Bonaventure

## Commentarius in Distinctionem XXXIV.

De comparatione personarum ad naturam.

Praedictis adiiciendum est, quod quidam perversi sensus homines etc.

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 egit Magister de comparatione proprietatum ad personas et essentiam; hic secundo agit de comparatione personarum ad essentiam. Et hoc facit in hac distinctione, quae in tres partes dividitur.

In prima agit de comparatione secundum praedicationem; in secunda secundum appropriationem, ibi: Ex praedictis constat, quod sicut essentia, ita potentia etc.; in tertia annectit capitulum de translatione, ut sic tractatum istum perducat ad consummationem, et hoc ibi: Praeterea sciendum est, quod in assignatione etc.

Prima pars habet tres partes¹. In prima ponit errorem quorundam dicentium, personas non esse naturam, et hoc cum sua confirmatione², scilicet cum auctoritate Hilarii. In secunda ipsius auctoritatis sanum intellectum ex verbis Hilarii sequentibus elicit, per quae etiam errorem illorum elidit, ibi: Hoc quidam dicunt, non intelligentes etc. In tertia quandam oppositionem incidentem dissolvit, quare non dicuntur tres personae unius Dei, sicut dicuntur tres personae unius essentiae, ibi: Hic considerandum est, cum Deus sit divina essentia etc.

Ex praedictis constat, quod sicut essentia etc. Haec est secunda pars, in qua Magister agit de appropriatione, et habet ista pars tres partes. In prima dicit et ostendit, quod communia appropriantur. In secunda rationem reddit appropriationis, ibi: Id ergo sacri eloquii prudentia etc. In tertia, quia hoc nomen homoousion dicit comparationem essentiae sive naturae ad personas, usum eius determinat esse catholicum et veritati fidei esse consonum, ibi: Hic non est praetermittendum, quod Augustinus etc.

Praeterea sciendum est, quod in assignatione distinctionis etc. Haec est tertia particula, in qua agit Magister de nominum translatione, quae posset³ dividi contra totum tractatum praecedentem de divinis nominibus. Sed quia Magister parum aut nihil determinat de his nominibus, ideo potius incidenter cum epilogatione est positum⁴. Unde haec particula duas habet partes. In prima quandam generalem de nominibus translativis tradit instructionem. In secunda vero ponit praedictorum epilogationem, in qua tractatum de sacramento Trinitatis et Unitatis finit, ostendens, se in hoc tractatu potius defecisse quam suffecisse propter materiae altitudinem, et hoc facit ibi: De sacramento Unitatis atque Trinitatis etc.

Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis quatuor quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum in divinis sit ponere additionem.

Secundo, utrum in divinis sit ponere praedicationem.

Tertio, utrum sit ponere ibi appropriationem.

Quarto, utrum sit ibi ponere translationem.

---

## Commentary on Distinction XXXIV.

On the comparison of the persons to the nature.

"To what has been said it must be added, that certain men of perverse sense" etc.

Division of the text.

Above the Master treated of the comparison of the properties to the persons and to the essence; here in the second place he treats of the comparison of the persons to the essence. And this he does in this distinction, which is divided into three parts.

In the first he treats of the comparison according to predication; in the second according to appropriation, there: "From what has been said it is clear, that just as the essence, so also the power" etc.; in the third he annexes a chapter on translation [i.e. transferred names], so as thus to bring this whole treatise to its completion, and this there: "Moreover it must be known, that in the assignment" etc.

The first part has three divisions¹. In the first he sets down the error of certain men saying that the persons are not the nature, and this together with its confirmation², namely with the authority of Hilary. In the second he draws out the sound understanding of that very authority from the following words of Hilary, by which he also strikes down their error, there: "This certain men say, not understanding" etc. In the third he resolves a certain incidental objection, [namely] why three persons are not said to be of one God, as three persons are said to be of one essence, there: "Here it must be considered, since God is the divine essence" etc.

"From what has been said it is clear, that just as the essence" etc. This is the second part, in which the Master treats of appropriation, and this part has three divisions. In the first he says and shows that things common are appropriated. In the second he gives the reason for the appropriation, there: "Therefore the prudence of sacred eloquence" etc. In the third, because this name homoousion expresses the comparison of the essence or nature to the persons, he determines that its use is catholic and consonant with the truth of the faith, there: "Here it must not be passed over, that Augustine" etc.

"Moreover it must be known, that in the assignment of the distinction" etc. This is the third little part, in which the Master treats of the translation [i.e. the transferred use] of names, which could³ be divided over against the whole preceding treatise on the divine names. But because the Master determines little or nothing about these names, it is therefore set down rather incidentally together with the epilogue⁴. Hence this little part has two divisions. In the first he hands down a certain general instruction concerning translative names. In the second, however, he sets down the epilogue of what has been said, in which he ends the treatise on the mystery of the Trinity and of the Unity, showing that in this treatise he has rather fallen short than sufficed because of the loftiness of the matter, and this he does there: "On the mystery of the Unity and Trinity" etc.

Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of the present distinction four things are asked.

First it is asked, whether in divine things addition is to be posited.

Second, whether in divine things predication is to be posited.

Third, whether appropriation is to be posited there.

Fourth, whether translation is to be posited there.

---