Dist. 7, Divisio Textus
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 7
## Commentarius in Distinctionem VII
De comparatione potentiae generandi ad personam.
«Hic solet quaeri, utrum Pater potuerit vel voluerit» etc.
Divisio Textus
In praesenti distinctione ponit Magister dubitationem ex comparatione potentiae generandi1 ad personam, utrum scilicet, sicut est in persona Patris, ita sit in persona Filii. Et habet haec pars duas: in prima Magister quaerit et determinat, utrum Filius possit generare; in secunda, utrum potentia generandi sit in Filio, ibi: Item quaeritur a quibusdam, si Pater potens sit etc.
Item prima pars habet quatuor particulas. In prima movet quaestionem, utrum posse et velle generare similiter comparentur ad personam Patris et Filii. Secundo, opponit contra solutionem per auctoritatem Augustini, ibi: Sed vehementer nos movet, quod Augustinus etc. Tertio, opponit contra praedictam auctoritatem per rationem, ibi: Hoc autem non videtur quibusdam. Quarto, redit supra auctoritatem, exponens ipsam, ibi: Quomodo ergo accipitur quod supra dictum est.
Haec est secunda pars huius distinctionis, in qua quaerit Magister, utrum potentia generandi sit in Filio, et haec pars habet duas particulas. Primo, quaerit et determinat hanc quaestionem, utrum aliqua potentia sit in Patre, quae non sit in Filio. Ad quam quaestionem respondet Magister, quod omnino eadem est potentia in Patre et Filio. Sed quia hoc erat dubium, ideo opponit contra praedictam solutionem et determinat per distinctionem. Secundo, respondet ad primam quaestionem distinguendo, utrum scilicet Filius habeat potentiam generandi, ibi: Ita etiam cum dicitur, Filius non habet etc. Si enim intelligatur active, falsus est intellectus, scilicet quod Filius possit generare. Si vero intelligatur passive, scilicet quod habeat potentiam, qua possit generari, vera est2.
Tractatio Quaestionum
Ad evidentiam eorum quae dicit Magister de potentia generandi, quatuor quaeruntur.
Primo quaeritur, utrum posse generare in divinis dicat quid vel ad aliquid.
Secundo, utrum Pater communicet Filio potentiam generandi, id est, utrum in Filio sit potentia generandi.
Tertio, utrum posse generare et posse creare sit unicum posse, vel non.
Quarto, utrum posse generari et posse creari sit posse univocum.
---
## Commentary on Distinction VII
On the comparison of the power of begetting to the person.
"It is customarily asked whether the Father could or willed" etc.
Division of the Text
In the present distinction the Master poses a doubt from the comparison of the power of begetting1 to the person — whether, namely, just as it is in the person of the Father, so it is in the person of the Son. This part has two sub-parts: in the first the Master asks and determines whether the Son can beget; in the second, whether the power of begetting is in the Son, at: "Likewise it is asked by some, if the Father is powerful" etc.
Likewise, the first sub-part has four particles. In the first he raises the question whether to be able and to will to beget relate similarly to the person of the Father and of the Son. Second, he objects against the solution by the authority of Augustine, at: "But what Augustine says moves us greatly" etc. Third, he objects against the said authority by reason, at: "This, however, does not seem to some." Fourth, he returns to the authority, explaining it, at: "How then are we to understand what was said above."
This is the second sub-part of this distinction, in which the Master asks whether the power of begetting is in the Son; it has two particles. First, he asks and determines this question, whether there is any power in the Father that is not in the Son. To this question the Master responds that the power in the Father and the Son is entirely the same. But since this was doubtful, he objects against the solution and determines by distinction. Second, he responds to the first question by distinguishing: namely, whether the Son has the power of begetting. If taken actively, the sense is false — that the Son can beget. But if taken passively — that He has the power by which He can be begotten — it is true2.
Treatment of the Questions
For the understanding of what the Master says about the power of begetting, four questions are asked.
First: whether to be able to beget in God signifies something (quid) or in relation to something (ad aliquid).
Second: whether the Father communicates to the Son the power of begetting — that is, whether the power of begetting is in the Son.
Third: whether to be able to beget and to be able to create is one and the same being-able, or not.
Fourth: whether to be able to be begotten and to be able to be created is a univocal being-able.
---
- Cfr. supra d. 6, Divisio textus, ubi distinctio inter actum generandi et potentiam generandi iam adnotata est, et infra in qq. articuli unici huius distinctionis fusius tractabitur.Cf. above d. 6, Divisio textus, where the distinction between the act of generating and the power of generating has already been noted, and below in the questions of the unique article of this distinction it will be more fully treated.
- De distinctione active / passive in praedicatione potentiae generandi cfr. infra a. unic., q. 2 huius distinctionis (utrum potentia generandi sit in Filio).On the distinction active / passive in the predication of the power of generating, cf. below a. unic., q. 2 of this distinction (whether the power of generating is in the Son).