Dist. 7, Divisio Textus
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 7
## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VII.
Explicantur ambiguae locutiones.
Secundum primam vero dicitur Deus factus etc.
DIVISIO TEXTUS.
Supra narravit Magister multorum opiniones. In hac parte applicat ad principale propositum, videlicet ad explicandas ambiguas locutiones. Dividitur autem pars ista in partes tres secundum illas tres opiniones. In quarum prima explicat locutiones ambiguas secundum opinionem primam. In secunda vero secundum opinionem secundam, ibi: In secunda vero sententia huius traditionis. In tertia vero secundum tertiam, ibi: In hac igitur sententia sic dicitur: Deus factus homo etc.
Prima pars dividitur in duas. In quarum prima iuxta primam sententiam ambiguas locutiones exponit. In secunda vero ea quae praedictae opinioni videntur contraria, dissolvit, ibi: Huic autem sententiae opponitur.
Secunda vero pars principalis dividitur in partes tres. In quarum prima locutiones praemissas explanat. In secunda vero auctoritates prius positas explanat, ibi: Determinant autem auctoritates, quae primae1 etc. In tertia vero alias auctoritates, quae videntur adversari, reducit ad concordiam, ibi: Sed his videntur adversari etc. Et illa pars in multas posset dividi partes secundum multas auctoritates, sicut in littera patet.
Similiter tertia pars principalis dividitur in partes tres. In quarum prima explicat locutiones praemissas secundum tertiam sententiam. In secunda vero elicit ex praemissis, quandam aliam1b locutionem non esse recipiendam, ibi: Et licet dicatur homo Deus etc. In tertia vero et ultima ostendit, se in praecedentibus opinionibus suspensam tenuisse sententiam, ita quod ad nullam praedictarum opinionum declinaverit magis quam ad alteram, ibi: Satis diligenter iuxta diversorum sententias etc. — Et ex hoc patet, quod non est imponendum Magistro, quod fuerit ex opinione tertia2b.
PRAENOTATA.
Nota igitur, quod in tota parte ista has duas locutiones explanat: homo factus est Deus; et: Christus praedestinatus est esse Filius Dei.
Prima enim opinio concedit, quod Deus factus est homo, et e converso; quia homo in Christo est quaedam substantia3b, quae coepit esse Deus per gratiam. — Secunda vero opinio concedit, quod Deus factus est homo, et e converso; quia Deus coepit esse subsistens in duabus naturis, et ex hoc factum est, ut subsistens in duabus naturis sit Deus. — Secundum tertiam opinionem dicitur: Deus factus est homo, et e converso; quia Deus accepit hominem, et ex hoc factum est, quod habens4b hominem est Deus.
Similiter prima opinio concedit, quod Christus praedestinatus est esse Filius Dei; quia ille homo est Filius Dei non per naturam, sed per gratiam, et hoc quidem ab aeterno fuit praevisum. — Secunda vero opinio dicit, quod Christus est praedestinatus esse Filius Dei; quia persona illa, in quantum homo, id est in quantum subsistens in duabus naturis, scilicet anima et carne, praedestinatus est, et ita ratione humanitatis, non divinitatis. — Tertia vero opinio dicit, quod Christus, secundum quod homo, est praedestinatus, non quia homo ille sit praedestinatus, nec quia persona illa subsistens in duabus naturis sit praedestinata, sed quia quod praedestinatum est ei ab aeterno collatum est ei in tempore per gratiam; non enim humanitatem habuit5b ab aeterno, sed per gratiam accepit ex tempore, secundum quod Deus praeviderat aeternaliter.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidit hic quaestio circa duo secundum duo genera locutionum, quae in littera exponuntur.
Primo quaeritur de locutionibus exprimentibus ipsam unionem.
Secundo quaeritur de locutionibus exprimentibus unionis praedestinationem.
Circa primum quaeruntur tria.
Primo quaeritur de hac locutione: Deus est homo, et homo est Deus.
Secundo vero quaeritur de hac: Deus factus est homo.
Tertio quaeritur de hac: homo factus est Deus.
---
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VII.
The ambiguous locutions are explained.
But according to the first it is said that God was made etc.
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
Above the Master related the opinions of many. In this part he applies [them] to the principal proposition, namely to explaining the ambiguous locutions. Now this part is divided into three parts according to those three opinions. In the first of these he explains the ambiguous locutions according to the first opinion. But in the second according to the second opinion, there: But in the second [account] of this tradition. But in the third according to the third, there: In this account therefore it is said thus: God made man etc.
The first part is divided into two. In the first of these he sets forth the ambiguous locutions according to the first account. But in the second he resolves those things which seem contrary to the aforesaid opinion, there: But against this account it is objected.
But the second principal part is divided into three parts. In the first of these he explains the locutions set forth earlier. But in the second he explains the authorities set down before, there: But the authorities determine, which first1 etc. But in the third he reduces to concord the other authorities which seem to be adverse, there: But to these [authorities] some seem to be adverse etc. And that part could be divided into many parts according to the many authorities, as is plain in the text.
Likewise the third principal part is divided into three parts. In the first of these he explains the locutions set forth according to the third account. But in the second he draws out from the foregoing that a certain other1b locution is not to be received, there: And although man be called God etc. But in the third and last he shows that he held his judgment in suspense among the preceding opinions, in such a way that he inclined to none of the aforesaid opinions more than to another, there: Diligently enough, according to the judgments of various men etc. — And from this it is plain that it is not to be imputed to the Master that he was of the third opinion2b.
PREFATORY REMARKS.
Note therefore that in this whole part he explains these two locutions: man was made God; and: Christ was predestined to be the Son of God.
For the first opinion concedes that God was made man, and conversely; because the man in Christ is a certain substance3b, which began to be God by grace. — But the second opinion concedes that God was made man, and conversely; because God began to be subsisting in two natures, and from this it came about that the one subsisting in two natures is God. — According to the third opinion it is said: God was made man, and conversely; because God took a man, and from this it came about that the one having4b a man is God.
Likewise the first opinion concedes that Christ was predestined to be the Son of God; because that man is the Son of God not by nature, but by grace, and this indeed was foreseen from eternity. — But the second opinion says that Christ is predestined to be the Son of God; because that person, insofar as he is man, that is, insofar as he is subsisting in two natures, namely soul and flesh, is predestined, and so by reason of the humanity, not of the divinity. — But the third opinion says that Christ, insofar as he is man, is predestined, not because that man is predestined, nor because that person subsisting in two natures is predestined, but because what was predestined for him from eternity was conferred on him in time by grace; for he did not have5b the humanity from eternity, but received [it] by grace from time, according as God had foreseen eternally.
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
But for the understanding of this part a question falls here concerning two things according to the two kinds of locutions which are set forth in the text.
First it is asked concerning the locutions expressing the union itself.
Secondly it is asked concerning the locutions expressing the predestination of the union.
Concerning the first, three things are asked.
First it is asked concerning this locution: God is man, and man is God.
But secondly it is asked concerning this: God was made man.
Thirdly it is asked concerning this: man was made God.
---
- Codd. praemissae. Paulo inferius Vat. omittit secundum multas auctoritates.The codices [read] praemissae [premised]. A little below the Vatican edition omits secundum multas auctoritates [according to the many authorities].
- Cod. K ambiguam.Codex K [reads] ambiguam [ambiguous].
- Cfr. supra d. 6. dub. 2.Cf. above, distinction 6, doubt 2.
- Edd. et nonnulli codd. addunt per naturam.The editions and some codices add per naturam [by nature].
- Pro quod habens edd. quod secundum hunc.For quod habens [that the one having] the editions [read] quod secundum hunc [that according to this one].
- Ita codd. Q U (K a secunda manu); in reliquis et edd. minus congrue hominis. Mox pro aeternaliter cod. A ab aeterno.So codices Q U (K by a second hand); in the others and the editions, less fittingly, hominis [of the man]. Soon after, for aeternaliter [eternally] codex A [reads] ab aeterno [from eternity]. ---