Dist. 28, 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/28/q/bon-sent-I-d28-divisio
----------------------------------------
## Commentary on Distinction XXVIII.

#### *On the non-personal property, which is unbegottenness.*

> *"Furthermore, it must be considered that not only etc."*

### Division of the text.

Above, the Master treated of the properties which are of the persons and personal: here begins the second part, in which he treats of the properties or relations which are non-personal. And this part is divided into two, because a non-personal property is twofold — namely, unbegottenness and common spiration, which is signified by this name *principle*. Therefore he treats first of unbegottenness, second of common spiration, below in the twenty-ninth distinction: *"There is, moreover, another name etc."* The first part has two [subdivisions]. In the first he determines concerning the property of unbegottenness; in the second, since opposites shine forth more clearly when set side by side with their opposites, he touches incidentally on the property of begottenness and of the begotten, below in the same distinction: *"It must also be known, that just as the Son."*

Likewise the first part has four parts. In the first he shows what is the signification of this name *unbegotten* in itself, showing that it is proper to the person of the Father, distinct from paternity, and said according to relation. Second, he determines its signification in an equivalent expression, as in this name *not begotten*, and in this name *unbegettable*, there: *"Therefore it is wont to be asked whether, just as the only etc."* Third, he determines the use of this name, showing that, although it does not arise from Scripture, it is nevertheless permitted to use it — although Ambrose seems to say the contrary, for he does this in order to refute heretics — and this he does there: *"This too must not be passed over in silence."* In the fourth, however, he determines a certain difficulty which arises from what has been previously determined, there: *"Furthermore, it is wont to be asked etc."*

*"It must also be known, that just as only the Son."* This is the second part of this part, in which he incidentally determines concerning the property of the Son, or of the Begotten One; and this has two parts according to the two points which he touches there. For since it had been said above that *wisdom* expresses what is common, *image* what is proper, and therefore — because this could give rise to a difficulty, since we sometimes find the contrary — he therefore first shows that *born* wisdom is properly said of the Son. Second, however, he shows that *image* is sometimes taken essentially, there: *"This too must be known."*

### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of the things said in the present distinction, four [questions] are asked.

First it is asked whether this name *unbegotten* or *unbegettable* is said according to substance or according to relation.

Second, supposing that it is said according to relation, it is asked whether it expresses the same relation which this name *father* expresses.

Third it is asked whether unbegottenness is a property or a personal relation of the person of the Father.

Fourth and lastly it is asked whether unprocessibility expresses any notion in the Father.

---