Dist. 4, 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/4/q/bon-sent-I-d4-divisio
----------------------------------------
### Division of the Text.

In the preceding distinction the Master proved the Trinity and Unity by congruous likenesses and reasons. In the present distinction the second part is set down, in which he resolves incidental doubts. And a doubt arises from this, that in divine matters there is trinity and unity, and thus something distinguishing and distinct, and something indistinct, as the substantial terms. Therefore a doubt arises from the comparison of the distinguishing property to the substantial term. Now this part has two [sections]. In the first he raises a doubt from the comparison of the distinguishing property to the substance or essence; in the second, to its power, below in the sixth distinction: *Furthermore it is wont to be asked*.

Likewise the first part has two [sections], because substance can be signified in the concrete, as by this name *God*, or in the abstract, as by this name *essence*. First, therefore, he raises a question from the comparison of generation to this name *God*; secondly, to this name *essence*, below in the fifth distinction: *After these things it is asked, whether it is to be granted etc.*

Now this distinction has four particles, and this according to the four [points] which are touched on there. In the first, supposing that this is true: *God begot God*, it is asked concerning this: *He begot himself or another*, to which he resolves by ruling out. In the second he inquires concerning this: *He begot God, who is God the Father, or who is not God the Father*, and to this he resolves by distinguishing on the side of the predicate, and this in the place: *But still they object*. In the third he inquires concerning this: *God is Trinity*, and he proves by many authorities that it is true, and this on the occasion of the foregoing, in the place: *Yet certain adversaries of the truth*. In the fourth he returns to his own proposition, namely to what was first asked; to the first, that is to say, adding to the first solution, that although it is not to be granted: *He begot himself, or another, dividedly*, nevertheless it can be granted conjointly, in the place: *Now to the foregoing question*.

### Treatment of the Questions.

For an understanding of those things which the Master touches upon in the present distinction, four [questions] are asked.

First, whether this locution is to be granted in divine matters: *God begot God*.

Second, whether the unity of essence admits this locution: *God begot another God*, or *God is another from God*.

Third, it is asked concerning the consignification of this name *God*, namely whether grammatically we can say several gods.

Fourth and last, it is asked concerning the supposition of this name *God*, whether it supposits for a person or for the essence.

---