Dist. 5, Divisio Textus
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 5
## Commentarius in Distinctionem V
De comparatione generationis ad terminum essentialem abstractum, qui est essentia.
Post haec quaeritur, utrum concedendum sit etc.
Divisio Textus
In praecedenti distinctione movit Magister quaestionem de comparatione generationis ad terminum essentialem concretum, qualis est hoc nomen Deus. In praesenti movet quaestionem de comparatione generationis ad terminum essentialem abstractum, qui est essentia. Et dividitur haec pars in duas partes.
In prima parte movet quaestionem ex comparatione generationis ad essentiam in ratione termini, videlicet utrum essentia generetur; in secunda in ratione principii, utrum essentia generet etc., ibi: Ita etiam non est dicendum, quod divina essentia genuit Filium etc.
Item prima pars habet quatuor partes. In prima parte proponit problemata, videlicet utrum essentia generet vel generetur. In secunda adducit rationes tres probantes, quod essentia non generatur a Patre, ibi: Ideo non est dicendum, quod Pater genuit etc. In tertia adducit rationes in contrarium, ibi: Huic autem videtur contrarium etc. In quarta et ultima solvit et exponit, ibi: Ad quod respondemus.
Ita etiam non est dicendum1. Haec est secunda pars istius distinctionis, in qua Magister determinat secundam partem quaestionis, quae est de comparatione generationis ad essentiam in ratione principii, et habet haec pars tres partes. In prima determinat istam quaestionem dicens, quod essentia non generat2; et hoc confirmat per rationem ducentem ad impossibile. In secunda vero adducit auctoritates, quae sunt directe contrariae praedictae solutioni, ibi: Praedictis videtur esse contrarium. In tertia vero adducit auctoritates, ex quibus potest elici contrarietas, ibi: Dicitur quoque, et frequenter etc.
Item3 secunda pars habet quatuor partes. In prima parte adducit auctoritates Augustini contrarias praedictae solutioni. In secunda auctoritates adductas exponit, ibi: Sed haec ita determinamus. In tertia vero contra praedictas expositiones adducit auctoritates alias Hilarii, in quibus notatur expressior contrarietas, ibi: Huic vero etiam contrarium videtur esse. In quarta vero auctoritates praedictas explanat et explanationem4 suam per verba Hilarii confirmat, ibi: Sed quia haec verba sane vult.
Dicitur quoque, et frequenter in sacra Scriptura legitur. Haec est tertia pars, in qua obiicit contra solutionem per auctoritates, ex quibus elicitur praedictae solutionis contrarietas — quia5 in his non dicitur, quod essentia generet vel generetur, sed quod de essentia vel substantia Patris Filius generetur — et haec pars quatuor habet particulas. In prima adducit6 auctoritates in contrarium. In secunda vero adductas explanat, ibi: His verbis praemissis innuitur; ubi resumit praedictam expositionem. In tertia ex praedictorum opinione elicit quoddam corollarium, ibi: Ostenditur quoque ex illis verbis etc. In quarta et ultima redit ad propositum et ostendit, expositionem suam bonam esse, per auctoritatem Augustini, ibi: Et hoc ita debere intelligi etc.
Tractatio Quaestionum
In parte ista ad intelligentiam duarum principalium partium huius distinctionis duo principaliter quaeruntur.
Primo quaeritur de comparatione generationis ad substantiam sive essentiam in ratione principii.
Secundo quaeritur de comparatione eiusdem in ratione termini.
Et duo quaeruntur quantum ad primum, duo vero quantum ad secundum.
Quantum ad primum quaeritur:
Primo, utrum substantia vel essentia generet.
Secundo, utrum de substantia generetur aliquis.
---
## Commentary on Distinction V
On the comparison of generation to the abstract essential term, which is essence.
"After these things it is asked whether it must be conceded" etc.
Division of the Text
In the preceding distinction the Master raised the question of the comparison of generation to the concrete essential term — such as the name God. In the present distinction he raises the question of the comparison of generation to the abstract essential term — which is essence. And this part is divided into two sub-parts.
In the first sub-part he raises the question from the comparison of generation to essence in the account of term — namely, whether essence is begotten; in the second, in the account of principle — whether essence begets, etc., at: "Likewise, it must not be said that the divine essence begot the Son" etc.
Likewise, the first sub-part has four sections. In the first section he proposes the problems — namely, whether essence begets or is begotten. In the second he brings forward three reasons proving that essence is not begotten by the Father, at: "Therefore it must not be said that the Father begot..." etc. In the third he brings forward reasons to the contrary, at: "But this seems contrary..." etc. In the fourth and last he resolves and explains, at: "To which we respond."
Likewise, it must not be said1. This is the second sub-part of this distinction, in which the Master determines the second part of the question, which is on the comparison of generation to essence in the account of principle; and this sub-part has three sections. In the first he determines this question, saying that essence does not generate2; and this he confirms by a reasoning leading to an impossibility. In the second he brings forward authorities which are directly contrary to the said solution, at: "To the foregoing things there seems to be a contrary." In the third he brings forward authorities from which a contrariety can be elicited, at: "It is also said — and frequently" etc.
Likewise3, the second section has four sub-sections. In the first sub-section he brings forward Augustinian authorities contrary to the said solution. In the second he expounds the authorities adduced, at: "But these we so determine." In the third he brings forward, against the said expositions, other Hilarian authorities in which a more express contrariety is noted, at: "To this also a contrary seems to be." In the fourth he explains the said authorities and confirms his explanation4 by the words of Hilary, at: "But because these words he indeed wishes [to be understood]."
It is also said — and frequently is read in sacred Scripture. This is the third section, in which he objects against the solution by means of authorities from which a contrariety to the said solution is elicited — because5 in these it is not said that essence generates or is generated, but that the Son is generated from the essence or substance of the Father — and this section has four particulars. In the first he brings forward6 authorities to the contrary. In the second he explains the things adduced, at: "With these words premised it is intimated"; where he resumes the said exposition. In the third he elicits a certain corollary from the foregoing opinion, at: "It is also shown from those words" etc. In the fourth and last he returns to the proposition and shows that his exposition is good, by the authority of Augustine, at: "And that it must be so understood" etc.
Treatment of the Questions
In this part, for the understanding of the two principal sub-parts of this distinction, two principal questions are asked.
First it is asked about the comparison of generation to substance or essence in the account of principle.
Second it is asked about the comparison of the same in the account of term.
And two questions are asked under the first, and two under the second.
Under the first it is asked:
First, whether substance or essence generates.
Second, whether anyone is generated from the substance.
---
- Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1, omittendo Ita etiam non est dicendum, et variando constructionem praeponit verbo secunda particulam Similiter. Item in fine propositionis legit principii, habet tres partes. Idem recurrit infra pro tertia parte. In medio propositionis habet in comparatione loco de comparatione, sed male.The Vatican edition, against the trustworthiness of the mss. and ed. 1, omits Ita etiam non est dicendum, and altering the construction prefixes to the verb secunda the particle Similiter. Likewise at the end of the proposition it reads principii, habet tres partes. The same recurs below for the third part. In the middle of the proposition it has in comparatione in place of de comparatione — but wrongly.
- Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 addit hic sed.The Vatican edition, against the mss. and ed. 1, here adds sed.
- Supplevimus ex mss. et ed. 1 Item, post quod emendavimus Vat. et mss. substituendo cum ed. 1 secunda loco prima, quod manifeste est falsum.We have supplied Item from the mss. and ed. 1; after which we have emended the Vatican edition and the mss. by substituting, with ed. 1, secunda in place of prima — which is manifestly false.
- Vat. expositionem, sed contra mss. et ed. 1.The Vatican edition reads expositionem — but against the mss. and ed. 1.
- Haec parenthesis explicat, quare dicitur elicitur, scil. quia illae auctoritates non explicite continent contrariam assertionem.This parenthesis explains why he says elicitur ("is elicited") — namely, because those authorities do not explicitly contain the contrary assertion.
- Plures mss. cum ed. 1 inducit.Several mss. with ed. 1 read inducit.