Dist. 27, Part 1, Divisio Textus
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/1/d/27/q/bon-sent-I-d27-p1-divisio
----------------------------------------
## Commentary on Distinction XXVII.

### Part I.

#### *On the properties of the persons, insofar as they are expressed through more usual terms.*

> *"Here it can be asked whether the properties..."*

### Division of the text.

Above, the Master assigned the personal properties; here, in the second place, he treats of these properties themselves, according as they are expressed through different terms. And since it happens that they are expressed through more usual and less usual terms, therefore this part has two divisions. In the first he treats of the expression of the properties through more usual terms; in the second, through less usual terms, below in the same distinction: *"Here it must not be passed over."*

The first part has four [subdivisions]. For since Hilary and Augustine assign the properties with different terms, yet each with customary ones — because one, namely Augustine, [does so] *through to-beget and to-be-begotten*, and the other, namely Hilary, *through to-be-the-Father and to-be-the-Son* — therefore the Master first asks whether the properties assigned by each are the same. Secondly he resolves [the question], showing that they are the same, there: *"To which, without prejudice to others."* Thirdly, lest anyone should believe that they are altogether the same, he shows that they are the same in reality, but differ as to the mode of signifying, namely in concretion and in abstraction, there: *"Yet it does not seem to us altogether the same."* Fourthly indeed, because he had said that the properties are signified in concretion, since it might be asked: in respect of what? he shows that [it is] in respect of the hypostases, there: *"For those properties, taken singly, [are assigned] to the singulars."*

### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of this part, four [questions] are asked.

First it is asked whether *to-be-the-Father* and *to-beget* is one notion.

Secondly it is asked which of them is the formal account of the other.

Thirdly, whether the properties can be abstracted.

Fourthly, whether it is permitted to hold contrary opinions concerning them.

---