Dist. 23, Divisio Textus
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 23
COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIII.
De primae tentationis permissione ex parte Dei.
Praeterea quaeri solet, cur Deus hominem etc.
DIVISIO TEXTUS.
Supra egit Magister de lapsu primorum parentum in comparatione ad diabolum tentantem et hominem transgredientem; in hac parte agit de lapsu primorum parentum in comparatione ad Deum permittentem. Et quia non est aequum permittere, aliquem inscium ab astuto circumveniri; ideo, ut ostendatur prima permissio esse iusta1, pars ista duas habet. In prima determinat, cur Deus hominem tentari permisit. In secunda vero determinat, quantum et qualem cognitionis habitum ei dedit, ibi: Et quidem secundum animam etc.
Prima parte remanente indivisa, secunda dividitur in duas2 partes. In prima determinat, qualiter homo cognitionem habuit, utrum per disciplinam et studium, an per divinum donum. In secunda vero determinat, quorum cognitionem habuit, ibi: Fuitque primus homo ante lapsum triplici cognitione praeditus. Et illa pars habet tres. In prima determinat, qualem cognitionem habuit de rebus creatis3. In secunda, qualem cognitionem habuit de Deo, ibi: Cognitionem quoque Creatoris etc. In tertia, qualem cognitionem habuit de se ipso, ibi: Porro sui cognitionem etc.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad intelligentiam huius partis circa duo incidit hic quaestio secundum duo, circa quae principaliter versatur totalis distinctionis intentio.
Primo quaeritur de primae tentationis permissione.
Secundo quaeritur de primorum parentum cognitione.
Circa primum quaeruntur tria.
Primo quaeritur, utrum Deus debuerit hominem facere inexpugnabilem, an talem, quod4 posset expugnari.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum hominem, quem praesciebat expugnandum, debuerit permittere per tentationem impugnari.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum tentationis pugna a viris iustis debeat desiderari.
---
COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXIII.
On the permission of the first temptation on the part of God.
Furthermore it is wont to be asked why God [permitted] man etc.
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
Above the Master treated of the fall of the first parents in their relation to the devil who tempts and to man who transgresses; in this part he treats of the fall of the first parents in their relation to God who permits. And because it is not equitable to permit that one who is unaware should be circumvented by a crafty one, therefore, in order that it may be shown that the first permission was just1, this part has two [sections]. In the first he determines why God permitted man to be tempted. In the second he determines how much and what sort of habit of knowledge he gave him, at the place: And indeed according to the soul etc.
The first part remaining undivided, the second is divided into two2 parts. In the first he determines in what manner man had knowledge — whether through teaching and study, or through a divine gift. In the second he determines of what things he had knowledge, at: And the first man before the fall was endowed with a threefold knowledge. And that part has three [sections]. In the first he determines what sort of knowledge he had of created things3. In the second, what sort of knowledge he had of God, at: Likewise the knowledge of the Creator etc. In the third, what sort of knowledge he had of himself, at: Further his knowledge of himself etc.
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
For the understanding of this part a question arises here on two heads, according to the two things on which the whole intention of the distinction principally turns.
First it is asked about the permission of the first temptation.
Second it is asked about the knowledge of the first parents.
About the first three things are asked.
First it is asked whether God ought to have made man unconquerable, or such that4 he could be conquered.
Second it is asked whether God ought to have permitted man, whom he foreknew would be conquered, to be assailed through temptation.
Third it is asked whether the struggle of temptation ought to be desired by just men.
---
- In cod. I additur excusat Magister divinam permissionem tum ex ratione permittendi tum, ex collata homini sufficienti scientia praecavendi, unde et.In codex I there is added: the Master excuses the divine permission both from the reason for permitting and from the sufficient knowledge of guarding against [it] conferred on man, whence also.
- Ita cod. cc cum ed. 1; aliae edd. cum codd. perperam tres.Thus codex cc with edition 1; the other editions, together with the codices, wrongly [read] three.
- Nonnulli codd., ut F aa, concreatis, cod. W conditis; plures codd., inter quos I K cc ee, cum edd. 1, 2 contentis.Some codices, such as F and aa, [read] concreatis (concreated); codex W conditis (created); the majority of codices, among them I, K, cc, ee, together with editions 1 and 2, [read] contentis (contained).
- Cod. Y qui; Vat. taliter, quod.Codex Y [reads] qui (who); the Vatican edition taliter, quod (in such a way that). ---