title: Dist. 5, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 142 -->

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation; **La.** gives the Quaracchi apparatus entry, **En.** its translation.

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

#### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit, quod *nec divinitas aliena erat a natura Patris, nec humanitas a natura Matris.* Sed in Patre et Filio est una divinitas: ergo in Matre et Filio est una humanitas: ergo sicut Pater et Filius sunt unus Deus, ita Mater et Filius unus homo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod non est omnimoda similitudo notanda in verbo praemisso. Nam unitas naturae increatae respectu creaturae, et persona respectu personae, etsi habeant aliquam conformitatem, propter hoc quod creatura est *similis* Creatori[^1] in natura, et persona est *similis* personae; magna tamen est differentia; quia natura divina non multiplicatur in personis, sed natura humana habet multiplicari in diversis personis — unde duo homines duas habent humanitates — et sic non cogit illa ratio, quia in verbo proposito non attenditur omnimoda similitudo[^2].

#### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *In forma Dei erat* etc.; quia *forma* dicit respectum ad informatum, *informatum* autem dicit materiam; Deus autem nullam habet materiam: ergo nec habet formam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *forma* dupliciter dicitur (*Dupliciter forma*): uno modo per *privationem materiae*, et sic Deus est forma; alio modo per *comparationem ad materiam*, quam perficit, et hoc modo Deus non ponitur esse forma. Primo modo intelligitur verbum propositum, secundo modo fit[^3] obiectio. — *Aliter*: Vel aliter: est enim loqui de forma, secundum quod dicit relationem ad informatum secundum *rem*, vel secundum quod dicit habitudinem secundum *modum intelligendi.* Et primo modo obiicit, et secundo modo accipitur in divinis, quia ipsa deitas se habet in ratione formae respectu Dei; nulla tamen est differentia Dei ad suam divinitatem[^4].

#### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *in humanatione Dei Verbi sumus omnem et perfectam naturam deitatis incarnatam esse.* **Sed contra:** Hoc signum *omnem* distribuit pro suppositis[^5]: ergo si tres personae sunt hypostases illius naturae, videtur, quod omnes sint incarnatae. Si tu dicas, quod hoc signum *omnem* non tenetur syncategorematice vel ut signum, sed potius ut adiectivum, et tantum valet *omnem* quantum et *perfectam*; videtur esse nugatio *omnem* et *perfectam.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *omnem* non tenetur ibi *distributive*, sicut dictum est[^6], sed tantum valet
<!-- page 143 -->
dicere *omnem naturam divinitatis*, quantum *perfectam.* Nec est ibi *nugatio*, quia *et* non tenetur ibi copulative, sed expositive, et accipitur *et* pro *id est.* — *Aliter*: Aliter potest dici, quod *omnem* privat vel removet divisionem partis a parte, *perfectam* vero ponit completionem, ita quod sit sensus: divina natura est incarnata in sua perfectione, ita quod non secundum partem et partem; et quod hic intellectus sit verus, haberi potest per litteram sequentem[^1b].

#### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur: *Non sic divina natura dicitur esse homo, vel facta homo, sicut Dei Filius.* Videtur enim falsum, quia *homo* praedicatur de omni eo quod[^2b] praedicatur *Filius Dei*; et haec est vera: divina natura est Filius Dei: ergo haec est vera: divina natura est homo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est praedicatio (*Duplex praedicatio*) per *identitatem* et per *denominationem.* Et praedicatio per *denominationem*, illa magis servat proprietatem praedicationis, quam illa quae est per *identitatem.* Unde haec est magis propria: Filius Dei generatur, quam ista: divinitas est generatio, sicut ostensum fuit in primo libro[^3b]. Et quoniam Filius Dei est suppositum humanae naturae, non sic divina natura; hinc est, quod ista est magis propria: Filius Dei est homo, quam ista: divina natura est homo. Ideo Magister non simpliciter eam negat, sed dicit, quod non est ita propria; nec est ita passim in usum adducenda, pro eo quod ad nimiam expressionem appropinquat[^4b].

---

english:
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

#### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first about what he says, that *neither was the divinity foreign to the nature of the Father, nor the humanity to the nature of the Mother.* But in the Father and the Son there is one divinity: therefore in the Mother and the Son there is one humanity: therefore just as the Father and the Son are one God, so the Mother and the Son are one man.

**I respond:** It must be said that no complete likeness is to be noted in the foregoing statement. For the unity of the uncreated nature in respect of the creature, and of person in respect of person, although they have some conformity, on account of the fact that the creature is *like* the Creator[^1] in nature, and person is *like* person; nevertheless the difference is great; for the divine nature is not multiplied in persons, but human nature is to be multiplied in diverse persons — whence two men have two humanities — and so that reasoning does not compel [the conclusion], because in the statement proposed no complete likeness is intended[^2].

#### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *He was in the form of God,* etc.; because *form* states a respect to that which is informed, and *that which is informed* states matter; but God has no matter: therefore neither does he have a form.

**I respond:** It must be said that *form* is spoken of in two ways (*Form in two ways*): in one way by the *privation of matter*, and thus God is a form; in another way by *comparison to the matter* which it perfects, and in this way God is not held to be a form. In the first way the statement proposed is understood, in the second way the objection arises[^3]. — *Otherwise*: Or otherwise: for there is a way of speaking of form according as it states a relation to that which is informed according to the *thing*, or according as it states a relationship according to the *mode of understanding.* And in the first way it raises the objection, and in the second way it is taken in divine matters, because the deity itself stands in the character of a form in respect of God; yet there is no difference of God to his divinity[^4].

#### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *in the becoming-human of the Word of God we [hold] the whole and perfect nature of the deity to have been incarnate.* **On the contrary:** This sign *whole* distributes for the supposits[^5]: therefore if the three persons are hypostases of that nature, it seems that all are incarnate. If you say that this sign *whole* is not taken syncategorematically or as a sign, but rather as an adjective, and *whole* is worth as much as *perfect*; it seems to be a redundancy [to say] *whole* and *perfect.*

**I respond:** It must be said that *whole* is not taken there *distributively*, as has been said[^6], but is only worth
saying *the whole nature of the divinity*, as much as *perfect.* Nor is there a *redundancy* there, because the *and* is not taken there conjunctively, but expositively, and the *and* is taken for *that is.* — *Otherwise*: It can be said otherwise, that *whole* deprives or removes a division of part from part, while *perfect* posits completion, so that the sense is: the divine nature is incarnate in its perfection, in such a way that [it is] not according to part and part; and that this understanding is true can be had from the text following[^1b].

#### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what is said: *The divine nature is not said to be man, or made man, in the same way as the Son of God.* For it seems false, because *man* is predicated of everything of which[^2b] *Son of God* is predicated; and this is true: the divine nature is the Son of God: therefore this is true: the divine nature is man.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a predication (*Twofold predication*) by *identity* and by *denomination.* And the predication by *denomination* preserves the propriety of predication more than that which is by *identity.* Whence this is more proper: the Son of God is generated, than this: the divinity is generation, as was shown in the first book[^3b]. And since the Son of God is the supposit of the human nature, not so the divine nature; hence it is that this is more proper: the Son of God is man, than this: the divine nature is man. Therefore the Master does not simply deny it, but says that it is not so proper; nor is it so to be brought into use everywhere, for the reason that it approaches too great an expression[^4b].

---

la: In codd. et edd. legitur sic: Nam unitas [edd. interiiciunt *creatae*] naturae *in creatura* respectu creaturae... propter hoc quod [edd. inserunt *aliqua*] creatura est similis *creaturae* — quam lectionem, etsi in se non sit falsa, tamen ut incongruam reprobandam duximus, eo quod, ea admissa, revera non est comparatio inter divinam et humanam naturam ac personam, nec connexus cum verbis, quae sequuntur. Ceterum non correximus nisi duos solos errores, qui certo librariorum incuria irrepserunt, substituentes enim *increatae* pro *in creatura* et *Creatori* pro *creaturae.* Mox pro *non multiplicatur in personis* cod. bb *non multiplicatur in diversis personis.* — Quod autem terminus *persona* de divina persona et humana non dicatur nisi *analogice*, probatum est I. Sent. d. 25. a. 2. q. 2.

en: In the codices and editions it reads thus: For the unity [the editions interpolate *created*] of nature *in the creature* in respect of the creature... on account of the fact that [the editions insert *some*] the creature is like *the creature* — which reading, although in itself it is not false, we have nonetheless judged to be rejected as incongruous, because, once it is admitted, there is in truth no comparison between the divine and the human nature and person, nor any connection with the words that follow. For the rest, we have corrected only two errors, which certainly crept in through the carelessness of the copyists, namely substituting *uncreated* for *in the creature* and *to the Creator* for *of the creature.* Next, for *is not multiplied in persons* codex bb has *is not multiplied in diverse persons.* — But that the term *person* is not said of the divine person and the human except *analogically*, was proven in Sent. I, d. 25, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Cfr. de hoc dub. S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. 1. lit.

en: Cf. on this doubt St. Thomas, here on the text; Aegidius Romanus, here doubt 1 on the text.

la: Codd. P Q *currit.*

en: Codices P Q read *currit* [it runs].

la: Cfr. Boeth., de Trin. c. 2. — Hoc dub. solvunt etiam B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. 2. lit.

en: Cf. Boethius, *On the Trinity*, c. 2. — This doubt is also resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here on the text; Aegidius Romanus, here doubt 2 on the text.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. Periherm. c. 5. (c. ?.). — Terminus *omnis* vocatur signum et terminus syncategorematicus [derivatur a σύν i. e. cum, et κατηγορέω i. e. significo], quia solum alteri termino adiunctus tribuit illi certum significandi modum. — Pro *omnem* cod. K bb bis *omne.*

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On Interpretation* I, c. 5 (c. ?). — The term *every* is called a syncategorematic sign and term [it is derived from σύν, i.e. "with," and κατηγορέω, i.e. "I signify"], because only when joined to another term does it confer on it a determinate mode of signifying. — For *every* codices K, bb twice [have] *every* [neuter].

la: Scil. in obiectione procedente.

en: Namely, in the objection proceeding [above].

la: Hic c. 1. in fine, ubi dicitur: Unitatem esse humanae naturae, et non partem parti etc. — Paulo superius cod. Z verbo *completionem* praemittit *veram.* — Cfr. de hoc dub. B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. 3. lit.

en: Here c. 1, at the end, where it is said: That there is a unity of human nature, and not of part to part, etc. — A little above, codex Z prefixes *true* to the word *completion.* — Cf. on this doubt Blessed Albert, here a. 13; St. Thomas, here on the text; Aegidius Romanus, here doubt 3 on the text.

la: Edd. *de quo.*

en: The editions [read] *of which.*

la: Dist. 5. a. 1. q. 1, ubi etiam species praedicationis exponuntur. — Pro *Filius Dei generatur* multi codd. et edd. 1, 2 vitiose *Filius Dei generat*, et pro *divinitas est generatio* cod. K *deitas est generata.*

en: Dist. 5, a. 1, q. 1, where the species of predication are also expounded. — For *the Son of God is generated* many codices and editions 1, 2 wrongly [read] *the Son of God generates*, and for *the divinity is generation* codex K [reads] *the deity is generated.*

la: Vide de hoc dub. S. Thom., hic circa lit., et Aegid. R., hic dub. 4. lit.

en: See on this doubt St. Thomas, here on the text, and Aegidius Romanus, here doubt 4 on the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 142–143 (PDF pp. 164–165; raw OCR lines 10375–10439), read Left column top→bottom then Right column per the Vol II/III PDF-priority override. The IA djvu OCR for this range is two-column interleaved and cascade-fragments the *Respondeo* bodies and every page footer, so the column-band PDF read is authoritative here; the OCR served only to confirm running prose and footnote-marker spacing.

**Structure verified.** Four dubia — **Dub. I, II, III, IV** — confirmed eyes-on against the PDF column bands and matching the raw markers at lines 10377 (Dub. I, p.142-L), 10399 (Dub. II, p.142-L), 10391 region (Dub. III, p.142-R / continues p.143-L), 10433 (Dub. IV, p.143-L). Each carries its own `Respondeo: Dicendum…`. No articulus/quaestio frontmatter (`type: dubia`). **No scholion** prints with the dubia block (`has_scholion: false`); the standalone SCHOLION (sections I+II) printing at the TOP of p.142-L→R belongs to **d5-a2-q5** (q5's scholion tail), not to the dubia, and is already captured in that chunk.

**Page-split map (apparatus, Quaracchi restarts numbering each printed page):**
- **p.142** notes **1–6** → rendered `[^1]`–`[^6]`. Note 1 (long *in creatura*/codd. variant + I Sent. d. 25 cross-ref) keys Dub. I's *Creatori*; notes 2,4 are cross-reference notes (S. Thom./Aegid./Albert/Petr./Richard); note 3 (codd. P Q *currit*) keys Dub. II's *fit*; note 5 (Aristot. *Periherm.* + syncategorematic gloss) keys Dub. III's *suppositis*; note 6 (Scil. in obiectione procedente) keys Dub. III's *dictum est.*
- **p.143** notes **1–4** → suffixed `[^1b]`–`[^4b]` to avoid collision. Note 1b (Hic c. 1 in fine + Albert/Thom/Aegid) keys Dub. III's *litteram sequentem*; note 2b (Edd. *de quo*) keys Dub. IV's *quod*; note 3b (Dist. 5 a. 1 q. 1 + *generatur* variant) keys Dub. IV's *primo libro*; note 4b (S. Thom./Aegid. cross-ref) keys Dub. IV's *appropinquat.* **Total: 10 apparatus entries.**

**Footer hand-off.** NONE received from d5-a2-q5 (q5's p.141 footer sequence was fully exhausted; the dubia opens its own per-page footer sequences). NONE forwarded onward: the dubia's p.143 footer notes 1b–4b are fully exhausted within Dub. IV.

**Boundary lock at DISTINCTIO VI (raw 10440).** Raw line 10421 is a **FALSE** `DISTINCTIO VI.` page-top running-head spill still inside the d.5 dubia page (p.143); the **real** DISTINCTIO VI body begins at **raw 10440/10441** with the Lombard littera `Cap. I. De intelligentia harum locutionum: Deus est homo, Deus factus est homo, tres sententias ponit.` This was confirmed eyes-on: the bottom of p.143-L carries `Cap. I.`/`Cap. II.` of the DIST VI littera, and p.143-R continues that littera body. **No footer leaks into d.6:** the dubia footers (p.143 notes 1b–4b) are distinct from the DIST VI littera footers, which print under the separate heading `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.` (notes 1, 2, 3 — Cod. D variant / Libr. XIII / Cap. 38) at the foot of p.143-R. Those belong to d.6's littera, not to this chunk.

**DISTINCTIO V is now COMPLETE** (a.1 q1–q5; a.2 littera/divisio folded; a.2 q1–q5; dubia). The next chunk is `bon-sent-III-d6-littera` (DIST VI body, raw 10440).

**[?] flags:** none.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 6

title_alt: Distinctio VI — textus Magistri Sententiarum

title_alt: Distinction VI — text of the Master of the Sentences

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 143 -->

### DISTINCTIO VI.

### Cap. I. *De intelligentia harum locutionum: Deus est homo[^1], Deus factus est homo, tres sententias ponit.*

Ex praemissis autem emergit quaestio plurimum continens utilitatis, sed nimium difficultatis atque perplexitatis. Cum enim constet ex praedictis et aliis pluribus testimoniis, omnesque catholici unanimiter fateantur, Deum esse factum hominem, et Christum verum Deum esse et verum hominem; quaeritur, an his locutionibus: *Deus factus est homo*, *Filius Dei factus est filius hominis*; *Deus est homo*, et *homo est Deus*, dicatur Deus factus esse aliquid, vel esse aliquid, vel aliquid dicatur esse Deus; et an ita conveniat dici: *homo factus est Deus*, et *filius hominis factus est Filius Dei*, sicut e converso dicitur; et si ex his locutionibus non dicitur: Deus factus esse aliquid, vel esse aliquid, quae sit intelligentia harum locutionum et similium. — In huius profunditatis reseratione et scrupulosae quaestionis expositione plurimum differre inveniuntur sapientes.

### Cap. II. *Prima est eorum qui dicunt, in incarnatione hominem quendam ex anima et carne constitutum, et illum hominem factum esse Deum, et Deum illum hominem; et auctoritates, quibus ita esse asserunt, ponit.*

(*Opinio 1.*) Alii enim dicunt, in ipsa Verbi incarnatione hominem quendam ex anima rationali et humana carne constitutum, ex quibus duobus omnis verus homo constituitur; et ille homo coepit esse Deus, non quidem natura Dei, sed persona Verbi; et Deus coepit esse homo ille. Concedunt etiam, hominem illum assumtum a Verbo et unitum Verbo, et tamen esse Verbum; et ea ratione tradunt dictum esse, Deum factum hominem, vel esse hominem, quia Deus factus est, id est, coepit esse quaedam substantia ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens; et illa substantia facta est, id est, coepit esse Deus. Non tamen demigratione naturae in naturam, sed utriusque naturae servata proprietate, factum est, ut Deus esset illa substantia, et illa substantia esset Deus. Unde vere dicitur: *Deus factus est homo*, et *homo factus est Deus*; et *Deus est homo*, et *homo Deus*; et *Filius Dei filius hominis*, et e converso. Cumque dicant, illum hominem ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistere, non tamen fatentur, ex duabus naturis esse compositum, divina scilicet et humana; nec illius partes esse duas naturas, sed animam tantum et carnem.

Et ne de suo sensu tantum loqui putentur, hanc sententiam pluribus muniunt testimoniis. (*Confirmator.*) Ait enim (*Augustinus.*) Augustinus in libro *de Trinitate*[^2]: «Cum legitur: *Verbum caro factum est*, in Verbo intelligo verum Dei Filium, in carne agnosco verum hominis filium, et utrumque simul unam personam, Deum et hominem ineffabilis gratiae largitate coniunctum». Idem in *Enchiridio*[^3]: «Christus Iesus Deus de Deo est, homo autem natus est de Spiritu sancto ex Maria Virgine. Utraque substantia, divina scilicet et humana, Filius est unicus Dei Patris omnipotentis, de quo procedit Spiritus sanctus», «utrumque unus, sed aliud propter *Verbum*, et aliud propter *hominem*, non duo filii, Deus et homo, sed unus Dei Filius, Deus sine initio,

<!-- page 144 -->

homo a certo initio». Idem in eodem[^1b]: «Quid natura humana in Christo homine meruit, ut in unitatem personae unici Filii Dei singulariter assumta esset? Quae bona voluntas, quae bona opera praecesserunt, quibus mereretur iste homo una fieri persona cum Deo? Nunquid antea fuit homo, et hoc ei singulare beneficium praestitum est, ut singulariter promereretur Deum? Nempe ex quo homo esse coepit, non aliud coepit esse homo quam Dei Filius, et hoc unicus, et propter[^2b] Dei Verbum, quod illo suscepto caro factum est, utique Deus; ut, quemadmodum est una persona quilibet homo, anima scilicet rationalis et caro, ita sit Christus una persona, Verbum et homo». Idem *super Ioannem*[^3b]: «Agnoscamus geminam substantiam Christi, divinam scilicet, qua aequalis est Patri, et humanam, qua minor est Patre; utrumque autem simul, non duo, sed unus est Christus, ne sit quaternitas, non trinitas Deus. Ac per hoc Christus est Deus, anima rationalis et caro». Idem quoque in libro *de Praedestinatione Sanctorum*[^4b]: «Ille homo, ut, a Verbo Patri coaeterno in unitatem personae assumtus, Filius Dei unigenitus esset, unde hoc meruit? Quod bonum eius praecessit, ut ad hanc ineffabilem excellentiam perveniret? Faciente ac suscipiente Deo Verbo, ipse homo, ex quo esse coepit, Filius Dei unicus esse coepit». Item: «Homo quicumque ita gratia fit Christianus, sicut gratia homo ille ab initio factus est Christus». Idem in libro decimo tertio *de Trinitate*[^5b]: «Gratia Dei nobis in homine Christo commendatur; quia nec ipse, ut tanta unitate Deo vero coniunctus, una cum illo persona Filius Dei fieret, ullis est praecedentibus meritis assecutus, sed ex quo homo esse coepit, ex illo est et Deus. Unde dictum est: *Verbum caro factum est*». Hilarius quoque in libro decimo *de Trinitate*[^6b] ait: «Christum non ambigimus esse Deum Verbum, neque rursus Filium hominis ex anima et corpore constitisse ignoramus». — His aliisque auctoritatibus utuntur qui hominem quendam ex anima rationali et carne compositum Deum factum dicunt, sed gratia, non natura. Sola enim gratia habuit ille homo, non meritis, vel natura, ut esset Deus, sive Dei Filius, ut haberet omnem scientiam et potentiam[^7b], quam habet Verbum, cum quo est una persona. Nec tantum in superioribus legitur, quod homo ille sit una persona cum Verbo et sit ipsum Verbum, sed etiam, quod anima rationalis et caro eadem persona sit et Christus sit et Deus.

### Cap. III. *Secunda est eorum qui dicunt, hominem illum ex tribus substantiis, vel ex duabus naturis constare; et hunc fatentur unam esse personam, ante incarnationem simplicem tantum, sed in incarnatione compositam; et auctoritates, quibus se muniunt, proponit.*

(*Opinio 2.*) Sunt autem et alii, qui istis in parte consentiunt, sed dicunt, hominem illum non ex anima rationali et carne tantum, sed ex humana et divina natura, id est ex tribus substantiis, divinitate, carne et anima, constare, et hunc Christum fatentur. Et unam personam tantum esse, ante incarnationem solummodo simplicem, sed in incarnatione factam[^8b] compositam ex divinitate et humanitate. Nec est ideo alia persona quam prius, sed cum prius esset Dei tantum persona, in incarnatione facta est etiam hominis persona; non ut duae essent personae, sed ut una et eadem esset persona Dei et hominis. Persona ergo, quae prius erat simplex et in una tantum natura existens, *in* duabus et *ex* duabus subsistit naturis; et persona, quae tantum Deus erat, facta est etiam verus homo, subsistens non tantum ex anima et carne, sed etiam ex divinitate; nec tamen persona illa debet dici *facta persona*, quamvis dicatur *facta persona hominis*. Facta est igitur illa persona, ut quibusdam placet, quiddam subsistens ex anima et carne, sed non est facta *persona*, vel *substantia*, vel *natura*. Et in quantum est illud[^9b] subsistens, composita est; in quantum autem Verbum est, simplex est.

(*Confirmator.*) De hoc Augustinus in libro Sententiarum Prosperi[^10b] ait: (*Dubium 4.*) «Modis omnibus approbare contendimus, Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus constare, duobus confici, visibili elementorum specie et invisibili Domini nostri Iesu Christi carne et sanguine: Sacramento et re Sacramenti, id est corpore Christi, sicut Christi persona constat et conficitur ex Deo et homine, cum ipse Christus verus sit Deus et verus homo; quia omnis res illarum rerum naturam et veritatem in se continet, ex quibus conficitur». De hoc eodem (*Damascenus.*) Ioannes Damascenus[^11b]: «In Domino nostro Iesu Christo duas quidem naturas cognoscimus, unam autem hypostasim ex utriusque compositam». «Incarnatus est igitur Christus, ex Virgine assumens primitiam[^1c] nostrae massae, ut ipsa

<!-- page 145 -->

exstiterit carni hypostasis, quae Dei Verbi hypostasis composita facta fuerit, quae prius simplex erat Verbi hypostasis, composita vero ex duabus perfectis naturis, deitate et humanitate; et ferat ipsa divinae Verbi Dei filiationis characteristicum et determinativum idioma, secundum quod divisa est a Patre et Spiritu sancto, et carnis characteristica et determinativa idiomata, secundum quae differat a Matre et reliquis hominibus». Item: «Unam hypostasim Filii Dei confitemur in duabus naturis perfecte se habentibus, et deitatis et humanitatis, eandem hypostasim incarnatam[^2c]; et has duas naturas custodiri et manere in ipso post unionem, non seorsum et secundum partes ponentes singulam, sed unitas invicem in unam compositam hypostasim. Substantialem enim inquimus unionem, scilicet veram et non secundum phantasiam, substantialem autem, non duabus naturis perficientibus alteram, scilicet unam compositam naturam, sed unitas invicem in unam hypostasim compositam Filii Dei, et manere eandem substantialem differentiam determinamus: quod creabile mansit creabile, et quod increabile increabile, et mortale mortale, et immortale immortale, et circumscriptibile circumscriptibile, et incircumscriptibile incircumscriptibile; et hoc quidem refulget miraculis». (*Augustinus.*) De hoc etiam Augustinus in libro *de Trinitate*[^3c] ait: «Quemadmodum secundum deitatem una est Patris et Filii natura, ita etiam iuxta humanitatem eadem est Matris et Filii una natura. Ex utraque autem substantia, et divinitatis et humanitatis, unus atque idem est Deus, Dei et hominis Filius, Iesus Christus, ut Deus verus, ita etiam homo verus». Idem in libro decimo tertio *de Trinitate*[^4c]: «Sic Deo coniungi potuit humana natura, ut ex duabus substantiis fieret una persona; ac per hoc iam est ex tribus: Deo, anima et carne». — His aliisque pluribus auctoritatibus se muniunt qui dicunt, personam Christi compositam esse, vel factam sive constantem ex duabus naturis, sive ex tribus substantiis.

### Cap. IV. *Tertia est eorum qui non solum personam ex naturis compositam negant, sed etiam aliquem hominem vel aliquam substantiam ibi ex anima et carne compositam diffitentur; et sic illa duo, scilicet animam et carnem, Verbo unita dicunt, ut non ex illis aliqua substantia vel persona componeretur, sed illis duobus velut indumento Deus vestiretur, ut mortalibus oculis appareret; qui rationem incarnationis secundum habitum accipiunt.*

(*Dubium 2.*) Sunt etiam alii, qui in incarnatione Verbi non solum personam ex naturis compositam negant, verum etiam hominem aliquem, sive etiam aliquam substantiam ibi ex anima et carne compositam vel factam diffitentur; sed sic illa duo, scilicet animam et carnem, Verbi personae vel naturae unita esse aiunt, ut non ex illis duobus, vel ex his tribus aliqua substantia[^5c] vel persona fieret sive componeretur; sed illis duobus velut indumento Verbum Dei vestiretur, ut mortalium oculis congruenter appareret. Qui ideo dicitur factus verus homo, quia veritatem carnis et animae accepit. Quae duo etiam in singularitatem vel unitatem suae personae accepisse legitur, non quia illa duo, vel aliqua res ex illis composita sit una persona cum Verbo, vel sit Verbum; sed quia, illis duobus accedentibus Verbo, non est personarum numerus auctus, ut fieret quaternitas in Trinitate; et quia ipsa persona Verbi, quae erat prius sine indumento, assumtione indumenti non est divisa vel mutata, sed una eademque inimmutata permansit. Qui secundum habitum Deum hominem factum dicunt[^6c]. Accipiendo enim hominem, dictus est Deus factus homo; et propter acceptum hominem dicitur Deus verus[^7c1] esse homo; et propter assumentem Deum dicitur homo esse Deus. Nam si essentialiter, inquiunt illi, Deus esse homo, vel homo esse Deus intelligeretur; tunc, si Deus hominem assumsisset in sexu muliebri, et mulier essentialiter Deus esset, et e converso; at potuit Deus assumsisse hominem in sexu muliebri: potuit igitur mulier esse Deus, et e converso.

### Cap. V. *Deinde auctoritates inducit, quibus haec sententia roboratur.*

Ne autem et isti de suo[^7c2] influere videantur, testimoniis in medium productis quod dicunt confirmant. (*Augustinus.*) Ait enim Augustinus in libro *de Gratia novi Testamenti*[^8c]: «Sicut non augetur numerus personarum, cum caro accedit animae, ut sit unus homo; sic non augetur numerus personarum, cum homo accedit Verbo, ut sit unus Christus. Legitur itaque Deus homo, ut intelligamus huius personae singularitatem, non ut suspicemur in carnem mutatam divinitatem». Idem quoque tractans illud verbum Apostoli: *Habitu inventus est ut homo*, manifeste ostendit, Deum dici factum esse hominem, vel esse hominem secundum habitum, in libro *Octoginta trium Quaestionum*[^9c] ita inquiens: (*Dubium 3.*) «Multis modis habitum dicimus: vel habitum animi, sicut disciplinae perceptionem usu firmatam; vel habitum corporis, sicut dicimus alium alio validiorem; vel habitum eorum, quae membris accommodantur extrinsecus, ut cum dicimus aliquem vestitum, calceatum et huiusmodi. In omnibus generibus manifestum est, in ea re dici habitum, quae accidit alicui, ita ut eam possit etiam non habere. Hoc autem nomen ductum est ab illo verbo, quod est *habere*. Habitus ergo in ea re dicitur, quae nobis, ut habeatur, accidit vel accedit»[^10c].

<!-- page 146 -->

### Cap. VI. *Quatuor species habitus distinguuntur.*

(*Augustinus. Species 1.*) «Verumtamen hoc interest, quia quaedam eorum quae accidunt vel accedunt, ut habitum faciant, non mutantur, sed ipsa mutant, in se integra et inconcussa manentia; sicut sapientia, accedens homini, non ipsa mutatur, sed hominem mutat, quem de stulto sapientem facit. — (*Species 2.*) Quaedam vero sic accedunt vel accidunt, ut mutent et mutentur, ut abus, qui, amittens speciem suam, in corpus vertitur, et nos cibo refecti ab exilitate[^1d] atque languore in robur atque valentiam mutamur. — (*Species 3.*) Tertium genus est, cum ea quae accidunt vel accedunt, nec mutant ea quibus accidunt, nec ab eis ipsa mutantur, sicut anulus positus in digito; quod genus rarissime reperitur. — (*Species 4.*) Quartum genus est, cum ea quae accidunt, mutantur non a sua natura, sed aliam speciem et formam accipiunt, ut est vestis, quae deiecta atque deposita non habet eam formam, quam sumit induta; induta enim membris accipit formam, quam non habebat exuta. Quod genus congruit huic comparationi. Deus enim Filius semetipsum exinanivit, non formam suam mutans, sed formam servi accipiens, neque conversus aut transmutatus in hominem[^2d], amissa incommutabili stabilitate, sed in similitudinem hominum factus est ipse susceptor, verum hominem suscipiendo habitu inventus est ut homo, id est, habendo hominem inventus est ut homo, non sibi, sed eis quibus in homine apparuit». Quod autem dicit *ut homo* veritatem exprimit. «Nomine ergo habitus satis significavit Apostolus, qualiter dixerit in similitudinem hominum factus, quia non transfiguratione in hominem, sed habitu factus est, cum indutus est hominem, quem sibi uniens quodam modo atque conformans immortalitati aeternitatique sociaret. Non ergo oportet intelligi, mutatum esse Verbum susceptione hominis, sicut nec membra veste induta mutantur, quamvis illa susceptio ineffabiliter susceptum suscipienti copularet[^3d]». — His verbis aperte innuere videtur Augustinus, Deum dici factum hominem secundum habitum. Qui etiam ipsius incarnationis modum volens exprimere, (*Augustinus.*) in quarto libro *de Trinitate*[^4d] ait: «Si quaeritur, ipsa incarnatio quo modo facta sit, ipsum Verbum Dei dico carnem factum, id est hominem factum, non tamen in hoc, quod factum est, conversum atque mutatum», sed carne, ut carnalibus congruenter appareret indutum. «Ita sane factum, ut ibi sit non tantum Verbum Dei et hominis caro, sed etiam rationalis hominis anima; atque hoc totum et Deus dicatur propter Deum, et homo propter hominem. Quod si difficile intelligitur, mens fide purgetur a peccatis abstinendo et bona operando; difficilia enim sunt haec». (*Fulgentius.*) Idem in libro *de Fide ad Petrum*[^5d]: «Dei Filius, cum sit Deus aeternus et verus, pro nobis factus est homo verus et plenus: in eo verus, quia veram habet Deus ille humanam naturam; in eo vero plenus, quia et carnem humanam suscepit et animam rationalem». Item: «Non aliud fuit illa Dei summi exinanitio nisi formae servilis, id est naturae humanae, susceptio. Utraque igitur est in Christo forma, quia utraque vera et plena est in Christo substantia», divina scilicet et humana. Idem in libro *contra Maximinum*[^6d]: «Cum esset per se ipsum invisibilis, visibilis in homine apparuit, quem de femina suscipere dignatus est». Item in eodem: «Nos Christum Dominum verum hominem suscepisse credimus, et in ipso visibiliter invisibilem hominibus apparuisse, in ipso inter homines conversatum fuisse, in ipso ab hominibus humana pertulisse, in ipso homines docuisse». (*Hilarius.*) Hilarius quoque in decimo libro *de Trinitate*[^7d] ait: «Quomodo Dei Filius natus est ex Maria, nisi quod *Verbum caro factum est*, scilicet quod Filius Dei, cum in forma Dei esset, formam servi accepit? Unum tamen eundemque non Dei defectione, sed hominis assumtione profitemur, et in forma Dei per naturam divinam, et in forma servi ex conceptione Spiritus sancti secundum hominis habitum repertum fuisse». «Non fuit habitus ille tantum hominis, sed ut hominis; neque caro illa caro peccati, sed in similitudine carnis peccati». — Audistis tres secundum diversos positas sententias et pro singulis inducta testimonia.

---

english:
<!-- page 143 -->

### DISTINCTION VI.

### Chap. I. *On the understanding of these expressions: "God is man"[^1], "God was made man"; he sets out three opinions.*

From the foregoing, however, there arises a question containing very much of usefulness, but too much of difficulty and perplexity. For since it is established from what has been said before and from many other testimonies, and since all Catholics unanimously confess, that God was made man, and that Christ is true God and true man, it is asked whether by these expressions — *God was made man*, *the Son of God was made the son of man*; *God is man*, and *man is God* — God is said to have been made something, or to be something, or whether something is said to be God; and whether it is fitting to say: *man was made God*, and *the son of man was made the Son of God*, just as conversely it is said; and if by these expressions it is not said that God was made something, or is something, what is the understanding of these expressions and the like. — In the unlocking of this depth and in the exposition of this scrupulous question, the wise are found to differ very greatly.

### Chap. II. *The first is the opinion of those who say that in the incarnation a certain man was constituted out of soul and flesh, and that that man was made God, and God that man; and he sets out the authorities by which they assert that it is so.*

(*Opinion 1.*) Now some say that in the very incarnation of the Word a certain man was constituted out of a rational soul and human flesh — out of which two every true man is constituted — and that that man began to be God, not indeed by the nature of God, but by the person of the Word; and God began to be that man. They also concede that that man was assumed by the Word and united to the Word, and yet is the Word; and on that account they teach that it is said that God was made man, or is man, because God was made, that is, began to be a certain substance subsisting out of a rational soul and human flesh; and that substance was made, that is, began to be God. Yet not by a migration of nature into nature, but, the property of each nature being preserved, it came about that God was that substance, and that substance was God. Whence it is truly said: *God was made man*, and *man was made God*; and *God is man*, and *man God*; and *the Son of God the son of man*, and conversely. And although they say that that man subsists out of a rational soul and human flesh, yet they do not confess that he is composed out of two natures, namely divine and human; nor that his parts are two natures, but only soul and flesh.

And lest they be thought to speak only from their own opinion, they fortify this opinion with many testimonies. (*It is confirmed.*) For (*Augustine.*) Augustine says in the book *On the Trinity*[^2]: «When it is read: *The Word was made flesh*, in the Word I understand the true Son of God, in the flesh I recognize the true son of man, and both together one person, God and man, joined together by the largess of ineffable grace». The same in the *Enchiridion*[^3]: «Christ Jesus is God of God, but he was born man of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary. Each substance, namely the divine and the human, is the one Son of God the Father almighty, from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds», «both one, but one thing on account of the *Word*, and another on account of the *man*, not two sons, God and man, but one Son of God, God without beginning,

<!-- page 144 -->

man from a certain beginning». The same in the same work[^1b]: «What did human nature merit in Christ the man, that it should be singularly assumed into the unity of the person of the only Son of God? What good will, what good works preceded, by which that man might merit to be made one person with God? Was he formerly a man, and was this singular benefit conferred upon him, that he should singularly merit God? Indeed, from the time he began to be man, the man began to be nothing other than the Son of God, and this the only one, and on account of[^2b] the Word of God, which, that being assumed, was made flesh, namely God; so that, just as any man is one person, namely a rational soul and flesh, so Christ is one person, the Word and man». The same *on John*[^3b]: «Let us acknowledge the twofold substance of Christ, the divine, namely, by which he is equal to the Father, and the human, by which he is less than the Father; yet both together, not two, but one is Christ, lest there be a quaternity, not a trinity, God. And by this Christ is God, a rational soul, and flesh». The same also in the book *On the Predestination of the Saints*[^4b]: «That man — that, being assumed by the Word coeternal with the Father into the unity of person, he might be the only-begotten Son of God — whence did he merit this? What good of his preceded, that he might attain to this ineffable excellence? By God the Word effecting and receiving, that man himself, from the time he began to be, began to be the only Son of God». Likewise: «Whoever a man is made a Christian by grace, just so by grace that man was from the beginning made Christ». The same in the thirteenth book *On the Trinity*[^5b]: «The grace of God is commended to us in the man Christ; for not even he himself, that he might, joined by so great a unity to the true God, be the Son of God one person with him, attained this by any preceding merits, but from the time he began to be man, from that time he is also God. Whence it is said: *The Word was made flesh*». Hilary also in the tenth book *On the Trinity*[^6b] says: «We do not doubt that Christ is God the Word, nor again are we ignorant that the Son of man consisted of soul and body». — These and other authorities are used by those who say that a certain man composed out of a rational soul and flesh was made God, but by grace, not by nature. For that man had it by grace alone, not by merits or by nature, that he should be God, or the Son of God, that he should have all knowledge and power[^7b], which the Word has, with whom he is one person. Nor is it only read in the foregoing that that man is one person with the Word and is the Word himself, but also that the rational soul and flesh are the same person, and that he is Christ and is God.

### Chap. III. *The second is the opinion of those who say that that man consists of three substances, or of two natures; and they confess that he is one person, before the incarnation simple only, but in the incarnation composite; and he sets forth the authorities by which they fortify themselves.*

(*Opinion 2.*) Now there are also others who in part agree with these, but say that that man consists not out of a rational soul and flesh only, but out of human and divine nature, that is, out of three substances — divinity, flesh, and soul — and this one they confess to be Christ. And that there is one person only, before the incarnation simply simple, but in the incarnation made[^8b] composite out of divinity and humanity. Nor is the person therefore other than before, but, whereas before it was the person of God only, in the incarnation it was made also the person of man; not that there might be two persons, but that one and the same might be the person of God and man. The person, therefore, which before was simple and existing in one nature only, subsists *in* two and *out of* two natures; and the person which was God only was made also true man, subsisting not only out of soul and flesh, but also out of divinity; yet that person ought not to be called a *made person*, although it is called a *made person of man*. That person, therefore, was made, as it pleases some, something subsisting out of soul and flesh, but it was not made a *person*, or a *substance*, or a *nature*. And insofar as it is that[^9b] subsisting thing, it is composite; but insofar as it is the Word, it is simple.

(*It is confirmed.*) On this Augustine in the book of the Sentences of Prosper[^10b] says: (*Doubt 4.*) «In all ways we strive to prove that the Sacrifice of the Church consists of two things, is confected of two things, the visible species of the elements and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ: the Sacrament and the reality of the Sacrament, that is, the body of Christ, just as the person of Christ consists and is confected of God and man, since Christ himself is true God and true man; because every thing contains in itself the nature and truth of those things out of which it is confected». On this same matter (*Damascene.*) John Damascene[^11b]: «In our Lord Jesus Christ we recognize indeed two natures, but one hypostasis composed out of each». «Christ, therefore, was incarnate, assuming from the Virgin the first-fruit[^1c] of our mass, so that it itself

<!-- page 145 -->

might exist as the hypostasis of the flesh, which became the composite hypostasis of the Word of God, which before was the simple hypostasis of the Word, but composite out of two perfect natures, deity and humanity; and that it might bear the characteristic and determinative idiom of the divine filiation of the Word of God, according to which it is divided from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the characteristic and determinative idioms of the flesh, according to which it differs from the Mother and the rest of men». Likewise: «We confess one hypostasis of the Son of God in two natures perfectly subsisting, both of deity and of humanity, the same hypostasis incarnate[^2c]; and that these two natures are guarded and remain in him after the union, not setting them down separately and according to parts, each singly, but united with each other into one composite hypostasis. For we say a substantial union, namely true and not according to phantasy, and substantial, moreover, not with two natures perfecting another, namely one composite nature, but united with each other into one hypostasis of the Son of God composite, and we determine that the same substantial difference remains: that the creatable remained creatable, and the uncreatable uncreatable, and the mortal mortal, and the immortal immortal, and the circumscriptible circumscriptible, and the incircumscriptible incircumscriptible; and this indeed shines forth in miracles». (*Augustine.*) On this also Augustine in the book *On the Trinity*[^3c] says: «Just as according to deity the nature of the Father and of the Son is one, so also according to humanity the nature of the Mother and of the Son is one. And out of each substance, both of divinity and of humanity, one and the same is God, the Son of God and of man, Jesus Christ, as true God, so also true man». The same in the thirteenth book *On the Trinity*[^4c]: «Thus human nature could be joined to God, so that out of two substances there might be made one person; and by this it is now out of three: God, soul, and flesh». — These and many other authorities are used to fortify themselves by those who say that the person of Christ is composite, or made or consisting out of two natures, or out of three substances.

### Chap. IV. *The third is the opinion of those who not only deny a person composed out of natures, but also disavow any man or any substance there composed out of soul and flesh; and so they say that those two, namely soul and flesh, are united to the Word in such a way that no substance or person is composed out of them, but that God was clothed by those two as by a garment, that he might appear to mortal eyes; who take the account of the incarnation according to habit.*

(*Doubt 2.*) There are also others who in the incarnation of the Word not only deny a person composed out of natures, but also disavow any man, or even any substance, there composed or made out of soul and flesh; but they say that those two, namely soul and flesh, are so united to the person or nature of the Word, that no substance[^5c] or person is made or composed out of those two, or out of these three; but that the Word of God was clothed by those two as by a garment, that he might fittingly appear to the eyes of mortals. He is therefore said to have been made true man, because he received the truth of flesh and soul. And these two he is read to have received also into the singularity or unity of his person, not because those two, or any thing composed out of them, is one person with the Word, or is the Word; but because, those two acceding to the Word, the number of persons was not increased, so that a quaternity might be made in the Trinity; and because the very person of the Word, which was before without a garment, was not divided or changed by the assumption of the garment, but remained one and the same unchanged. They say that according to habit God was made man[^6c]. For by taking man, God was said to have been made man; and on account of the man taken, God is said[^7c1] to be truly man; and on account of the God assuming, man is said to be God. For if essentially, they say, it were understood that God is man, or man is God, then, if God had assumed a man in the female sex, the woman too would essentially be God, and conversely; but God could have assumed a man in the female sex: therefore a woman could be God, and conversely.

### Chap. V. *Then he adduces the authorities by which this opinion is strengthened.*

But lest these too be thought to bring it forth from their own[^7c2], they confirm what they say by testimonies brought into the midst. (*Augustine.*) For Augustine says in the book *On the Grace of the New Testament*[^8c]: «Just as the number of persons is not increased when flesh accedes to a soul, so that there is one man; so the number of persons is not increased when man accedes to the Word, so that there is one Christ. Thus God-man is read, that we may understand the singularity of this person, not that we may suspect the divinity changed into flesh». The same also, treating that word of the Apostle: *In habit found as a man*, manifestly shows that God is said to have been made man, or to be man, according to habit, in the book *Of Eighty-three Questions*[^9c], speaking thus: (*Doubt 3.*) «In many ways we speak of habit: either the habit of the mind, like the perception of a discipline firmed by use; or the habit of the body, as we say one stronger than another; or the habit of those things which are accommodated externally to the members, as when we say someone clothed, shod, and the like. In all the kinds it is manifest that habit is said in that thing which befalls someone, in such a way that he can also not have it. But this name is drawn from that verb which is *to have*. Habit, therefore, is said in that thing which, that it may be had, befalls or accedes to us»[^10c].

<!-- page 146 -->

### Chap. VI. *Four species of habit are distinguished.*

(*Augustine. Species 1.*) «Nevertheless this much is of interest, that certain of those things which befall or accede, so as to make a habit, are not changed, but themselves change, remaining in themselves whole and unshaken; as wisdom, acceding to a man, is not itself changed, but changes the man, whom it makes wise from foolish. — (*Species 2.*) But certain things accede or befall in such a way that they both change and are changed, like food, which, losing its own species, is turned into the body, and we, refreshed by food, are changed from leanness[^1d] and languor into strength and vigor. — (*Species 3.*) The third kind is when those things which befall or accede neither change those to which they befall, nor are themselves changed by them, like a ring placed on the finger; which kind is very rarely found. — (*Species 4.*) The fourth kind is when those things which befall are changed not from their own nature, but receive another species and form, as is a garment, which, cast off and laid aside, does not have that form which it takes when put on; for when put on it receives from the members the form which it did not have when taken off. Which kind suits this comparison. For God the Son emptied himself, not changing his own form, but taking the form of a servant, neither converted nor transmuted into man[^2d], the unchangeable stability being lost, but in the likeness of men he himself became the receiver, by receiving true man was found in habit as a man, that is, by having a man was found as a man, not for himself, but for those to whom he appeared in the man». But that he says *as a man* expresses the truth. «By the name of habit, therefore, the Apostle sufficiently signified in what manner he said *made in the likeness of men*, because not by transfiguration into man, but by habit he was made, when he was clothed with man, whom, uniting to himself in a certain way and conforming, he might associate with immortality and eternity. It is not necessary, therefore, to understand that the Word was changed by the reception of man, just as neither are the members changed by a garment put on, although that reception ineffably joined the received to the receiver[^3d]». — By these words Augustine seems openly to intimate that God is said to have been made man according to habit. He also, wishing to express the manner of the incarnation itself, (*Augustine.*) in the fourth book *On the Trinity*[^4d] says: «If it is asked how the incarnation itself was done, I say that the Word of God itself was made flesh, that is, made man, yet not in this, that what was made was converted and changed», but by flesh, that it might fittingly appear to carnal beings, clothed. «So indeed it was done, that there is there not only the Word of God and the flesh of man, but also the rational soul of man; and that this whole both is called God on account of God, and man on account of man. But if this is difficult to understand, let the mind be purged by faith, by abstaining from sins and doing good; for these things are difficult». (*Fulgentius.*) The same in the book *On the Faith to Peter*[^5d]: «The Son of God, since he is eternal and true God, was for us made true and full man: in him true, because that God has true human nature; in him truly full, because he both took up human flesh and a rational soul». Likewise: «That emptying of the most high God was nothing other than the taking up of the servile form, that is, of human nature. Each form, therefore, is in Christ, because each is true and full substance in Christ», namely the divine and the human. The same in the book *against Maximinus*[^6d]: «Although he was through himself invisible, he appeared visible in the man, whom he deigned to take up from a woman». Likewise in the same work: «We believe that Christ the Lord took up a true man, and that in him the invisible appeared visibly to men, that in him he conversed among men, that in him he endured human things from men, that in him he taught men». (*Hilary.*) Hilary also in the tenth book *On the Trinity*[^7d] says: «How was the Son of God born of Mary, except that *the Word was made flesh*, namely that the Son of God, when he was in the form of God, took the form of a servant? Yet we profess one and the same, not by a defection of God, but by an assumption of man, both to have been in the form of God by the divine nature, and in the form of a servant by the conception of the Holy Spirit found according to the habit of man». «That habit was not only of a man, but as of a man; nor was that flesh the flesh of sin, but in the likeness of the flesh of sin». — You have heard three opinions set down according to diverse authors, and the testimonies adduced for each.

---

la: Cod. D *in*, codd. A C et ed. 6 omittunt praepositionem.

en: Codex D reads *in*; codices A, C, and edition 6 omit the preposition.

la: Libr. XIII. c. 19. n. 24. Respicitur Ioan. 1, 14. — Pro *ineffabilis* cod. A et ed. 8 *ineffabili*.

en: Book XIII, c. 19, n. 24 [Augustine, *On the Trinity*]. Reference is to John 1:14. — For *ineffabilis* codex A and edition 8 read *ineffabili*.

la: Cap. 38. n. 12; seq. locus ibid. c. 35. n. 10; tertius c. 36. n. 11. — In tertio loco pro *et hoc unicus*, quod codd. A B C D, ed. 6 et originale habent, alii codd. et edd. *et hic unicus*.

en: C. 38, n. 12 [Augustine, *Enchiridion*]; the following passage ibid., c. 35, n. 10; the third c. 36, n. 11. — In the third place, for *et hoc unicus* ("and this the one"), which codices A, B, C, D, edition 6, and the original have, other codices and editions read *et hic unicus* ("and here the one").

la: In omnibus codd. et edd., exceptis 6, 8, *propterea*; deinde Vat. cum edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 *quia est ab illo suscepta caro facta est* pro *quod illo suscepto caro factum est*, cod. A D *Verbum, quod ab illo suscepta caro facta*; cod. B et ed. 1 *verbum, quod illo suscepta...* Cum ed. 8 maluimus recipere textum originalis, cum omnes aliae lectiones corruptae sint; tolerari autem poterit lectio ex diversis sic conflata: *et hic unicus, et propterea Dei (Augustinus Deum) Verbum; quia ab illo suscepta caro facta est utique Deus*.

en: In all codices and editions, except 6 and 8, *propterea*; then the Vatican edition with editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 reads *quia est ab illo suscepta caro facta est* for *quod illo suscepto caro factum est*; codices A and D *Verbum, quod ab illo suscepta caro facta*; codex B and edition 1 *verbum, quod illo suscepta...* With edition 8 we preferred to receive the text of the original, since all the other readings are corrupt; the reading thus conflated from the various ones may, however, be tolerated: *and here the one, and therefore the Word of God (Augustine: God), because the flesh assumed by him was made God indeed*.

en: Tractate 78, n. 3 [Augustine, *On John*].

la: Cap. 15. n. 30. Seq. locus ibid. n. 31.

en: C. 15, n. 30 [Augustine, *On John*]. The following passage ibid., n. 31.

en: C. 17, n. 22 [Augustine, *On the Predestination of the Saints*].

en: N. 57 [Augustine, *On the Trinity*, bk. XIII].

la: Edd. 1, 8 *potestatem*. In fine capituli cod. G et ed. 1 omittunt *et* ante *Deus*.

en: Editions 1 and 8 read *potestatem* ("power"). At the end of the chapter codex G and edition 1 omit the *et* before *Deus*.

la: Vat. *sed, incarnatione facta*, refragantibus codd. et aliis edd.; paulo superius ante *solummodo* eadem cum codd. D E et edd., exceptis 1, 3, 8, adiicit *vero*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *sed, incarnatione facta*, the codices and the other editions resisting; a little above, before *solummodo*, the same edition with codices D, E and the editions, except 1, 3, 8, adds *vero*.

la: Codd. A C D E *ille*, et cod. B cum edd. 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 *illa*.

en: Codices A, C, D, E read *ille*, and codex B with editions 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 *illa*.

la: Sumtum est ex Decret. Gratiani, 48. de Consecrat. d. 2. *Hoc est quod dicimus*, ubi etiam legitur: *Augustinus in libro Sententiarum Prosperi*, (in quo tamen haec verba non inveniuntur), et in notis citantur Lanfrancus et Algerus.

en: It is taken from Gratian's *Decretum*, 48, *On the Consecration*, d. 2, *Hoc est quod dicimus*, where it is also read: *Augustine in the book of the Sentences of Prosper* (in which, however, these words are not found), and in the notes Lanfranc and Alger are cited.

la: Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 4; seq. locus ibid. c. 7; tertius c. 3.

en: Book III, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 4 [John Damascene]; the following passage ibid., c. 7; the third c. 3.

la: Cod. D *assumendo primitiam*, etiam codd. A B E et edd. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 habent *primitiam* (ἀπαρχήν), cod. C, Vat. et ed. 8 *primitias*; deinde pro *carni*, quod habent Vat. et edd. 2, 3 cum codd. A E, cod. D *carnis*; in aliis *in carne*. Paulo inferius ante *composita* cod. B et edd. 2, 3, 4, 7 omittunt *et*; Vat. legit *etiam composita et facta fuerit*.

en: Codex D reads *assumendo primitiam*; codices A, B, E and editions 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 also have *primitiam* (*aparchēn*); codex C, the Vatican edition, and edition 8 *primitias*; then for *carni*, which the Vatican edition and editions 2, 3 with codices A, E have, codex D *carnis*; in others *in carne*. A little below, before *composita*, codex B and editions 2, 3, 4, 7 omit *et*; the Vatican edition reads *etiam composita et facta fuerit*.

la: Vat., et fere etiam ed. 6, ita legit: *habentibus, eandem hypostasim deitatis et humanitatis dicentes incarnatam esse*. Vocem ultimam *esse* adiungunt etiam edd. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9.

en: The Vatican edition, and almost also edition 6, reads thus: *habentibus, eandem hypostasim deitatis et humanitatis dicentes incarnatam esse*. The final word *esse* is added also by editions 3, 4, 5, 7, 9.

la: Potius Serm. 238. (in append. n. 3.).

en: Rather Sermon 238 (in the appendix, n. 3).

en: C. 17, n. 22 [Augustine, *On the Trinity*].

la: Vat. et pleraeque edd. *natura*, refragantibus codd. et edd. 1, 8.

en: The Vatican edition and most editions read *natura*, the codices and editions 1, 8 resisting.

la: Cfr. Gregor., I. super Ezechiel. Hom. 8. n. 24. 25, et de seqq. August., 83 Qq. q. 11.

en: Cf. Gregory, *On Ezekiel* I, Homily 8, nn. 24, 25, and on what follows Augustine, *Eighty-three Questions*, q. 11.

la: Vat. cum plerisque edd. *vere*.

en: The Vatican edition with most editions reads *vere*.

la: Cod. E et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 addunt *sensu*.

en: Codex E and editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 add *sensu* ("from their own sense"). — This footer (Quaracchi p.145 right-col note 7) attaches to *de suo* in Cap. V; the identical note also covers the p.145 right-col note 6 anchor below.

en: Letter (otherwise 120) 140, c. 4, nn. 11, 12 [Augustine].

la: Quaest. 73. n. 1; continuatur hic locus etiam in seq. cap.; locus Scripturae est Phil. 2, 7.

en: Question 73, n. 1 [Augustine, *Of Eighty-three Questions*]; this passage is continued also in the following chapter; the Scripture passage is Philippians 2:7.

la: Vat. cum originali omittit *vel accedit*; cod. K tantum *accedit*, et infra pluries idem dicendum de *accidunt vel accedunt*; deinde ante *mutant* Vat. et edd. 6, 8 adiiciunt *nos*.

en: The Vatican edition with the original omits *vel accedit*; codex K reads only *accedit*, and below the same is to be said several times of *accidunt vel accedunt*; then, before *mutant*, the Vatican edition and editions 6, 8 add *nos*.

la: Cod. D *imbecillitate*, et paulo inferius pro *cum ea* habet *in his*.

en: Codex D reads *imbecillitate*, and a little below, for *cum ea*, has *in his*.

la: Codd. A D et ed. 1 *homine*, et deinde codd. A B C E et edd. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 pluries *similitudine* pro *similitudinem*; denique post *suscipiendo* codd. omnes et edd. 1, 5 addunt *et*.

en: Codices A, D and edition 1 read *homine*, and then codices A, B, C, E and editions 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 several times read *similitudine* for *similitudinem*; finally, after *suscipiendo*, all the codices and editions 1, 5 add *et*.

la: Ibid. n. 2.

en: Ibid., n. 2.

la: Cap. 21. n. 31, ubi et seq. locus.

en: C. 21, n. 31 [Augustine, *On the Trinity* IV], where also the following passage.

la: Cap. 2. n. 10. — Pro *Dei Filius* codd. A D E et edd. 4, 5, 8 *Deus Filius*, refragante etiam originali. Seq. locus ibid. n. 20. 21, in quo Vat. et plurimae edd., exceptis 1, 8, ante *exinanitio* praefigunt *susceptio vel*.

en: C. 2, n. 10 [Fulgentius, *On the Faith to Peter*]. — For *Dei Filius* codices A, D, E and editions 4, 5, 8 read *Deus Filius*, the original also resisting. The following passage ibid., nn. 20, 21, in which the Vatican edition and most editions, except 1, 8, prefix before *exinanitio* the words *susceptio vel*.

la: Est potius liber *de Fide contra Manichaeos* c. 22 (inter opera Augustini); seq. locus ibid. c. 26, ubi edd. 1, 5, 8 *Christum Deum* pro *Christum Dominum* et cum cod. E *in Christo* pro *in ipso*. — Respicitur ibi Bar. 3, 38.

en: It is rather the book *On the Faith against the Manichaeans* c. 22 (among Augustine's works); the following passage ibid., c. 26, where editions 1, 5, 8 read *Christum Deum* for *Christum Dominum*, and with codex E *in Christo* for *in ipso*. — Reference is there to Baruch 3:38.

la: Num. 22. — Pro *per naturam* Vat. cum pluribus edd. *propter naturam*. Seq. locus est ibid. n. 25.

en: N. 22 [Hilary, *On the Trinity* X]. — For *per naturam* the Vatican edition with several editions reads *propter naturam*. The following passage is ibid., n. 25. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Distinction VI littera Magistri (Peter Lombard, *Sentences* III, d. 6), as printed at the head of d.6 in S. Bonaventurae *Opera Omnia* III (Quaracchi 1887), pp. 143–146, immediately before the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VI. Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 10440–10670) cross-checked against the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p14{3,4,5,6}-{L,R}-*.png`), read Left column top→bottom then Right per page. The Vol III body OCR is clean for running prose; the page footers cascade-fragment and were re-set from the PDF footer bands.

**Structure.** Six chapters, Cap. I–VI. Cap. I states the question; Cap. II–VI lay out the *three opinions* on the locution "God was made man" (Opinion 1 = the *homo assumptus* / gratia view, Caps. I–II; Opinion 2 = the *compositum ex tribus substantiis* view, Cap. III; Opinion 3 = the *habitus* view, Caps. IV–VI). This is the classic three-opinions distinction of Lombard. The d.6 structure was re-verified from raw before promotion: littera = Cap. I–VI (raw 10440–10670); **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VI begins at raw 10671**, with DIVISIO TEXTUS at raw 10675 (→ goes in `bon-sent-III-d6-divisio`). No pars division. ARTICULUS I (raw 10760: q1 raw 10764, q2 raw 11044, q3 raw 11166); ARTICULUS II (raw 11359: q1 raw 11369, q2 raw 11522, q3 raw 11725); DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI at raw 11836; **DISTINCTIO VII begins at raw 11982**. This matches the auto-chunk scaffold (a1-q1/q2/q3, a2-q1/q2/q3, littera, divisio, dubia = 9 chunks).

**Page-split map.**
- **p.143** (PDF 165): the littera opens at the bottom of the *right* column (the d.5 dubia commentary fills the rest of p.143). Cap. I title-summary + body; Cap. II title-summary + opening of Opinion 1. Footers: **NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM** notes 1–3 (`[^1]`–`[^3]` = Cod. D omits prep. / *de Trin.* XIII c.19 / *Enchiridion* c.38).
- **p.144** (PDF 166): Cap. II body (Augustine/Hilary testimonies) + Cap. III title + Opinion 2 opening. Footers 1–11 (`[^1b]`–`[^11b]`; left col 1–7, right col 8–11).
- **p.145** (PDF 167): Cap. III tail (Damascene) + Cap. IV title + Opinion 3 + Cap. V title + Augustine *de Gratia* + Cap.-VI-bound *Octoginta trium Quaestionum* opening. Footers 1–10 (`[^1c]`–`[^10c]`; left col 1–5, right col 6–10).
- **p.146** (PDF 168): Cap. VI (four species of habit) + Augustine/Fulgentius/Hilary testimonies; littera ends just before COMMENTARIUS. Footers 1–7 (`[^1d]`–`[^7d]`).

**Apparatus count: 31 entries** (p.143: 3; p.144: 11; p.145: 10; p.146: 7). Per-page numbering restarts; markers suffixed b/c/d to stay unique. Note: p.145 right-col footers 6 and 7 share the same lemma source (Cod. E + edd. add *sensu*) but attach to two distinct body markers (*Deus verus⁶* in Cap. IV and *de suo⁷* in Cap. V); rendered as `[^7c1]` and `[^7c2]` to preserve both anchors.

**Footer hand-off.**
- *Received from `d5-dubia`:* NONE. The d.5 dubia p.143 footers (notes 1b–4b) were exhausted in Dub. IV; the DIST VI littera footers print separately under NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM.
- *Forwarded to `d6-divisio`:* NONE. The littera's p.146 footers 1–7 are fully exhausted within Cap. VI. The COMMENTARIUS footer block (**NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM**, beginning "1 Cod. G *expositionem*" at the foot of p.146-R) belongs to `bon-sent-III-d6-divisio`, not to the littera.

**Marginal labels.** Quaracchi's marginal labels are rendered inline in parentheses at their anchor points: *Opinio 1/2*, *Confirmator.* ("It is confirmed"), *Augustinus.*, *Hilarius.*, *Damascenus.*, *Fulgentius.*, *Dubium 2/3/4*, *Species 1/2/3/4*. (The "Dubium" marginalia here are the editor's cross-references to the d.6 dubia, not part of Lombard's text.)

**`[?]` flags:** none. One editorial point worth recording: `[^1]` (note 1 = "Cod. D *in*… omittunt praepositionem") is anchored to the locution *Deus est homo* in the Cap. I heading, the nearest preposition-bearing lemma; the Quaracchi note does not quote its lemma verbatim, so the exact in-line anchor is editorial. The text reading itself is unambiguous.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 6, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem VI — Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction VI — Division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 146 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VI.

*De modo illius unionis secundum varias doctorum opiniones.*

Ex praemissis autem emergit quaestio.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra determinavit Magister de modo illius excellentissimae unionis secundum fidei assertionem; in hac parte determinat secundum variam doctorum opinionem[^1]. Et quoniam secundum varietatem opinionum variatur intellectus locutionum circa illius unionis mysterium, ideo pars ista habet duas partes.

<!-- page 147 -->

In quarum prima circa unionis mysterium plures explicat opiniones. In secunda vero ostendit, qualiter secundum illas opiniones determinari habeant ambiguae locutiones, infra, distinctione septima: *Secundum vero primam dicitur Deus factus* etc.

Prima pars dividitur in duas partes. In quarum prima Magister proponit ambiguas locutiones. In secunda vero circa modum divinae unionis explicat diversas opiniones, ibi: *In huius autem quaestionis reseratione* etc. Prima pars remanet indivisa. Sed secunda subdividitur in tres secundum tres opiniones. In prima[^2] ponit primam opinionem; in secunda secundam, ibi: *Sunt autem et alii, qui istis in parte consentiunt.* In tertia vero tertiam, ibi: *Sunt autem et alii, qui in incarnatione Verbi* etc. Prima dividitur in duas. In prima opinionem narrat; in secunda confirmat, ibi: *Sed ne de suo sensu loqui putentur* etc. Similiter secunda duas partes habet. In prima ponit illam[^3] opinionem; in secunda confirmat, ibi: *De hoc Augustinus in libro Prosperi.* Similiter et tertia pars habet duas, quia in prima ponit intellectum tertiae positionis; in secunda confirmat Sanctorum testimoniis, ibi: *Sed ne de suo sensu influere videantur.*

### PRAENOTATA DE TRIBUS OPINIONIBUS.

*(Opinio 1.)* Notandum est autem hoc in principio, quod explicatio primae opinionis in quatuor consistit articulis, secundum quod colligi potest ex verbis ipsius Magistri[^4]. Primo enim ponebant, quod in ipsa incarnatione constitutus fuit unus homo ex anima et carne, ita tamen quod nihil constituebatur tertium ex homine et Deo. — Secundo vero dicebant hominem illum assumtum a Verbo. — Tertio vero, quia Deus est homo et e converso, dicebant, assumentem praedicari de assumto. — Et ex hoc consequebatur quarta positio, quod Christus est duo. Cum enim alius sit assumens, et alius sit assumtus, et Christus sit Deus assumens, et homo assumtus; suppositis praemissis, necessario habent ponere, quod Christus sit duo. Et hoc est ultimum, in quo consummatur et denominatur ista positio.

*(Opinio 2.)* Similiter explicatio secundae opinionis consistit in quatuor articulis. Primo enim dicebat, quod in incarnatione non tantum est ex anima et corpore constituta una natura, sed etiam divinitas et humanitas ad unam concurrerunt[^5] constituendam personam, ita quod persona Verbi ante incarnationem Verbi erat simplex, in incarnatione vero facta est composita. — Secundo vero simul cum hoc dicebat, quod si[^6] in incarnatione Verbi aliquo modo persona facta est composita, non tamen facta est alia, sed eadem manens, quae prius erat. — Tertio vero subiungebat, quod etsi persona Verbi in incarnatione Verbi possit dici composita, non tamen potest dici facta; nec est concedendum, quod sit facta persona, quamvis concedi possit, quod sit facta persona hominis. — Et ideo quarto loco dicebat, quod Christus erat unum, non plura, quia persona Verbi non assumserat hominis suppositum, sed naturam.

*(Opinio 3.)* Tertia similiter positio in quatuor consistebat articulis. Nam primo negabat quod dicit positio prima; aiebat enim, quod in incarnatione ex carne et anima non est constituta tertia natura. — Secundo vero negabat quod dicit opinio secunda, pro eo quod non concedebat, quod ex illis duabus naturis persona esset composita. — Tertio vero subiungebat, quod persona Verbi carnem veram et veram animam per modum indumenti assumserat, ut hominum oculis visibilis appareret. — Quarto vero subiungebat, quod Christus non est aliquid, secundum quod homo; homo enim de Christo non praedicatur per modum substantiae, sed per modum habitus, per quem modum ille qui habet habitum, dicitur esse vestitus.

Omnia autem, quae dicta sunt, trahi possunt ex his quae in littera dicuntur. Possent autem et his multa adiungi, quia uno posito, sequuntur multa[^7]. Verumtamen ista quae dicta sunt, principales positiones sunt praedictarum opinionum et ex verbis Magistri accipi possunt.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem eorum quae circa partem istam dicuntur, incidit hic quaestio principaliter circa duo. Quaeritur primo de varietate harum opinionum, in qua videlicet sit maior probabilitas. Secundo de qualitate et nobilitate illius unionis[^8], ex qua consurgit harum opinionum diversitas.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum Christus sit unum, an duo, sicut dicebat prima opinio.

<!-- page 148 -->

Secundo quaeritur, utrum persona Christi sit simplex, an composita, sicut dicit[^9] secunda opinio.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Christus, secundum quod homo, sit aliqua substantia, an solum dicatur homo de Christo secundum habitum, sicut dicebat tertia opinio.

---

english:
<!-- page 146 -->

## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VI.

*On the mode of that union according to the various opinions of the doctors.*

But from what has gone before a question emerges.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master determined concerning the mode of that most excellent union according to the assertion of faith; in this part he determines [it] according to the varied opinion[^1] of the doctors. And since according to the variety of opinions the understanding of the locutions concerning the mystery of that union is varied, therefore this part has two parts.

<!-- page 147 -->

In the first of these he explains several opinions concerning the mystery of the union. But in the second he shows in what way, according to those opinions, the ambiguous locutions are to be determined, below, in distinction seven: *But according to the first it is said that God was made* etc.

The first part is divided into two parts. In the first of these the Master sets forth the ambiguous locutions. But in the second he explains the diverse opinions concerning the mode of the divine union, there: *But in the unlocking of this question* etc. The first part remains undivided. But the second is subdivided into three according to the three opinions. In the first[^2] he sets down the first opinion; in the second the second, there: *But there are also others, who in this part agree with these.* But in the third [he sets down] the third, there: *But there are also others, who in the incarnation of the Word* etc. The first is divided into two. In the first he narrates the opinion; in the second he confirms [it], there: *But lest they be thought to speak from their own sense* etc. Likewise the second has two parts. In the first he sets down that[^3] opinion; in the second he confirms [it], there: *Concerning this Augustine in the book of Prosper.* Likewise the third part also has two, since in the first he sets down the meaning of the third position; in the second he confirms [it] by the testimonies of the Saints, there: *But lest they be thought to flow in from their own sense.*

### PREFATORY REMARKS ON THE THREE OPINIONS.

*(Opinion 1.)* But it is to be noted here at the beginning, that the explanation of the first opinion consists of four articles, according to what can be gathered from the words of the Master himself[^4]. For first they held that in the incarnation itself one man was constituted from soul and flesh, yet in such a way that nothing third was constituted from the man and God. — But secondly they said that this man was assumed by the Word. — But thirdly, since God is man and conversely, they said that the one assuming is predicated of the one assumed. — And from this followed the fourth position, that Christ is two. For since the one assuming is one thing, and the one assumed is another, and Christ is God assuming and a man assumed; the foregoing being supposed, they necessarily have to hold that Christ is two. And this is the last point, in which this position is consummated and named.

*(Opinion 2.)* Likewise the explanation of the second opinion consists of four articles. For first it said that in the incarnation not only is one nature constituted from soul and body, but also that divinity and humanity concurred[^5] to constitute one person, in such a way that the person of the Word before the incarnation of the Word was simple, but in the incarnation became composite. — But secondly, together with this, it said that if[^6] in the incarnation of the Word the person in some way became composite, nevertheless it did not become another, but remained the same, which it was before. — But thirdly it subjoined that even though the person of the Word in the incarnation of the Word can be called composite, nevertheless it cannot be called made; nor is it to be conceded that the person was made, although it can be conceded that the person of a man was made. — And therefore in the fourth place it said that Christ was one, not many, because the person of the Word had not assumed the supposit of a man, but the nature.

*(Opinion 3.)* The third position likewise consisted of four articles. For first it denied what the first position says; for it asserted that in the incarnation a third nature was not constituted from flesh and soul. — But secondly it denied what the second opinion says, for the reason that it did not concede that from those two natures a person was composed. — But thirdly it subjoined that the person of the Word had assumed true flesh and a true soul in the manner of a garment, so that it might appear visible to the eyes of men. — But fourthly it subjoined that Christ is not anything, insofar as he is man; for man is not predicated of Christ in the manner of a substance, but in the manner of a habit, in which manner he who has a habit is said to be clothed.

But all the things that have been said can be drawn from those things which are said in the text [of the Master]. But many things could also be added to these, since, one thing being posited, many follow[^7]. Nevertheless these things that have been said are the principal positions of the aforesaid opinions and can be gathered from the words of the Master.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

But for the understanding of those things which are said concerning this part, a question falls here principally concerning two things. It is asked first concerning the variety of these opinions, namely in which there is greater probability. Secondly concerning the quality and nobility of that union[^8], from which arises the diversity of these opinions.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked whether Christ is one, or two, as the first opinion said.

<!-- page 148 -->

Secondly it is asked whether the person of Christ is simple, or composite, as the second opinion says[^9].

Thirdly it is asked whether Christ, insofar as he is man, is some substance, or whether man is only said of Christ according to habit, as the third opinion said.

---

la: Cod. G *expositionem*.

en: Codex G [reads] *expositionem* [exposition].

la: Codd. A G I L N X aa *In quarum prima*.

en: Codices A G I L N X aa [read] *In quarum prima* [In the first of which].

la: Pro *illam* edd. *aliam*.

en: For *illam* [that] the editions [read] *aliam* [another].

la: Hic c. 2.

en: Here c. 2.

la: Codd. A F H U bb *concurrunt*.

en: Codices A F H U bb [read] *concurrunt* [concur].

la: Edd. *a quo*; subinde pro *consummatur* plurimi codd. et edd. 1, 2 *conservatur*, et pro *ista positio* cod. K *prima positio*.

en: The editions [read] *a quo* [from which]; thereafter for *consummatur* [is consummated] very many codices and editions 1, 2 [read] *conservatur* [is conserved], and for *ista positio* [this position] codex K [reads] *prima positio* [the first position].

la: Cod. U *etsi*, edd. *scilicet*. Paulo inferius pro *manens* codd. K P Q Z bb *mansit*.

en: Codex U [reads] *etsi* [even though], the editions *scilicet* [namely]. A little below, for *manens* [remaining] codices K P Q Z bb [read] *mansit* [it remained].

la: Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 6. in principio, et S. Thom. in principio huius dist. — Plurimi codd. nec non edd. 1, 2 *de qualitate illius variationis*; sed infra in rubrica art. 2. omnes codd. et edd. exhibent *de qualitate et nobilitate illius unionis*.

en: Cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, part III, q. 6, at the beginning, and St. Thomas at the beginning of this distinction. — Very many codices, as well as editions 1, 2, [read] *de qualitate illius variationis* [concerning the quality of that variation]; but below in the rubric of article 2 all the codices and editions exhibit *de qualitate et nobilitate illius unionis* [concerning the quality and nobility of that union].

la: Codd. F G I L N T U aa *dixit*, quod cod. Q paulo inferius pro *dicebat* ponit.

en: Codices F G I L N T U aa [read] *dixit* [it said], which codex Q a little below puts for *dicebat* [it was saying]. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 146–148 (PDF 168–170; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw `bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 10671–10758). This is the COMMENTARIUS divisio chunk for Distinction VI: it holds the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VI` opener, the `DIVISIO TEXTUS`, the `PRAENOTATA DE TRIBUS OPINIONIBUS` (Bonaventure's pre-summary of the four-article structure of each of the three opinions), and the `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` (the question-list). `ARTICULUS I` + `QUAESTIO I` (*Utrum Christus sit duo*) print immediately after the TRACTATIO on p.148 and belong to the next chunk (`d6-a1-q1`). No scholion — this is a commentary divisio (`has_scholion: false`).

**Page-split map.**
- **p.146** (col R bottom): COMMENTARIUS header + *De modo illius unionis…* + *Ex praemissis autem emergit quaestio* + DIVISIO TEXTUS header + first paragraph (*Supra determinavit Magister… ideo pars ista habet duas partes*). Footer: the divisio's first apparatus note prints here under the running head `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` — `1 Cod. G expositionem` = `[^1]` (the *opinionem¹* marker). The two preceding footer notes (6, 7) on p.146 are the LITTERA's `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` and were exhausted in `d6-littera`.
- **p.147** (running head `DIST. VI. DIVISIO TEXTUS.`): rest of the DIVISIO TEXTUS (*In quarum prima…*), all of PRAENOTATA DE TRIBUS OPINIONIBUS, and the opening of TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM through *…sicut dicebat prima opinio*. Footer notes 1–8 = `[^2]`–`[^8]` (markers *In prima¹, illam², Magistri³, in quo⁴ consummatur, concurrerunt⁵, quod si⁶, multa⁷, unionis⁸*).
- **p.148** (col L, running head `148 / SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`): TRACTATIO tail — *Secundo quaeritur… sicut dicit⁹ secunda opinio. Tertio quaeritur… sicut dicebat tertia opinio.* Footer note 1 of p.148 = `[^9]` (the *dicit⁹* marker: `Codd. F G I L N T U aa dixit…`). p.148 footer notes 2–7 (Felician / Hilarius nono de Trinitate / Porphyry de Differentia / etc.) belong to `d6-a1-q1`, whose body opens *Circa primum sic proceditur… utrum Christus sit duo* immediately after the divisio on the same page.

**Footer hand-off.**
- *Received from `d6-littera`:* NONE. The littera's p.146 footers (NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM, notes 1–7) were exhausted in Cap. VI; the divisio opens its own footer sequence under NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM.
- *Forwarded to `d6-a1-q1`:* p.148 footer notes **2–7** (Felician / Hilarius in nono de Trinitate / Porphyry *de Differentia* / Vat. *et per consequens* / De Fide orthod. c. 6, etc.) — these key the q1 body markers, NOT the divisio. The divisio owns only p.148 note **1** (`[^9]`). `d6-a1-q1` opens *Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum Christus sit duo. Et quod sic, videtur. 1. Augustinus ad Felicianum²…* on p.148-L bottom, continuing onto p.149.

**Apparatus count:** 9 marker entries (`[^1]`–`[^9]`): p.146 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM note 1 = `[^1]`; p.147 notes 1–8 = `[^2]`–`[^8]` (note 7's two-clause body and note 8's Alex.-Hal./Thom. cross-ref + variant are folded into single entries `[^7]` and `[^8]`); p.148 note 1 = `[^9]`. Markers are renumbered consecutively across the three printed pages to keep body-anchor pairing unambiguous (the per-page Quaracchi restarts do not collide within this chunk's owned notes, so no suffix scheme was needed).

**[?] flags:** NONE. All readings confirmed eyes-on against the 450 dpi PDF column bands.