Dist. 4, Divisio Textus
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 4
## Commentarius in Distinctionem IV
Quaestiones ex comparatione generationis ad terminum essentialem concretum, ut nomen Deus.
«Hic oritur quaestio satis necessaria» etc.
Divisio Textus
In praecedenti distinctione probavit Magister Trinitatem et Unitatem per similitudines congruas et rationes. In praesenti distinctione ponitur secunda pars, in qua solvit incidentes dubitationes. Et incidit dubitatio ex hoc, quod in divinis est trinitas et unitas, et ita aliquid distinguens et distinctum, aliquid indistinctum, ut termini substantiales. Incidit ergo dubitatio ex comparatione proprietatis distinguentis ad terminum substantialem. Habet autem haec pars duas. In prima movet dubitationem ex comparatione proprietatis distinguentis ad substantiam vel essentiam; in secunda ad eius potentiam, infra distinctione sexta: Praeterea quaeri solet.
Item prima pars habet duas, quia substantia potest significari in concretione, ut per hoc nomen Deus, vel in abstractione, ut per hoc nomen essentia. Primo ergo movet quaestionem ex comparatione generationis ad hoc nomen Deus, secundo, ad hoc nomen essentia, infra distinctione quinta: Post haec quaeritur, utrum concedendum sit etc.
Haec autem distinctio habet quatuor particulas et hoc secundum quatuor, quae ibi tanguntur. In prima, supposito quod haec sit vera: Deus genuit Deum, quaeritur de hac: Genuit se vel alium, ad quam solvit interimendo. In secunda quaerit de hac: Genuit Deum, qui est Deus Pater, vel qui non est Deus Pater, et ad hoc solvit distinguendo ex parte praedicati, et hoc ibi: Sed adhuc opponunt. In tertia quaerit de hac: Deus est Trinitas, et probat multis auctoritatibus, quod est vera, et hoc occasione praedictorum, ibi: Quidam tamen veritatis adversarii. In quarta ad suum propositum redit, scilicet ad primo quaesitum1; ad primum videlicet2 addens primae solutioni, quod quamvis non sit concedendum: Genuit se, vel alium divisim, tamen potest concedi coniunctim, ibi: Nunc ad praemissam quaestionem.
Tractatio Quaestionum
Ad intelligentiam eorum quae tangit Magister in praesenti distinctione, quatuor quaeruntur.
Primo, utrum haec locutio sit concedenda in divinis: Deus genuit Deum.
Secundo, utrum unitas essentiae admittat hanc locutionem: Deus genuit alium Deum, vel Deus est alius a Deo.
Tertio quaeritur de consignificatione3 huius nominis Deus, utrum videlicet grammatice possimus dicere plures deos.
Quarto et ultimo quaeritur de suppositione istius nominis Deus, utrum supponat pro persona vel pro essentia.
---
## Commentary on Distinction IV
Questions arising from the comparison of generation to the concrete essential term — as the name "God."
"Here a sufficiently necessary question arises" etc.
Division of the Text
In the preceding distinction the Master proved the Trinity and the Unity through fitting likenesses and arguments. In the present distinction the second part is set forth, in which he resolves the emerging doubts. And the doubt arises from this — that in God there is trinity and unity, and so something distinguishing and distinguished, something undistinguished, as the substantial terms. The doubt therefore arises from the comparison of the distinguishing property to the substantial term. This part has two [sub-parts]. In the first he raises the doubt from the comparison of the distinguishing property to the substance or essence; in the second, to its power, below at Distinction VI: "Moreover it is usually asked."
Again, the first part has two [sub-parts], because substance can be signified concretely — as by the name God — or abstractly — as by the name essence. First, therefore, he raises the question from the comparison of generation to the name God; second, to the name essence, below at Distinction V: "Next it is asked whether it is to be conceded" etc.
This distinction has four particles, corresponding to the four things treated in it. In the first, supposing that God begot God is true, he asks about Did He beget Himself or another? — which he resolves by rejecting both. In the second he asks about He begot God who is God the Father, or who is not God the Father, and resolves it by distinguishing on the side of the predicate — at: "But the objectors still object." In the third he asks about God is Trinity, and proves by many authorities that it is true, occasioned by the preceding, at: "Some adversaries of truth, nevertheless." In the fourth he returns to his own point — namely to what was first asked1 — adding to the first solution2, that although He begot Himself or another is not to be conceded disjunctively, it can be conceded conjunctively, at: "Now let us return to the question set forth above."
Treatment of the Questions
For the understanding of what the Master treats in the present distinction, four questions are asked.
First: whether this expression is to be conceded in divine things: God begot God.
Second: whether the unity of essence admits this expression: God begot another God, or God is other than God.
Third3: concerning the consignification of the name God — namely, whether grammatically we can say several gods.
Fourth and finally: concerning the supposition of the name God — whether it supposits for a person or for the essence.
---
- Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 omittit id.The Vatican ed., against the mss. and ed. 1, omits id.
- Codd. et ed. 1 contra Vat. addunt ad primum videlicet.The codices and ed. 1, against the Vatican ed., add ad primum videlicet («namely to the first»).
- Auctoritate plurimorum mss. ut A F G K T etc. et ed. 1 substituimus consignificatione pro significatione et Deus loco Dii, ac mox istius pro illius.On the authority of most mss. (A F G K T etc.) and ed. 1 we have substituted consignificatione for significatione, and Deus in place of Dii; and next, istius for illius.