Bonaventure

## Commentarius in Distinctionem XXXII.

Solvuntur dubitationes circa duas locutiones ad appropriationem spectantes.

Hic oritur quaestio ex praedictis deducta.

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 posuit Magister appropriata, in quorum explanatione dixit, Spiritum sanctum esse concordiam, quia Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto; ideo hic movet quaestionem de illa locutione. Et hoc facit in ista distinctione. Habet autem haec distinctio tres¹ partes.

In prima movet Magister principalem quaestionem prius positam, scilicet² utrum Pater et Filius diligant se Spiritu sancto. In secunda vero movet aliam quaestionem huic consimilem, quae facit ad eius explanationem, et hoc facit ibi: Praeterea diligenter investigari oportet, et est illa quaestio: utrum Pater sit sapiens sapientia genita. In tertia redit ad principalem quaestionem determinandam, et hoc facit ibi: Praeterea diligenter notandum est.

Prima pars habet duas partes. In prima Magister movet quaestionem et opponit. In secunda vero respondet quaestioni, sed non respondet obiectioni, ibi: Huic quaestioni, cum altitudinem.

Praeterea diligenter investigari oportet. Haec est secunda particula, in qua determinat Magister quaestionem annexam, scilicet utrum Pater sit sapiens³ sapientia genita. Et quia ad determinationem

huius quaestionis tria alia dubia concurrunt, ideo habet haec pars quatuor partes secundum quatuor dubitationes, quas movet et determinat. Et primo determinat istam quaestionem: utrum Pater sit sapiens sapientia genita, quam determinat in partem negativam. Secundo vero determinat aliam quaestionem: utrum Filius sit sapiens sapientia ingenita, quam determinat in partem affirmativam⁴, ibi: Post haec quaeri solet etc. Tertio movet hanc quaestionem: utrum Filius sit sapiens per se ipsum vel se ipso, quam determinat per distinctionem, quod se ipso potest teneri originaliter, vel formaliter, et hoc ibi: Quaeri autem solet, utrum Filius etc. Quarto movet hanc quaestionem: utrum Pater duplicem habeat sapientiam, quam determinat in partem negativam ostendens, hanc quaestionem et eius rationem non esse responsione dignam, et hoc facit ibi: Post haec quaeri solet a quibusdam, utrum una tantum sit sapientia⁵.

Praeterea diligenter notandum est. Haec est particula tertia, in qua redit Magister ad quaestionem primo positam, et habet haec pars duas partes. In prima obiicit accipiens rationem ex determinatione alterius quaestionis. In secunda vero loco solutionis suam insufficientiam ostendit et hanc quaestionem determinandam lectori relinquit, et hoc ibi: Difficillimam mihi hanc quaestionem fateor⁶.

Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis duo principaliter quaeruntur secundum duas quaestiones, quas determinat Magister.

Primo quaeritur de hac locutione: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto.

Secundo quaeritur de ista alia: Pater est sapiens sapientia genita.

Quantum ad primum quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum illa locutio sit admittenda.

Secundo quaeritur, in qua habitudine construatur ille ablativus.

---

## Commentary on Distinction XXXII.

Doubts are resolved concerning two locutions pertaining to appropriation.

"Here arises a question deduced from what has been said before."

Division of the text.

Above the Master set forth the appropriations, in the explanation of which he said that the Holy Spirit is concord, because the Father and the Son love themselves by the Holy Spirit; therefore here he raises a question about that locution. And this he does in this distinction. Now this distinction has three¹ parts.

In the first the Master raises the principal question previously posed, namely² whether the Father and the Son love themselves by the Holy Spirit. In the second, however, he raises another question similar to this one, which serves for its explanation, and he does this there: "Furthermore, it must be diligently investigated", and that is the question: whether the Father is wise by a begotten wisdom. In the third he returns to the principal question to be determined, and this he does there: "Furthermore, it must be diligently noted."

The first part has two divisions. In the first the Master raises the question and objects. In the second, however, he answers the question, but does not answer the objection, there: "To this question, since the depth...".

"Furthermore, it must be diligently investigated." This is the second little section, in which the Master determines the annexed question, namely whether the Father is wise³ by a begotten wisdom. And because for the determination

of this question three other doubts concur, therefore this part has four divisions according to the four doubts which he raises and determines. And first he determines this question: whether the Father is wise by a begotten wisdom, which he determines in the negative. Second, however, he determines another question: whether the Son is wise by an unbegotten wisdom, which he determines in the affirmative⁴, there: "After these things it is wont to be asked" etc. Third, he raises this question: whether the Son is wise through himself or by himself, which he determines by means of a distinction, namely that by himself can be taken originatively or formally, and this there: "It is wont to be asked, however, whether the Son" etc. Fourth, he raises this question: whether the Father has a twofold wisdom, which he determines in the negative, showing that this question and its reasoning are not worthy of a response, and this he does there: "After these things it is wont to be asked by some, whether there is only one wisdom"⁵.

"Furthermore, it must be diligently noted." This is the third little section, in which the Master returns to the question first posed, and this part has two divisions. In the first he raises an objection, taking his reason from the determination of the other question. In the second, however, in place of a solution he shows his own insufficiency and leaves this question to be determined by the reader, and this there: "I confess that this question is most difficult for me"⁶.

Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of the present distinction two things are principally asked according to the two questions which the Master determines.

First it is asked concerning this locution: "The Father and the Son love themselves by the Holy Spirit."

Second it is asked concerning this other one: "The Father is wise by a begotten wisdom."

As regards the first, two things are asked.

First it is asked whether that locution is to be admitted.

Second it is asked, in what construction that ablative is to be construed.

---