Dist. 5, 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/5/q/bon-sent-I-d5-divisio
----------------------------------------
## Commentary on Distinction V

*On the comparison of generation to the abstract essential term, which is essence.*

> *"After these things it is asked whether it must be conceded"* etc.

### Division of the Text

In the preceding distinction the Master raised the question of the comparison of generation to the *concrete* essential term — such as the name *God*. In the present distinction he raises the question of the comparison of generation to the *abstract* essential term — which is *essence*. And this part is divided into two sub-parts.

In the *first sub-part* he raises the question from the comparison of generation to essence in the account of *term* — namely, whether essence is begotten; in the *second*, in the account of *principle* — whether essence begets, etc., at: *"Likewise, it must not be said that the divine essence begot the Son"* etc.

Likewise, the first sub-part has four sections. In the *first* section he proposes the problems — namely, whether essence begets or is begotten. In the *second* he brings forward three reasons proving that essence is not begotten by the Father, at: *"Therefore it must not be said that the Father begot..."* etc. In the *third* he brings forward reasons to the contrary, at: *"But this seems contrary..."* etc. In the *fourth and last* he resolves and explains, at: *"To which we respond."*

*Likewise, it must not be said*. This is the second sub-part of this distinction, in which the Master determines the second part of the question, which is on the comparison of generation to essence in the account of *principle*; and this sub-part has three sections. In the *first* he determines this question, saying that essence does not generate; and this he confirms by a reasoning leading to an impossibility. In the *second* he brings forward authorities which are directly contrary to the said solution, at: *"To the foregoing things there seems to be a contrary."* In the *third* he brings forward authorities from which a contrariety can be elicited, at: *"It is also said — and frequently"* etc.

Likewise, the second section has four sub-sections. In the *first* sub-section he brings forward Augustinian authorities contrary to the said solution. In the *second* he expounds the authorities adduced, at: *"But these we so determine."* In the *third* he brings forward, against the said expositions, other Hilarian authorities in which a more express contrariety is noted, at: *"To this also a contrary seems to be."* In the *fourth* he explains the said authorities and confirms his explanation by the words of Hilary, at: *"But because these words he indeed wishes [to be understood]."*

*It is also said — and frequently is read in sacred Scripture.* This is the third section, in which he objects against the solution by means of authorities from which a contrariety to the said solution is elicited — because in these it is not said that essence generates or is generated, but that the Son is generated *from* the essence or substance of the Father — and this section has four particulars. In the *first* he brings forward authorities to the contrary. In the *second* he explains the things adduced, at: *"With these words premised it is intimated"*; where he resumes the said exposition. In the *third* he elicits a certain corollary from the foregoing opinion, at: *"It is also shown from those words"* etc. In the *fourth and last* he returns to the proposition and shows that his exposition is good, by the authority of Augustine, at: *"And that it must be so understood"* etc.

### Treatment of the Questions

In this part, for the understanding of the two principal sub-parts of this distinction, two principal questions are asked.

*First* it is asked about the comparison of generation to substance or essence in the account of *principle*.

*Second* it is asked about the comparison of the same in the account of *term*.

And two questions are asked under the first, and two under the second.

Under the first it is asked:

*First*, whether substance or essence generates.

*Second*, whether anyone is generated from the substance.

---