Dist. 7, 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/7/q/bon-sent-I-d7-divisio
----------------------------------------
# COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VII.

*On the comparison of the power of generating with respect to the person.*

Here it is wont to be asked, whether the Father could or willed etc.

## DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

In the present distinction the Master sets out a doubt arising from the comparison of the power of generating to the person, namely whether, as it is in the person of the Father, so also it is in the person of the Son. And this part has two [sections]: in the first the Master asks and determines whether the Son can generate; in the second, whether the power of generating is in the Son, there: *Likewise it is asked by some, whether the Father is able etc.*

Likewise the first part has four particles. In the first he raises the question, whether to be able and to will

to generate are similarly compared to the person of the Father and of the Son. Secondly, he objects against the solution by the authority of Augustine, there: *But it greatly disturbs us, that Augustine etc.* Thirdly, he objects against the aforesaid authority by reason, there: *But this does not seem [right] to certain men.* Fourthly, he returns to the authority, expounding it, there: *How then is what was said above to be taken.*

*Likewise it is asked by some, if the Father etc.* This is the second part of this distinction, in which the Master asks whether the power of generating is in the Son, and this part has two particles. First, he asks and determines this question, whether there is any power in the Father which is not in the Son. For if the Father is by nature able to generate the Son, and the Son is not, it is plain etc. And to this question the Master responds that the power in the Father and in the Son is altogether the same. But because this was doubtful, therefore he objects against the aforesaid solution and determines [it] by a distinction. Secondly, he responds to the first question by distinguishing, namely whether the Son has the power of generating, there: *So also when it is said, The Son does not have etc.* For if it be understood actively, the understanding is false, namely that the Son can generate. But if it be understood passively, namely that he has the power by which he can be generated, it is true. And this distinction is founded, according to some, upon this, that the [particle] *generandi* can be understood in a passive signification, or in an active. If in the passive, then it is true; and the sense is: the Son has the power of generating, that is, the power by which he is generated. If in the active, this can be in two ways, because it can be the gerund of a personal verb, and then it has a determinate supposit and is false; for the sense is: *the Son has etc.* that is, the Son has the power by which the Son himself generates; or [it can be] impersonal; and then it does not have a fixed supposit and is a true expression; for the sense is: the Son has the power of generating, that is, has the power by which someone generates, yet the Master does not put forward this sense.

## TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the elucidation of those things which the Master says about the power of generating, four [questions] are asked.

*First* it is asked, whether to be able to generate in divine [matters] expresses *something* [absolute] or *something relative* [literally: in relation to something].

*Secondly*, whether the Father communicates to the Son the power of generating, that is, whether in the Son there is a power of generating.

*Thirdly*, whether to be able to generate and to create is one single power, or not.

*Fourthly*, whether to be able to be generated and to be created is a univocal power.

---