Dist. 7, Divisio Textus
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 7
# COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VII.
De comparatione potentiae generandi ad personam.
Hic solet quaeri, utrum Pater potuerit vel voluerit etc.
## DIVISIO TEXTUS.
In praesenti distinctione ponit Magister dubitationem ex comparatione potentiae generandi ad personam, utrum scilicet, sicut est in persona Patris, ita sit in persona Filii. Et habet haec pars duas: in prima Magister quaerit et determinat, utrum Filius possit generare; in secunda, utrum potentia generandi sit in Filio, ibi: Item quaeritur a quibusdam, si Pater potens sit etc.
Item prima pars habet quatuor particulas. In prima movet quaestionem, utrum posse et velle
generare similiter comparentur ad personam Patris et Filii. Secundo, opponit contra solutionem per auctoritatem Augustini, ibi: Sed vehementer nos movet, quod Augustinus etc. Tertio, opponit contra praedictam auctoritatem per rationem, ibi: Hoc autem non videtur quibusdam. Quarto, redit supra auctoritatem, exponens ipsam1, ibi: Quomodo ergo accipitur quod supra dictum est.
Item quaeritur a quibusdam, si Pater etc. Haec est2 secunda pars huius distinctionis, in qua quaerit Magister, utrum potentia generandi sit in Filio, et haec pars habet duas particulas. Primo, quaerit et determinat hanc quaestionem, utrum aliqua potentia sit in Patre, quae non sit in Filio. Si enim Pater natura potens est generare Filium, et Filius non, patet etc. Et3 ad hanc quaestionem respondet Magister, quod omnino eadem est potentia in Patre et Filio. Sed quia hoc erat dubium, ideo opponit contra praedictam solutionem et determinat per distinctionem. Secundo, respondet ad primam quaestionem distinguendo, utrum scilicet Filius habeat potentiam generandi, ibi: Ita etiam cum dicitur, Filius non habet etc. Si enim intelligatur active, falsus est intellectus, scilicet quod Filius possit generare. Si vero intelligatur4 passive, scilicet quod habeat potentiam, qua possit generari, vera est. Et fundatur ista distinctio secundum aliquos super hoc, quod ly generandi potest intelligi in significatione passiva, vel activa. Si in passiva, tunc vera est; et est sensus: Filius habet potentiam generandi, id est potentiam, qua generatur. Si5 in activa, hoc potest esse dupliciter, quia potest esse gerundium verbi personalis, et tunc habet suppositum determinatum et est falsa; est enim sensus: Filius habet etc. id est, Filius habet potentiam, qua ipse Filius generat; vel impersonalis; et tunc non habet certum suppositum et est locutio vera; est enim sensus: Filius habet potentiam generandi, id est, habet potentiam, qua aliquis generat6, tamen hunc sensum non ponit Magister.
## TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad evidentiam eorum quae dicit Magister de potentia generandi, quatuor quaeruntur.
Primo quaeritur, utrum posse generare in divinis dicat quid, vel ad aliquid.
Secundo, utrum Pater communicet Filio7 potentiam generandi, id est, utrum in Filio sit potentia generandi.
Tertio, utrum posse generare et creare sit unicum posse, vel non.
Quarto, utrum posse generari et creari sit posse univocum8.
---
# COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VII.
On the comparison of the power of generating with respect to the person.
Here it is wont to be asked, whether the Father could or willed etc.
## DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
In the present distinction the Master sets out a doubt arising from the comparison of the power of generating to the person, namely whether, as it is in the person of the Father, so also it is in the person of the Son. And this part has two [sections]: in the first the Master asks and determines whether the Son can generate; in the second, whether the power of generating is in the Son, there: Likewise it is asked by some, whether the Father is able etc.
Likewise the first part has four particles. In the first he raises the question, whether to be able and to will
to generate are similarly compared to the person of the Father and of the Son. Secondly, he objects against the solution by the authority of Augustine, there: But it greatly disturbs us, that Augustine etc. Thirdly, he objects against the aforesaid authority by reason, there: But this does not seem [right] to certain men. Fourthly, he returns to the authority, expounding it1, there: How then is what was said above to be taken.
Likewise it is asked by some, if the Father etc. This is2 the second part of this distinction, in which the Master asks whether the power of generating is in the Son, and this part has two particles. First, he asks and determines this question, whether there is any power in the Father which is not in the Son. For if the Father is by nature able to generate the Son, and the Son is not, it is plain etc. And3 to this question the Master responds that the power in the Father and in the Son is altogether the same. But because this was doubtful, therefore he objects against the aforesaid solution and determines [it] by a distinction. Secondly, he responds to the first question by distinguishing, namely whether the Son has the power of generating, there: So also when it is said, The Son does not have etc. For if it be understood actively, the understanding is false, namely that the Son can generate. But if it be understood4 passively, namely that he has the power by which he can be generated, it is true. And this distinction is founded, according to some, upon this, that the [particle] generandi can be understood in a passive signification, or in an active. If in the passive, then it is true; and the sense is: the Son has the power of generating, that is, the power by which he is generated. If5 in the active, this can be in two ways, because it can be the gerund of a personal verb, and then it has a determinate supposit and is false; for the sense is: the Son has etc. that is, the Son has the power by which the Son himself generates; or [it can be] impersonal; and then it does not have a fixed supposit and is a true expression; for the sense is: the Son has the power of generating, that is, has the power by which someone generates6, yet the Master does not put forward this sense.
## TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
For the elucidation of those things which the Master says about the power of generating, four [questions] are asked.
First it is asked, whether to be able to generate in divine [matters] expresses something [absolute] or something relative [literally: in relation to something].
Secondly, whether the Father communicates to the Son7 the power of generating, that is, whether in the Son there is a power of generating.
Thirdly, whether to be able to generate and to create is one single power, or not.
Fourthly, whether to be able to be generated and to be created is a univocal8 power.
---
- Ex vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus ipsam.From the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have supplied ipsam.
- Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et ed. 1, omittendo verba: Item quaeritur a quibusdam, si Pater etc. Haec est, mutat constructionem, quia postea eliminat verba et haec pars. Mox codd. cum ed. 1 tres loco duas, sed falso.The Vatican [edition], without the authority of the manuscripts and edition 1, omitting the words Item quaeritur a quibusdam, si Pater etc. Haec est, alters the construction, since afterwards it eliminates the words et haec pars. Shortly after, the codices with edition 1 [read] tres in place of duas, but falsely.
- Ex mss. X Y bb et ed. 1 adiecimus Et, pro quo plurimi codd. non ita bene Sed; cod. Q vero Secundo et paulo infra tertio pro secundo, at falso, uti inspicienti textum Magistri et verba Bonaventurae patet.From manuscripts X Y bb and edition 1 we have added Et, in place of which most codices [read], not so well, Sed; codex Q indeed [reads] Secundo and a little below tertio for secundo, but falsely, as is plain to one inspecting the Master's text and Bonaventure's words.
- Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 substituimus intelligatur pro intelligitur et mox habeat loco habet et paulo infra ista pro illa ac aliquos loco alios.From the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted intelligatur for intelligitur and shortly after habeat in place of habet and a little below ista for illa and aliquos in place of alios.
- Vat. Sed, et paulo post omittit hoc contra vetustiores codd. et ed. 1, qui et pro gerundium ponunt gerundivum.The Vatican [edition reads] Sed, and a little after omits hoc against the older codices and edition 1, which put gerundivum for gerundium.
- Cod. O glossando addit: scilicet Pater, quia eadem est potentia in Patre et in Filio ad hoc ut generetur, nec tamen ex hoc sequitur, quod Filius generat, sed ex hoc sequitur, quod aliquis generat.Codex O, glossing, adds: namely the Father, because the power in the Father and in the Son is the same, to the end that he be generated, nor however does it follow from this that the Son generates, but from this it follows that someone generates.
- Ope mss. et ed. 1 restituimus omissum Filio.With the help of the manuscripts and edition 1 we have restored the omitted Filio.
- Mendum Vat. fide mss. correximus substituendo univocum pro unicum.A defect of the Vatican [edition] we have corrected on the faith of the manuscripts by substituting univocum for unicum.