Dist. 5, Divisio Textus
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 5
## Commentarius in Distinctionem V
De modo unionis duarum naturarum secundum fidei assertionem.
Praeterea inquiri oportet, cum ex praedictis etc.
DIVISIO TEXTUS.
Supra egit Magister de mysterio incarnationis quantum ad veram unionem naturarum. In hac parte intendit inquirere uniendi modum. Et quoniam dupliciter contingit procedere inquirendo, aut secundum fidei stabilitatem, aut secundum opinionis probabilitatem; ideo pars ista habet duas partes. In prima enim determinat de modo unionis illarum duarum naturarum secundum fidei assertionem, ostendens, quod illa unio est in persona. In secunda vero determinat secundum diversorum doctorum opinionem, infra1: Ex praemissis autem emergit quaestio.
Prima pars continet praesentem distinctionem, quae dividitur in duas partes. In prima movet Magister multiplicem quaestionem circa unionem duarum naturarum in persona, sive circa assumtionem humanae naturae a divina. In secunda vero determinat2, ibi: Haec inquisitio sive inquirendi ratio etc.
Prima pars remanet indivisa, sed secunda pars dividitur in tres partes. In quarum prima Magister determinat quaestionem principalem. In secunda vero quaestionem incidentem determinat, ibi: Sed quaeritur, utrum eadem divina natura etc. In tertia vero regreditur ad principalis quaestionis explanationem, ibi: Ideo vero non personam hominis etc.
Prima pars dividitur in duas partes. In quarum prima respondet ad quaestionem propositam secundum triplicem eius articulum, et perplexitatem ostendit esse quartum3 articulum propter apparentem contrarietatem auctoritatum. In secunda vero auctoritates, quae videntur esse contrariae, reducit ad intellectum, concordiam et veritatem, ibi: Nos vero omnis mendacii etc.
Secunda vero pars principalis, ubi determinat quaestionem incidentem, duas habet partes. In prima determinat primam4 dubitationem. In secunda solvit quandam sophisticam rationem, ibi: Ex praemissis constat.
Similiter et tertia pars principalis, in qua solutionem principalem explanat, habet duas partes. In quarum prima praehabitam solutionem confirmat per rationem. In secunda vero dissolvit oppositiones, quae ipsam videntur impugnare, ibi: Hic a quibusdam opponitur, quod persona assumserit personam etc. Subdivisiones partium in littera manifestae sunt. — Intellectus autem generalis versatur circa assumtionem humanae naturae a divina in unitatem personae, tam ex parte assumentis quam ex parte naturae assumtae.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidit hic quaestio circa assumtionem humanae naturae a divina. Et versatur hic quaestio circa duo principaliter.
Primo quaeritur de ipsa assumtione ex parte assumentis.
Secundo vero quaeritur ex parte assumti.
Circa primum quaeruntur quinque.
Primo quaeritur, utrum assumere sit actus conveniens divinae naturae.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum sit actus conveniens divinae personae.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum conveniat personae per se, an ratione naturae.
Quarto quaeritur, utrum conveniat naturae, abstracta omni persona.
Quinto quaeritur, utrum haec sit concedenda: divina natura est caro facta.
---
## Commentary on Distinction V
On the mode of the union of the two natures according to the assertion of the faith.
Moreover it must be inquired, since from what has been said before, etc.
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
Above the Master treated of the mystery of the incarnation as regards the true union of the natures. In this part he intends to inquire into the mode of uniting. And since one can proceed in inquiring in two ways, either according to the stability of the faith or according to the probability of opinion, therefore this part has two parts. For in the first he determines about the mode of the union of those two natures according to the assertion of the faith, showing that this union is in the person. In the second, however, he determines according to the opinion of the various doctors, below1: But from the premises a question emerges.
The first part contains the present distinction, which is divided into two parts. In the first the Master raises a manifold question concerning the union of the two natures in the person, or concerning the assumption of the human nature by the divine. In the second, however, he determines2, where: This inquiry, or the manner of inquiring, etc.
The first part remains undivided, but the second part is divided into three parts. In the first of these the Master determines the principal question. In the second, however, he determines the incidental question, there: But it is asked whether the same divine nature, etc. In the third, however, he returns to the explanation of the principal question, there: But therefore not the person of the man, etc.
The first part is divided into two parts. In the first of these he answers the question proposed according to its threefold article, and shows the perplexity to be a fourth3 article on account of the apparent contrariety of the authorities. In the second, however, he reduces the authorities which seem to be contrary to [right] understanding, concord, and truth, there: But we, [free] of all falsehood, etc.
The second principal part, where he determines the incidental question, has two parts. In the first he determines the first4 doubt. In the second he resolves a certain sophistical argument, there: From the premises it is established.
Likewise also the third principal part, in which he explains the principal solution, has two parts. In the first of these he confirms the foregoing solution by reason. In the second, however, he dissolves the objections which seem to attack it, there: Here by some it is objected that the person assumed a person, etc. The subdivisions of the parts are manifest in the text. — Now the general understanding turns on the assumption of the human nature by the divine into the unity of the person, both on the part of the assuming and on the part of the assumed nature.
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
Now for the understanding of this part a question arises here concerning the assumption of the human nature by the divine. And here the question turns principally on two things.
First it is asked about the assumption itself on the part of the one assuming.
Second, however, it is asked on the part of the thing assumed.
Concerning the first, five things are asked.
First it is asked whether to assume is an act befitting the divine nature.
Second it is asked whether it is an act befitting the divine person.
Third it is asked whether it befits the person in itself, or by reason of the nature.
Fourth it is asked whether it befits the nature, with every person abstracted.
Fifth it is asked whether this is to be conceded: the divine nature is made flesh.
---
- Scil., ut etiam in codd. F K Z habetur, infra dist. 6, pro quo edd. exhibent sequenti distinctione.That is, as it is also found in codices F K Z, "below, distinction 6," for which the editions present "in the following distinction."
- Edd. verbo determinat praefigunt eam.The editions prefix eam ("it") to the word determinat ("determines").
- Vat. cum aliquibus codd. voci quartum praemittit circa.The Vatican edition, with some codices, prefixes circa ("concerning") to the word quartum ("fourth").
- Edd. et nonnulli codd. omittunt primam.The editions and several codices omit primam ("first").