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 considered according to a twofold emanation, namely that of generation and of procession, therefore he first treats of generation, and secondly of procession, below in the tenth distinction: But now, after the eternity of the Son, [let us treat] of the Holy Spirit etc.
Again, the first part has two parts: in the first he shows what is to be held concerning the generation of the Son, and secondly, by way of an incidental matter, by what manner of speech it is to be expressed, at the place: Here it may be asked, since the generation of the Son from the Father etc.
The first part again has four parts1. First, he sets forth the truth which is to be held by Catholics, namely that the one generating and the one generated are by generation distinct and coeternal, so that generation is distinctive and eternal. In the second, he objects against this through the opposition of heretics, at the place: But against this the heretic says. In the third he determines [the matter], arguing against [them] by the reasons of the Catholic Doctors Augustine and Ambrose, at the place: He who says this does not understand that to be born also is etc. In the fourth and last he replies, restraining the superfluous inquiry both of heretics and also of proud Catholics, at the place: But you ask of me, says Ambrose, where he shows that the mystery of generation is inscrutable2.
Here it may 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 forth the apparent controversy of the doctors. For some say that it ought to be expressed through verbs3 of the past tense, others, through verbs of the present. In the second he reduces the aforesaid controversy to a concordance, at the place: But lest such great authorities should seem to contradict one another in so great a matter. In the third, through the words of Hilary, he confirms his response, lest he should seem to lean on the sayings of Origen, at the place: Hilary also says, that the Son is born of the Father etc. In the fourth he concludes summarily what must be said4, that is, how one ought to speak and also how one ought to think concerning eternal generation, at the place: Let us therefore say that the Son was born of the Father, where he confirms the truth by the authority of Hilary, through which also he resolves the objection of the heretic.
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
For an understanding of what the Master says concerning eternal generation, in the present distinction four [matters] are principally inquired into.
First, it is asked whether generation is to be posited in divine things.
Secondly, given that it is, whether generation in divine things is5 distinctive of the persons.
Thirdly, it is asked whether that generation is eternal.
Fourthly and lastly, it is asked whether that generation is terminated.
---
- Ed. 1 particulas.Edition 1 [reads] particulas ["little parts," for partes].
- 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 request of the manuscripts and edition 1, we have substituted imperscrutabile in place of inscrutabile. Shortly afterward the Vatican [edition], against the manuscripts and edition 1, the Master's words Hic quaeri potest etc. having been omitted, places Similiter in place of Haec est, and then, on account 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, as I together with edition 1, [reads] here verbum, but shortly afterward most of the codices, not being consistent with themselves, [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 edition 4, we have here added sit, which the Vatican [edition] places below after sentiendum.
- Auctoritate plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 expunximus hic additum ponenda.On the authority of most manuscripts and edition 1, we have here expunged the added ponenda.