading of very many manuscripts and edition 1, in which invicem ("mutually") is omitted, generates ambiguity and is contrary to what follows; codices aa, bb, with invicem omitted, prefix to the words ad se the phrase per comparationem ("by comparison").
- Vat. praeter fidem mss. et sex primarum edd. substantialibus et pro his.The Vatican edition, against the witness of the manuscripts and the first six editions, reads substantialibus ("substantial [names]") and in place of his ("these").
- Codd. VY illud.Codices V and Y read illud ("that").
- In Vat. desideratur ultima haec propositio Nam quaelibet etc., quae tamen exstat in mss. et ed. 1.In the Vatican edition this final sentence Nam quaelibet etc. is wanting, which nevertheless is found in the manuscripts and edition 1.
- Vat. ad divina debeat loco debuerit ibi, sed contra codd., quorum tamen plures cum ed. 1 habent debuit.The Vatican edition reads ad divina debeat ("ought [to be transferred] to divine matters") in place of debuerit ibi ("ought to have [been transferred] there"), but against the codices, of which however many along with edition 1 have debuit ("ought").