Bonaventure

## Commentarius in Distinctionem XXVII.

Pars I.

De proprietatibus personarum, quatenus exprimuntur per vocabula magis usitata.

Hic quaeri potest, utrum proprietates.

Divisio textus.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation that follows. Each note is given first in Latin (`La.`), then in literal English (`En.`).

Supra assignavit Magister proprietates personales, hic secundo¹ agit de ipsis proprietatibus, secundum quod per diversa vocabula exprimuntur. Et quoniam contingit eas exprimi per vocabula magis usitata et minus usitata, ideo habet haec pars duas partes. In prima agit de expressione proprietatum per vocabula magis² usitata, in secunda per vocabula minus usitata, infra distinctione eadem: Hic non est praetermittendum.

Prima pars habet quatuor. Cum enim Hilarius et Augustinus proprietates aliis et aliis vocabulis assignent, uterque tamen consuetis³, quia unus, scilicet Augustinus, per generare et generari, alter, scilicet Hilarius, per esse Patrem et esse Filium, ideo Magister primo quaerit, utrum sint eaedem proprietates ab utroque assignatae. Secundo solvit ostendens, quod sunt eaedem, ibi: Ad quod sine praeiudicio aliorum. Tertio, ne credat aliquis, quod omnino sint eaedem, ostendit, quod re idem sunt, sed differunt quantum ad modum significandi, scilicet in concretione et in abstractione, ibi: Nec tamen videtur nobis omnino idem. Quarto vero, quia dixerat, proprietates significari in concretione, quia quaeri posset: respectu cuius? ostendit, quod respectu hypostasum, ibi: Illae enim proprietates singulae singulis.

Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis quatuor quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum esse Patrem et generare sit una notio.

Secundo quaeritur, quae illarum sit alterius ratio.

Tertio, utrum proprietates contingat abstrahi.

Quarto, utrum circa eas liceat contrarie opinari.

---

## Commentary on Distinction XXVII.

Part I.

On the properties of the persons, insofar as they are expressed through more usual terms.

"Here it can be asked whether the properties..."

Division of the text.

Above, the Master assigned the personal properties; here, in the second place¹, he treats of these properties themselves, according as they are expressed through different terms. And since it happens that they are expressed through more usual and less usual terms, therefore this part has two divisions. In the first he treats of the expression of the properties through more² usual terms; in the second, through less usual terms, below in the same distinction: "Here it must not be passed over."

The first part has four [subdivisions]. For since Hilary and Augustine assign the properties with different terms, yet each with customary³ ones — because one, namely Augustine, [does so] through to-beget and to-be-begotten, and the other, namely Hilary, through to-be-the-Father and to-be-the-Son — therefore the Master first asks whether the properties assigned by each are the same. Secondly he resolves [the question], showing that they are the same, there: "To which, without prejudice to others." Thirdly, lest anyone should believe that they are altogether the same, he shows that they are the same in reality, but differ as to the mode of signifying, namely in concretion and in abstraction, there: "Yet it does not seem to us altogether the same." Fourthly indeed, because he had said that the properties are signified in concretion, since it might be asked: in respect of what? he shows that [it is] in respect of the hypostases, there: "For those properties, taken singly, [are assigned] to the singulars."

Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of this part, four [questions] are asked.

First it is asked whether to-be-the-Father and to-beget is one notion.

Secondly it is asked which of them is the formal account of the other.

Thirdly, whether the properties can be abstracted.

Fourthly, whether it is permitted to hold contrary opinions concerning them.

---