Dist. 9, Divisio Textus
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 9
Commentarius in Distinctionem IX.
De proprietatibus, quae respiciunt personas, et quidem de emanatione generationis.
Nunc ad distinctionem personarum accedamus etc.
Divisio textus.
Supra egit Magister de proprietatibus, quae respiciunt essentiam. Hic agit de his, quae respiciunt personas; et haec pars habet duas partes. Quia enim distinctio personarum attenditur secundum duplicem emanationem, scilicet generationis et processionis, ideo primo agit de generatione, secundo vero de processione, infra distinctione decima: Nunc vero post Filii aeternitatem de Spiritu sancto etc.
Item, prima pars habet duas partes: in prima ostendit, quid de generatione Filii est sentiendum, secundo ex incidenti, quo sermone est ipsa exprimenda, ibi: Hic quaeri potest, cum generatio Filii a Patre etc.
Prima iterum pars habet quatuor partes1. Primo proponit veritatem, quae est a catholicis retinenda, scilicet quod generans et genitus sunt per generationem distincti et coaeterni, ita quod generatio est distinctiva et aeterna. In secunda contra hoc opponit per oppositionem haereticorum, ibi: Sed contra hoc inquit haereticus. In tertia determinat, contra arguendo per rationes catholicorum Doctorum Augustini et Ambrosii, ibi: Qui hoc dicit non intelligit, etiam natum esse etc. In quarta et ultima respondet, compescendo inquisitionem superfluam haereticorum et etiam catholicorum superborum, ibi: Sed quaeris a me, inquit Ambrosius, ubi ostendit quod imperscrutabile2 est sacramentum generationis.
Hic quaeri potest, cum generatio Filii a Patre etc. Haec est secunda pars huius distinctionis, in qua Magister determinat, quo sermone generationis aeternitas congruentius exprimatur; et haec pars habet quatuor partes. In prima ponit doctorum apparentem controversiam. Nam quidam dicunt, eam debere exprimi per verba3 praeteriti temporis, alii, per verba praesentis. In secunda praedictam controversiam reducit ad concordantiam, ibi: Sed ne tanti auctores in re tanta sibi contradicere videantur. In tertia per verba Hilarii confirmat responsionem suam, ne videatur dictis Origenis inniti, ibi: Hilarius quoque dicit, Filium nasci ex Patre etc. In quarta concludit summatim, quid dicendum sit4 sive quomodo loquendum et quomodo etiam de generatione aeterna sentiendum, ibi: Dicamus ergo Filium natum de Patre, ubi confirmat veritatem per auctoritatem Hilarii, per quam etiam solvit obiectionem haeretici.
Tractatio quaestionum.
Ad intelligentiam eorum quae dicit Magister de generatione aeterna, in praesenti distinctione quatuor principaliter quaeruntur.
Primo quaeritur, utrum in divinis sit ponenda generatio.
Secundo, dato quod sic, utrum generatio in divinis sit5 personarum distinctiva.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum illa generatio sit aeterna.
Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum illa generatio sit terminata.
---
Commentary on Distinction IX.
On the properties which regard the persons, and indeed on the emanation of generation.
Now let us approach the distinction of the persons etc.
Division of the text.
Above the Master treated of the properties which regard the essence. Here he treats of those which regard the persons; and this part has two parts. For since the distinction of the persons is observed according to a twofold emanation, namely of generation and of procession, therefore he first treats of generation, and secondly of procession, below in the tenth distinction: Now however, after the eternity of the Son, concerning the Holy Spirit etc.
Likewise, the first part has two parts: in the first he shows what is to be held concerning the generation of the Son; in the second, by way of incident, by what manner of speech it is to be expressed, there: Here it can be asked, since the generation of the Son from the Father etc.
The first part again has four parts1. First he proposes the truth which is to be held by Catholics, namely that the begetter and the begotten are distinct through generation and coeternal, so that generation is distinctive and eternal. In the second he opposes against this through the opposition of heretics, there: But against this, says the heretic. In the third he determines, arguing back through the reasonings of the catholic Doctors Augustine and Ambrose, there: He who says this does not understand, even being born etc. In the fourth and last he responds, restraining the superfluous inquisition of the heretics and also of the proud Catholics, there: But you ask of me, says Ambrose, where he shows that the mystery of generation is unsearchable2.
Here it can be asked, since the generation of the Son from the Father etc. This is the second part of this distinction, in which the Master determines by what manner of speech the eternity of generation is more fittingly expressed; and this part has four parts. In the first he sets out an apparent controversy of the doctors. For some say that it ought to be expressed by verbs3 of the past tense, others by verbs of the present. In the second he reduces the aforesaid controversy to concord, there: But lest such great authors in so great a matter seem to contradict themselves. In the third, through the words of Hilary, he confirms his response, lest he seem to rely on the sayings of Origen, there: Hilary also says that the Son is born from the Father etc. In the fourth he concludes summarily what is to be said4, or how one ought to speak and how also one ought to think concerning eternal generation, there: Let us say therefore that the Son is born of the Father, where he confirms the truth by the authority of Hilary, by which also he resolves the objection of the heretic.
Treatment of the questions.
For the understanding of those things which the Master says concerning eternal generation, in the present distinction four things are principally asked.
First it is asked whether in divine matters generation is to be posited.
Secondly, granted that it is, whether generation in divine matters is5 distinctive of persons.
Thirdly it is asked whether that generation is eternal.
Fourthly and lastly it is asked whether that generation is terminated.
---
- Ed. 1 particulas.Ed. 1 reads particulas.
- Postulantibus mss. et ed. 1, substituimus imperscrutabile loco inscrutabile. Mox Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1, verbis Magistri Hic quaeri potest etc. omissis, pro Haec est ponit Similiter, deinde propter constructionem mutatam omittit et haec pars.At the demand of the manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted imperscrutabile in place of inscrutabile. Shortly after, the Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, omitting the Master's words Hic quaeri potest etc., puts Similiter for Haec est, then because of the changed construction omits et haec pars.
- Unus alterve cod. ut I cum ed. 1 hic verbum, sed paulo post plurimi codd. sibi non constantes verbum praesentis.One or another codex, like I, with ed. 1, here reads verbum, but shortly after most codices inconsistently read verbum praesentis.
- Fide plurimorum mss. et ed. 4 hic adiecimus sit, quod Vat. ponit infra post sentiendum.On the authority of most manuscripts and ed. 4, we have added sit here, which the Vatican edition places below after sentiendum.
- Codd. et plurimae edd. omittunt sit.The codices and most editions omit sit. ---