title: Dist. 13, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 288 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum Deus mediante gratia capitis influat sensum in omnem creaturam habentem gratiam, sive angelicam, sive humanam.*

Tertio quaeritur de gratia capitis quantum ad influentiam, et est quaestio, utrum mediante illa gratia Deus influat sensum in omnem aliam creaturam habentem gratiam, sive angelicam, sive humanam. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Ad Ephesios primo[^p288-3]: *Proposuit omnia instaurare in Christo, quae in caelis, et quae in terris sunt*; Glossa: « *Quae in caelis sunt*, id est numerum Angelorum diminutum implere; *et quae in terris*, id est homines, qui per peccatum depravati erant, renovare »; sed illi mediante Christo sensum et motum suscipiunt, qui per ipsum instaurantur in esse perfecto: ergo si haec sunt caelestia et terrestria, homines et Angeli mediante ipso suscipiunt gratiam, et gratia capitis in hos et illos redundat.

2. Item, paulo post ibidem[^p288-4]: *Ipsum dedit caput super omnem Ecclesiam*; sed caput influit in omnia membra: ergo Christus homo per suam gratiam in totam Ecclesiam habet influentiam. Sed Ecclesia communicat suas illuminationes Angelis, sicut dicitur ad Ephesios tertio: *Ut innotescat Principatibus et Potestatibus per Ecclesiam multiformis sapientia Dei*: ergo videtur, quod influentia gratiae Christi ad omnes electos habeat extendi.

3. Item, malitia principis tenebrarum non tantum se extendit ad daemones, immo magnam efficaciam habet in homines — unde illorum per superbiam efficitur princeps[^p288-5] — si ergo bonitas gratiae Christi est multo excellentior et efficacior et communior, videtur, quod ad omnes electos se extendit per efficaciam, sive sint homines, sive Angeli, sive viatores, sive beati.

4. Item, « iste est ordo divinae sapientiae et legis, ut dictat ratio, et vult Dionysius[^p288-6], scilicet infima reduci per media, et media per suprema » — unde et Angeli ordinum inferiorum suscipiunt purgationes et perfectiones ab Angelis superiorum ordinum — sed Christus est super omnes tam Angelos quam Archangelos, *sedet* enim *a dextris Dei, tanto melior Angelis effectus, quanto prae illis differentius nomen hereditavit*: si ergo omnibus electis praeeminet excellentia perfecta, videtur, quod in omnes gratia eius habeat efficaciam et influentiam.

<!-- page 289 -->

**Sed contra:** 1. Caput non influit in cor, sed magis e converso[^p289-1]: si ergo secundum rectam transsumtionem gratia illa, quae in alios redundat, dicitur gratia capitis; non videtur, quod influat in totum corpus Ecclesiae; aut si in totum influit, potius deberet gratia cordis quam capitis appellari.

2. Item, gratia capitis non influit nisi in eos qui iam sunt membra; et nulli sunt membra[^p289-2], nisi coniungantur ei per fidem et caritatem: ergo in nullos influit nisi in habentes fidem et caritatem. Sed habentes fidem et caritatem habent motum et sensum: ergo videtur, quod gratia capitis in nullos influat nec motum nec sensum; nec est aliud dare, quod influat: ergo etc.

3. Item, gratia capitis in eos solos influit, respectu quorum habens gratiam est caput; sed Christus secundum humanam naturam non est caput Angelorum, quia unius naturae sunt caput et membra[^p289-3]: ergo nullam habet in Angelos influentiam.

4. Item, esto quod Filius Dei non esset incarnatus, Angeli essent beati; nec propter Christi incarnationem sunt aliqui ex eis redempti et liberati: ergo videtur, quod nihil eis conferat gratia Christi.

5. Item, nihil agit, nisi dum est; sed Christi gratia non fuit ante adventum Christi: ergo videtur, quod in illos qui Christi adventum praecesserunt, gratia illa nullum habuit effectum.

6. Item, si ita influebat ante adventum Christi in Sanctos, qui praecesserunt, sicut nunc in nobis habet effectum[^p289-4]: ergo sicut illud dicitur tempus gratiae propter redundantiam a plenitudine Christi, ita videtur, quod tempus illud deberet tempus gratiae dici; quod si non dicitur, videtur, quod influentia gratiae Christi non se extendat ad illos qui praecesserunt.

> **Conclusio.** Gratia Christi influit in omnes, tam in Angelos, quam in homines, tam in eos qui praecesserunt ipsum, quam in eos qui secuti sunt, tamen non eodem modo, sed secundum magis et minus.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod sensus in spiritualibus attenditur quantum ad cognitionem, motus vero quantum ad affectionem et dilectionem, quae est pondus inclinans[^p289-5] unumquemque spiritum et trahens ad locum sibi debitum. Influere ergo motum et sensum est causare in nobis fidem et dilectionem, sive fidem operantem per dilectionem, sive cognitionem et amorem. Attendendum autem, quod cognitio et dilectio est in triplici differentia: quaedam[^p289-6], quae respicit statum meriti, et haec dicitur gratuita; quaedam vero, in qua consistit substantia praemii, et haec dicitur gloriosa; quaedam, quae est utrique annexa, quae nec est de essentia meriti nec praemii, sed de bene esse.

Secundum hanc triplicem differentiam cognitionis et dilectionis est dicere, quod gratia capitis influat in membra gratia increata effective, sed gratia creata meritorie et dispositive. Nam propter meritum passionis Christi promissum Patribus praecedentibus dedit Deus gratiam reconciliationis; et propter exhibitum dat nobis gratiam reconciliationis abundantius, in qua quidem gratia est sensus cognitionis et motus affectionis[^p289-7]; et rursus, propter illam passionem aperta est ianua, ut omnibus membris Christi detur dilectio et cognitio gloriosa, in quibus consistit perfectio motus et sensus. — Ex hoc eodem Angelis mysteria multa revelantur, et gaudia multa conferuntur de restauratione sua, quae invenitur facta per Christum[^p289-8]. Et ideo etiam ipsi accipiunt motum et sensum; non, inquam, illum qui est de essentia gratiae et gloriae, sed qui est de bene esse ac perfectione.

Concedendum est igitur, quod gratia capitis redundat in omnes cives supernae Ierusalem, licet secundum plus et minus: nam magis in homines, qui redimuntur, quam in Angelos, qui reintegrantur; magisque in eos qui sequuntur eius adventum, quam in eos qui praecesserunt, quia clarius vident et credunt et charismatum donis amplius perfunduntur, propter hoc quod, si passio promissa tantum illis valuit, ut illos per viam salutis perduceret, amplius passio exhibita et soluta hoc debuit facere. — Propter hoc concedendae sunt rationes ad primam partem inductae.

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod generalior est influentia cordis quam capitis; dicendum, quod generalior est secundum veritatem, sed tamen influentia capitis generalior est secundum manifestationem, pro eo quod in capite omnes sensus apparent et eminentiorem situm habent, et in eo sunt cellulae

<!-- page 290 -->

aptae ad cognoscendum et nervi apti ad sentiendum et movendum; ita quod nervi apti ad sentiendum a parte anteriori videntur egredi, et nervi apti ad motum a parte posteriori. Et quoniam transsumtio ad manifestandas proprietates spirituales latentes sumi debet a re manifesta; hinc est, quod propter generalem influentiam magis dicitur Christus caput, quam dicatur cor; propter quam etiam evidentiam medici discordant a naturalibus. Dicunt enim physici, quod principium motus et sensus est in capite[^p290-1], licet naturales, qui considerant principia rerum intimius, dicant, quod horum principium est cor[^p290-2]. Et sic patet illud.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caput non influit nisi in unita membra; dicendum, quod hoc[^p290-3] habet veritatem in eo capite, quod habet determinatam potentiam et non potest sibi membra unire et de non-membro membrum facere. Et ideo hoc non habet locum in capite Christo, qui potest secundum divinam naturam de non-membro membrum facere, et secundum humanam naturam potest hoc mereri et impetrare, et ita primo sensum et motum influere et continuare.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angeli non sunt membra, quia non sunt conformes in natura; dicendum, quod etsi Angeli non debeant dici membra, tamen nihilominus influentia potest esse a Christo in Angelos non solum secundum divinam naturam, secundum quam est caput omnium, sed etiam secundum naturam humanam, per accidens tamen; quia influendo et redimendo membra sua reparat Christus ruinam angelicam. Quando ergo dicitur, quod gratia capitis non influit nisi in membra; si intelligantur membra proprie, sic non habet veritatem, nisi arctetur influentia ad influentiam proprie dictam, cuiusmodi est influentia gratiae et gloriae.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angeli essent beati, etiam si Christus non esset incarnatus; dicendum, quod hoc non cogit, quod Christus nullo modo influat, sed quod non influit primum motum et sensum, qui sunt essentiales gratiae et gloriae. Aliquo tamen modo potest influere quod facit ad bene esse, sicut prius ostensum est.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illud non potest influere, quod non habet esse; dicendum, quod verum est de influentia per modum principii effectivi, de influentia autem per modum meriti non habet veritatem. Sufficit enim, quod sit in fide et dilectione credentis; ac per hoc, dum creditur et amatur, ab ipso credens et amans vivificetur, et dum etiam promittitur, ex ipsa promissione divina severitatis rigor aliquatenus placetur, ut benevolentiam suam reddat.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tempus praecedens deberet dici tempus gratiae; dicendum, quod in tempore praecedenti gratia Christi non defuit; attamen non debet illud tempus gratiae, sed umbrae dici, quia non erat tanta redundantia gratiae, quae velamen figurarum effugaret et onus Legis alleviaret. Nunc autem, cum manifesta est veritas, et per amorem alleviata sunt mandata, vere dicendum est tempus gratiae advenisse. Unde Christus efficaciam habuit in his qui praeibant et sequebantur[^p290-4], ut botrus in palo portabatur ab antecedentibus et sequentibus, sed praeeuntes ferebant et non videbant, sequentes vero et ferebant et aperte videbant: sic similitudinarie in proposito intelligendum est.

<!-- page 291 -->

english:
### Question III. *Whether God, by means of the grace of the Head, infuses sense into every creature having grace, whether angelic or human.*

Thirdly, inquiry is made concerning the grace of the Head as regards influence, and the question is whether, by means of that grace, God infuses sense into every other creature having grace, whether angelic or human. And that he does so seems to be the case.

1. To the Ephesians, chapter one[^p288-3]: *He purposed to restore all things in Christ, which are in heaven and which are on earth*; the Gloss: « *Which are in heaven*, that is, to fill up the diminished number of the Angels; *and which are on earth*, that is, to renew men, who had been depraved through sin »; but those receive sense and motion by means of Christ, who are restored through him into perfect being: therefore, if these are the heavenly and earthly things, men and Angels receive grace by means of him, and the grace of the Head redounds into these and into those.

2. Likewise, a little after, in the same place[^p288-4]: *Him he gave as head over the whole Church*; but the head infuses into all the members: therefore Christ as man, through his grace, has influence into the whole Church. But the Church communicates her illuminations to the Angels, as is said to the Ephesians, chapter three: *That there may be made known to the Principalities and Powers through the Church the manifold wisdom of God*: therefore it seems that the influence of Christ's grace must be extended to all the elect.

3. Likewise, the malice of the prince of darkness does not extend itself only to the demons; rather, it has great efficacy upon men — whence through pride he is made their prince[^p288-5] — if therefore the goodness of Christ's grace is much more excellent and more efficacious and more common, it seems that it extends itself by efficacy to all the elect, whether they be men, or Angels, or wayfarers, or the blessed.

4. Likewise, « this is the order of the divine wisdom and law, as reason dictates and as Dionysius wills[^p288-6], namely that the lowest be led back through the middle, and the middle through the highest » — whence also the Angels of the lower orders receive purgations and perfections from the Angels of the higher orders — but Christ is above all, both Angels and Archangels, for *he sits at the right hand of God, made so much better than the Angels as he has inherited a more excellent name beyond them*: if therefore he is preeminent over all the elect by a perfect excellence, it seems that his grace has efficacy and influence into all.

**On the contrary:** 1. The head does not infuse into the heart, but rather the converse[^p289-1]: if therefore, according to a correct transumption, that grace which redounds into others is called the grace of the Head; it does not seem that it infuses into the whole body of the Church; or if it infuses into the whole, it ought rather to be called the grace of the heart than of the head.

2. Likewise, the grace of the Head infuses only into those who are already members; and none are members[^p289-2] unless they be joined to him through faith and charity: therefore it infuses into none except those having faith and charity. But those having faith and charity have motion and sense: therefore it seems that the grace of the Head infuses neither motion nor sense into any; nor is there anything else to assign that it might infuse: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, the grace of the Head infuses only into those with respect to whom the one having grace is head; but Christ, according to his human nature, is not the head of the Angels, since head and members are of one nature[^p289-3]: therefore he has no influence into the Angels.

4. Likewise, supposing that the Son of God had not become incarnate, the Angels would be blessed; nor are any of them redeemed and liberated on account of Christ's incarnation: therefore it seems that the grace of Christ confers nothing on them.

5. Likewise, nothing acts except while it exists; but Christ's grace did not exist before the coming of Christ: therefore it seems that, upon those who preceded the coming of Christ, that grace had no effect.

6. Likewise, if it so flowed in before the coming of Christ into the Saints who preceded, just as now it has effect[^p289-4] in us: therefore, just as this is called the time of grace on account of the redundancy from the fullness of Christ, so it seems that that time too ought to be called the time of grace; and if it is not so called, it seems that the influence of Christ's grace does not extend itself to those who preceded.

> **Conclusion.** The grace of Christ infuses into all, both into the Angels and into men, both into those who preceded him and into those who followed, yet not in the same way, but according to more and less.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing, it must be noted that sense, in spiritual things, is regarded as to cognition, but motion as to affection and love, which is the weight inclining[^p289-5] each spirit and drawing it to the place owed to it. To infuse motion and sense, therefore, is to cause in us faith and love, whether faith working through love, or cognition and love. But it must be noted that cognition and love are in a threefold difference: one[^p289-6] which regards the state of merit, and this is called gratuitous; another in which the substance of the reward consists, and this is called glorious; another which is annexed to both, which is neither of the essence of merit nor of reward, but of well-being.

According to this threefold difference of cognition and love, one must say that the grace of the Head infuses into the members by uncreated grace effectively, but by created grace meritoriously and dispositively. For on account of the merit of Christ's passion promised, God gave to the preceding Fathers the grace of reconciliation; and on account of the passion exhibited, he gives to us the grace of reconciliation more abundantly, in which grace indeed there is the sense of cognition and the motion of affection[^p289-7]; and again, on account of that passion the door was opened, so that to all the members of Christ there might be given glorious love and cognition, in which the perfection of motion and sense consists. — From this same thing many mysteries are revealed to the Angels, and many joys are conferred upon them concerning their restoration, which is found to have been accomplished through Christ[^p289-8]. And therefore they too receive motion and sense; not, I say, that which is of the essence of grace and glory, but that which is of well-being and perfection.

It must therefore be granted that the grace of the Head redounds into all the citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, albeit according to more and less: for more into men, who are redeemed, than into the Angels, who are reintegrated; and more into those who follow his coming than into those who preceded, because they see and believe more clearly and are more abundantly suffused with the gifts of the charisms, on account of this, that if the promised passion availed only so far for them as to lead them through the way of salvation, the passion exhibited and accomplished ought to do more. — On account of this, the reasons adduced for the first part must be granted.

1. To that, however, which is objected, that the influence of the heart is more general than that of the head; it must be said that it is more general according to truth, but nevertheless the influence of the head is more general according to manifestation, for the reason that in the head all the senses appear and have a more eminent position, and in it are the cells

apt for cognizing and the nerves apt for sensing and moving; so that the nerves apt for sensing seem to issue from the front part, and the nerves apt for motion from the rear part. And since a transumption for manifesting latent spiritual properties ought to be taken from a manifest thing; hence it is that, on account of the general influence, Christ is rather called head than called heart; on account of which evidence, too, the physicians disagree with the natural philosophers. For the physicians say that the principle of motion and sense is in the head[^p290-1], although the natural philosophers, who consider the principles of things more intimately, say that the principle of these is the heart[^p290-2]. And thus that is clear.

2. To that which is objected, that the head does not infuse except into united members; it must be said that this[^p290-3] holds true in that head which has a determinate power and cannot unite members to itself and make a member out of a non-member. And therefore this does not hold in the case of Christ the Head, who can, according to his divine nature, make a member out of a non-member, and according to his human nature can merit and obtain this, and so first infuse and continue sense and motion.

3. To that which is objected, that the Angels are not members, because they are not conformed in nature; it must be said that, even though the Angels ought not be called members, nevertheless there can still be an influence from Christ into the Angels, not only according to his divine nature, according to which he is head of all, but also according to his human nature, by accident however; because by infusing and redeeming his members Christ repairs the angelic ruin. When therefore it is said that the grace of the Head does not infuse except into members; if members be understood properly, then it does not hold true, unless the influence be restricted to influence properly so called, of which kind is the influence of grace and glory.

4. To that which is objected, that the Angels would be blessed even if Christ had not become incarnate; it must be said that this does not compel the conclusion that Christ in no way infuses, but that he does not infuse the first motion and sense, which are essential to grace and glory. In some way, however, he can infuse that which makes for well-being, as was shown before.

5. To that which is objected, that that which does not have being cannot infuse; it must be said that this is true of influence by way of an effective principle, but of influence by way of merit it does not hold true. For it suffices that it be in the faith and love of the believer; and through this, while it is believed and loved, the believer and lover is vivified by it, and while too it is promised, by that very promise the rigor of divine severity is somewhat appeased, so that he may render his benevolence.

6. To that which is objected, that the preceding time ought to be called the time of grace; it must be said that in the preceding time the grace of Christ was not lacking; yet that time ought not be called of grace, but of shadow, because there was not so great a redundancy of grace as might drive off the veil of the figures and lighten the burden of the Law. But now, when the truth is manifest, and the commandments have been lightened through love, it must truly be said that the time of grace has come. Whence Christ had efficacy in those who went before and who followed[^p290-4], as a cluster of grapes was carried on a pole by those going before and those following, but those going before bore it and did not see it, while those following both bore it and openly saw it: so by way of likeness it must be understood in the matter at hand.

la: Vers. 9. seq. — Verba Glossae, quae *ordinaria* est et habetur apud Petr. Lombardum et Lyranum in hunc loc., delibata sunt ex August., Enchirid. c. 62. n. 16. — Circa finem arg. post *suscipiunt gratiam* cod. F addit *unionis*.

en: Verse 9 ff. — The words of the Gloss, which is the *ordinary* one and is found in Peter Lombard and Lyra on this passage, are drawn from Augustine, Enchiridion c. 62. n. 16. — Near the end of the argument, after *suscipiunt gratiam* (they receive grace) codex F adds *unionis* (of union).

la: Cap. 1, 22. — Locus seq. Scripturae est Eph. 3, 10. — De *minori* cfr. supra q. I. — Pro *suas illuminationes* edd. *suas influentias*. In fine arg. pro *ad omnes* Vat. perperam *ad homines*.

en: Chapter 1, 22. — The following passage of Scripture is Eph. 3, 10. — On the *minor* [premise] cf. above q. I. — For *suas illuminationes* (her illuminations) the editions read *suas influentias* (her inflowings). At the end of the argument, for *ad omnes* (to all) the Vatican edition wrongly [reads] *ad homines* (to men).

la: Iob 41, 25: Ipse est rex super universos filios superbiae.

en: Job 41, 25: He is king over all the sons of pride.

la: De Caelest. Hierarch. c. 4. § 3. et c. 8. § 2. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 277, nota 7. — Seq. Script. locus est Hebr. 1, 3. — Pro *per media, et media per suprema* codd. M O *per media ad suprema*. In ultima propos. arg. edd. post *si ergo* supplent *Christus*.

en: On the Celestial Hierarchy c. 4. § 3. and c. 8. § 2. Cf. tom. II. p. 277, note 7. — The following passage of Scripture is Heb. 1, 3. — For *per media, et media per suprema* (through the middle, and the middle through the highest) codices M O [read] *per media ad suprema* (through the middle to the highest). In the last proposition of the argument, after *si ergo* (if therefore) the editions supply *Christus* (Christ).

la: Aristot., II. de Generat. animal. c. 4. docet, in generatione cor secerni primum, ex eoque incrementum et motum ceteris partibus contingere. Cfr. III. de Partib. animal. c. 4.

en: Aristotle, II. On the Generation of Animals c. 4. teaches that in generation the heart is set apart first, and from it increase and motion come to the other parts. Cf. III. On the Parts of Animals c. 4.

la: Cod. K addit *Christi*. Circa finem arg. pro *in nullos* cod. D exhibet *in mutos*; in cod. V manus posterior vocabulo *nullos* ascripsit *mutos*. Deinde post *nec sensum* non pauci codd. interserunt *ergo*.

en: Codex K adds *Christi* (of Christ). Near the end of the argument, for *in nullos* (into none) codex D shows *in mutos* (into the mute); in codex V a later hand wrote *mutos* (mute) beside the word *nullos* (none). Then after *nec sensum* (nor sense) not a few codices insert *ergo* (therefore).

la: Vide supra q. I.

en: See above q. I.

la: Cod. W *haberet effectum*. In edd. legitur sic: *sicut nunc in nos, si* [edd. 1, 2 *sic*] *habuit effectum in illis, sicut nunc in nobis habet effectum* etc.

en: Codex W [reads] *haberet effectum* (it would have effect). In the editions it is read thus: *sicut nunc in nos, si* [edd. 1, 2 *sic*] *habuit effectum in illis, sicut nunc in nobis habet effectum* (just as now into us, if [edd. 1, 2: thus] it had effect in them, just as now it has effect in us) etc.

la: August., XIII. Confess. c. 9. n. 10: Pondus meum amor meus, eo feror quocumque feror. Et XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 28: Nam velut amores corporum momenta sunt ponderum sive deorsum gravitate, sive sursum levitate nitantur. Ita enim corpus pondere, sicut animus amore fertur, quocumque fertur. — Mox pro *causare* etiam plures codd. *creare*, cod. G *dare*.

en: Augustine, XIII. Confessions c. 9. n. 10: My weight is my love; by it I am borne wherever I am borne. And XI. On the City of God, c. 28: For just as the loves of bodies are the momenta of weights, whether they strive downward by gravity or upward by levity. For thus a body is borne by weight, as the soul by love, wherever it is borne. — Presently for *causare* (to cause) several codices also [read] *creare* (to create), codex G *dare* (to give).

la: Cod. K hic et inferius post *quaedam vero* supplet *est*.

en: Codex K, here and below, after *quaedam vero* (another however) supplies *est* (is).

la: Cfr. infra d. 19. a. 1. q. 1. seqq. De seq. propos. vide infra d. 18. a. 2. q. 3.

en: Cf. below d. 19. a. 1. q. 1. ff. On the following proposition see below d. 18. a. 2. q. 3.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 67, nota 7, et II. Sent. d. 9. q. 5. nec non d. 11. a. 2. q. 2.

en: Cf. above p. 67, note 7, and II. Sent. d. 9. q. 5., as also d. 11. a. 2. q. 2.

la: S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. ad 8. ait: Dicendum, quod cor est principium virium vitalium in toto corpore et est primum principium omnium membrorum quantum ad esse, ut dicit Philosophus; sed caput est principium virium animalium, quae pertinent ad sensum et ad motum.

en: S. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1. ad 8, says: It must be said that the heart is the principle of the vital powers in the whole body and is the first principle of all the members as to being, as the Philosopher says; but the head is the principle of the animal powers, which pertain to sense and to motion.

la: Haec illius aetatis doctrina sumta esse videtur ex Avicenna, I. Canon. Fen 1. Doctrin. 5. c. 1, qui, postquam prius statuit, « quod est membrum suscipiens et tribuens, et membrum tribuens et non suscipiens, et membrum suscipiens et non tribuens, et membrum neque tribuens neque suscipiens », disserit sic: De membri autem tribuentis et suscipientis inventione non dubitamus. In cerebro namque et hepate omnes convenerunt medici, quod unumquodque eorum virtutem vitae suscipit et calorem naturalem et spiritum a corde; et unumquodque eorum principium habet virtutis, quam aliis tribuit. Sed cerebrum quidem praebet sensum secundum quosdam absolute, et secundum quosdam non absolute; et hepar est principium nutrimenti secundum quosdam absolute, et secundum quosdam non absolute. De membri autem suscipientis et non tribuentis inventione non dubitamus, sicut caro est, quae sentiendi virtutem et vitae suscipit, et non est alicuius virtutis principium, quam alii ullo modo tribuat. De aliis vero duabus divisionis partibus, in una earum medici a magno philosophorum [i. e. Aristot.] diversificati sunt. Philosophorum namque magnus dixit, quod membrum tribuens et non recipiens est cor; ipsum enim est omnium virtutum prima radix et omnibus aliis membris suas tribuit virtutes, quibus nutriuntur et vivunt et quibus comprehendunt et quibus movent. Medici autem et quidam primorum philosophorum [ut Plato, qui, cum tres animas esse vellet, unicuique earum etiam membrum quoddam speciale ut sedem addixit: cerebrum, cor et iecur] has virtutes in membris partiti sunt, et non dixerunt, quod sit membrum tribuens et non suscipiens. Et Philosophi quidem sermo, cum subtiliter certificatur, est veracior, sed medicorum sermo, in primis cum attenditur, est magis manifestus etc. Cfr. ibid. Doctrin. 6. c. 1, et Averroes, in II. de Partib. animal. c. 7. et II. Colliget, c. 9, ubi sententiam Aristot. defendit contra Galenum.

en: This doctrine of that age seems to have been taken from Avicenna, I. Canon, Fen 1. Doctrine 5. c. 1, who, after first establishing that « there is a member receiving and bestowing, and a member bestowing and not receiving, and a member receiving and not bestowing, and a member neither bestowing nor receiving », discusses thus: But concerning the finding of a member bestowing and receiving we do not doubt. For in the brain and the liver all the physicians have agreed that each of them receives the power of life and natural heat and spirit from the heart; and each of them has the principle of the power which it bestows on the others. But the brain indeed provides sense, according to some absolutely, and according to some not absolutely; and the liver is the principle of nutriment, according to some absolutely, and according to some not absolutely. But concerning the finding of a member receiving and not bestowing we do not doubt, as is the flesh, which receives the power of sensing and of life, and is not the principle of any power which it bestows on another in any way. But concerning the other two parts of the division, in one of them the physicians have differed from the great one of the philosophers [i. e. Aristotle]. For the great one of the philosophers said that the member bestowing and not receiving is the heart; for it is the first root of all the powers and bestows on all the other members their powers, by which they are nourished and live and by which they comprehend and by which they move. But the physicians and certain of the first philosophers [as Plato, who, since he held there to be three souls, also assigned to each of them a certain special member as its seat: the brain, the heart, and the liver] distributed these powers among the members, and did not say that there is a member bestowing and not receiving. And the discourse of the Philosopher indeed, when it is subtly verified, is more truthful, but the discourse of the physicians, at first when it is attended to, is more manifest, etc. Cf. ibid. Doctrine 6. c. 1, and Averroes, in II. On the Parts of Animals c. 7. and II. Colliget, c. 9, where he defends the opinion of Aristotle against Galen.

la: Pro *hoc* edd. cum nonnullis codd. *solum*, codd. F G I L T U V Z (K aa primitus) vitiose *non*. Circa finem arg. pro *primo* codd. H M O bb *potest*, et pro *continuare* edd. *continere*.

en: For *hoc* (this) the editions, with some codices, [read] *solum* (only), codices F G I L T U V Z (K aa originally) faultily *non* (not). Near the end of the argument, for *primo* (first) codices H M O bb [read] *potest* (he can), and for *continuare* (to continue) the editions [read] *continere* (to contain).

la: Marc. 11, 9. Exemplum allatum est ex Num. 13, 24. — Vat. *ut botrus in palmite vel palo* [i. e. paxillo, quo sustentatur vitis; cfr. Du Cange etc.].

en: Mark 11, 9. The example adduced is from Num. 13, 24. — The Vatican edition [reads] *ut botrus in palmite vel palo* (like a cluster on a branch or pole) [i. e. on a stake by which the vine is supported; cf. Du Cange etc.]. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Cum Christus constitutus sit *caput super omnem Ecclesiam* (Eph. I, 22.), quaeritur, ad quos se extendat ista relatio, quae est inter caput et membra, tum quoad homines, tum quoad Angelos. Manifestum est, quod Christus nullatenus sit caput *damnatorum* hominum et daemonum; item, quod actu sit caput *beatorum* hominum animarumque in *purgatorio* existentium. Quoad *viatores*, cum Ecclesia sit corpus Christi mysticum, iidem, qui membra sunt Ecclesiae, etiam membra sunt Christi, divini Ecclesiae capitis. Constat autem, quod Ecclesiae membra sunt non *soli praedestinati*, ut praeter Calvinum docuit Huss (cfr. art. I. 20. 21, a Concil. Constant. condemnati, et propositio 73. Quesnelli, damnata a Clemente XI. an. 1713), neque *soli iusti*, ut cum Donatistis multi alii haeretici docuerunt, quod pluries reprobavit Ecclesia, praesertim in Conc. Trident. (Sess. VI. can. 28.) et an. 1794 Pius VI. contra Synodum Pistoriensem (Bulla *Auctorem Fidei*, prop. 15.). — Sed notandum est, secundum varios modos et gradus posse aliquem esse membrum Ecclesiae, et per consequens etiam Christum esse eius caput. Quinque gradus recenset S. Thom. (S. III. q. 8. a. 3.) dicens: « Primo et principaliter est caput eorum qui *actu* uniuntur sibi per *gloriam*; secundo eorum qui *actu* sibi uniuntur per *caritatem*; tertio eorum qui *actu* uniuntur sibi per *fidem*; quarto vero, qui sibi uniuntur solum in potentia nondum reducta ad actum, quae tamen est ad actum *reducenda* secundum divinam praedestinationem; quinto vero eorum qui in potentia sunt sibi unita, quae nunquam reducetur ad actum ». — Nonnulli autem propter convenientiam in natura et propter gratias actuales, quas Salvator omnium solet etiam infidelibus largiri, adhuc amplius extendunt rationem capitis; sed tunc sumitur haec ratio in sensu non proprio. Generali enim quadam ratione dici potest, Christum esse caput omnium hominum viatorum in omni tempore.

**II.** Quoad Angelos Guliel. Antissiodorensis (Summa aurea p. III. tr. I. c. 4. q. 2.) aliique pauci negaverunt, Christum esse caput bonorum Angelorum. In *explicatione* autem contrariae et communissimae sententiae non conveniunt theologi. Nam cum Scoto non pauci, etiam ex ipsa schola S. Thomae, tenent, Christum influere in Angelos gratiam et gloriam non tantum *accidentalem* (ut docet S. Bonav. nec non, ut videtur probabilius, ipse S. Thom.), sed etiam *essentialem*. Hoc profitentur praecipue qui rationem incarnationis a lapsu protoparentum non dependere dicunt (cfr. supra d. I. a. 2. q. 2.). — Quod Christus sit caput Angelorum, docet S. Bonav. etiam supra d. I. a. 2. q. 2. ad 7, infra d. 14. dub. 4; Breviloq. p. IV. c. 3.

**III.** Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 12. m. 2. a. 2. § 1-4. et a. 3. § I. — Scot., III. Sent. d. 19. q. unica n. 8. seqq., d. 7. q. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; S. III. q. 8. a. 3. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. 9. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Since Christ is constituted *head over the whole Church* (Eph. I, 22.), it is asked to whom this relation, which is between head and members, extends, both as to men and as to the Angels. It is manifest that Christ is in no way the head of *damned* men and of demons; likewise, that he is actually the head of *blessed* men and of the souls existing in *purgatory*. As to *wayfarers*, since the Church is the mystical body of Christ, the same who are members of the Church are also members of Christ, the divine head of the Church. But it is established that the members of the Church are not the *predestinate alone*, as Huss taught besides Calvin (cf. art. I. 20. 21, condemned by the Council of Constance, and proposition 73 of Quesnel, condemned by Clement XI in the year 1713), nor the *just alone*, as with the Donatists many other heretics taught, which the Church has reproved many times, especially in the Council of Trent (Sess. VI. can. 28.) and in the year 1794 Pius VI against the Synod of Pistoia (Bull *Auctorem Fidei*, prop. 15.). — But it must be noted that, according to various modes and degrees, someone can be a member of the Church, and consequently Christ can be his head. S. Thomas (S. III. q. 8. a. 3.) enumerates five degrees, saying: « First and principally he is the head of those who are *actually* united to him through *glory*; secondly of those who are *actually* united to him through *charity*; thirdly of those who are *actually* united to him through *faith*; fourthly indeed of those who are united to him only in potency not yet reduced to act, which is nevertheless to be *reduced* to act according to divine predestination; fifthly of those who are in potency united to him, which will never be reduced to act ». — Some, however, on account of conformity in nature and on account of the actual graces which the Savior of all is wont to bestow even on the unbelieving, extend the notion of head still further; but then this notion is taken in a non-proper sense. For by a certain general reckoning it can be said that Christ is the head of all wayfaring men in every time.

**II.** As to the Angels, William of Auxerre (Summa aurea p. III. tr. I. c. 4. q. 2.) and a few others denied that Christ is the head of the good Angels. But in the *explanation* of the contrary and most common opinion the theologians do not agree. For with Scotus not a few, even from the very school of S. Thomas, hold that Christ infuses into the Angels grace and glory not only *accidental* (as S. Bonaventure teaches, and, as seems more probable, S. Thomas himself), but also *essential*. This is professed especially by those who say that the reason for the incarnation does not depend upon the fall of the first parents (cf. above d. I. a. 2. q. 2.). — That Christ is the head of the Angels, S. Bonaventure teaches also above d. I. a. 2. q. 2. ad 7, below d. 14. dub. 4; Breviloquium p. IV. c. 3.

**III.** Alex. of Hales, S. p. III. q. 12. m. 2. a. 2. § 1-4. and a. 3. § I. — Scotus, III. Sent. d. 19. q. unica n. 8. seqq., d. 7. q. 3. — S. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2; S. III. q. 8. a. 3. 4. — B. Albert, here a. 2. 9. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 2. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.288–291 (PDF 310–313; offset `pdf = printed + 22`), Left column top→bottom then Right column, body then footers, per the Vol III PDF-priority inversion. The IA djvu OCR (raw 20305–20510) was the base for clean prose and footnote-marker spacing. Running heads confirmed eyes-on (never OCR'd digits): p.288 R lower opens `QUAESTIO III.`; `QUAEST. III. 289`; `[SENTENT]IARUM LIB. III.` (p.290, even); `DIST. XIII. DUBIA. 291` (the Scholion sits at the top of p.291 above the dubia opener).

**Alignment.** PASS — opener (raw 20305) reads `Tertio quaeritur de gratia capitis quantum ad influentiam, et est quaestio, utrum mediante illa gratia Deus influat sensum in omnem aliam creaturam habentem gratiam, sive angelicam, sive humanam` = ART. II q3, the *influentia/redundantia* question. NOT q1 *creatum-vel-increatum* (raw 19969), NOT q2 *differentia / alia quam gratia singularis personae* (raw 20154). No swap.

**Page-split map.**
- p.288 (lower R + L cols): Quaestio III title + fundamenta 1–4. Footers: q3 picks up **n.3** (forwarded from a2-q2) + carries **nn.4–6** → `[^p288-3]`–`[^p288-6]`. (p.288 nn.1–2 were q2's Ad 3 / Ad 4 — NOT re-claimed.)
- p.289: Sed contra 1–6 + Conclusio + Respondeo (begins) + reply 1 (begins). Footers **nn.1–8** → `[^p289-1]`–`[^p289-8]` (L nn.1–4, R nn.5–8).
- p.290: reply 1 (cont.) + replies 2–6. Footers **nn.1–4** → `[^p290-1]`–`[^p290-4]` (L nn.1–2 [the long S.Thom. + Avicenna medical notes], R nn.3–4).
- p.291 (top): Scholion I–III. **Carries no numbered apparatus** (the next numbered footer block on p.291 belongs to the d.13 dubia).

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up* from d13-a2-q2 (commits 497828b + c433c8e): the **p.288 footer n.3** (`Vers. 9. seq.` — Glossa ordinaria on Eph. 1), rendered here as `[^p288-3]`, anchoring q3 fund. 1 (`Ad Ephesios primo³`). It is q3's first body-footer. q2 consumed p.288 nn.1–2; they were not re-claimed.
- *Forwarded* to **d13-dubia**: NONE. q3's apparatus is fully self-contained — q3 consumed all of p.290's footers (nn.1–4); the d.13 dubia begins on p.291 (`DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` / `Dub. I.`, raw 20511) with its own fresh footer sequence (the first dubia footers being the `Origenes super Leviticum` / `Augustinus in littera` block). The Scholion (p.291 top) is q3's own and carries no footers.

**Scholion coverage.** `has_scholion: true`. Scholion I–III prints at the top of p.291 after q3's reply 6 and pertains to THIS question (the *influentia* / *ad quos se extendat ratio capitis* matter): §I = to whom the head↔member relation extends (the damned/demons excluded; blessed + purgatory actual; wayfarers; rejection of the predestinate-alone [Huss] and just-alone [Donatists] errors; S. Thomas's five degrees); §II = whether Christ is head of the good Angels and whether the infused grace is accidental or essential; §III = doctor-citations. It does NOT forward-cover any sibling (q3 is ART. II's last quaestio); the d.13 dubia carries its own.

**`[?]` flags:** NONE. OCR clean; every reading confirmed column-by-column against the 450 dpi p.288/289/290/291 bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 13, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 291 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Christus est caput, in quo sunt omnes sensus, in Sanctis vero quasi solus tactus.* Sed contra: Origenes super Leviticum[^p291-1] distinguit quinque sensus spirituales, correspondentes quinque corporalibus. Et ibidem dicit, quod omnes illi sensus sunt in viris sanctis et spiritualibus: ergo nihil dicit, quod in Sanctis est solus tactus. — Item, in spiritualibus tactus est sensus nobilior et perfectior, pro eo quod magis iungit de proximo ei, in quo est summa nobilitas, utpote Deo: ergo videtur, quod multo magis quam tactus deberent alii sensus in viris sanctis reperiri.

Est igitur quaestio, quid Augustinus hic vocet quinque sensus spirituales. Et iuxta hoc, quid sint sensus spirituales, et qualiter distinguantur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sensus nominat usum alicuius potentiae existentis in re vivente et a re vivente secundum naturam[^p291-2]. Per hunc etiam modum in spiritualibus sensus dicit usum donorum gratuitorum, quae quidem dona sunt eo vitalia, quo sunt gratuita. — Potest igitur sensus accipi *large*, pro quocumque usu gratiae perfecto et evidenti. Et sic accipit Augustinus in littera[^p291-3], cum dicit, quod in Christo fuerunt «omnes sensus, in aliis vero solus tactus»; quia Christus habuit dona gratiarum quantum ad habitus et eorum usus in omnimoda plenitudine numerositatis et perfectionis; alii vero habent, quantum sufficit ad usum vitae spiritualis. Et quia tactus est sensus maxime necessarius vitae[^p291-4], ideo dicit, quod in aliis Sanctis est solus tactus. Unde sicut animal perfectum excedit animalia imperfecta in nobilitate vitae et integritate sensuum; sic Christus in gratiae plenitudine excellentiam habet respectu omnium Sanctorum.

Alio modo sensus potest dici *stricte*; et sic sensus spiritualis dicitur usus gratiae interior respectu ipsius Dei secundum proportionem ad quinque sensus. Et sic accipit Origenes et Bernardus[^p291-5], qui distinguunt quinque sensus interiores, quorum numerum

<!-- page 292 -->

facile est assignare. Quilibet enim illorum sensuum, sicut vult Bernardus, radicem habet in *intellectu* et *affectu*, pro eo quod cognitionem experimentalem dicant. Sed quidam se magis tenent ex parte *intellectus*, ut visus et auditus; quidam ex parte *affectus*, ut odoratus, gustus et tactus. Et sufficientia patet sic: quia ex parte intellectus contingit dupliciter circa cognitionem alicuius exerceri: aut *proprio intuitu*, et sic est visus; aut *aliena excitatione* sive instructione, et sic auditus. — Circa affectionem vero triplicem contingit reperire statum: aut in *remotione*, et sic odoratus; aut in *approximatione*, et sic gustus; aut in *unione*, et sic tactus, qui est perfectior inter omnes sensus et spiritualior propter hoc, quod maxime unit ei qui est summus spiritus; propter quod dicitur primae ad Corinthios sexto[^p292-1]: *Qui adhaeret Deo unus spiritus est.* — Ex his patet littera et responsio ad quaesita. Aliter enim Augustinus accipit sensus quam Origenes et Bernardus. Patet etiam illud quod ultimo quaerebatur[^p292-2].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod Sanctis dat Deus *spiritum ad mensuram.* Contra, Iacobi primo[^p292-3]: *Qui dat omnibus affluenter* etc.; Glossa: «Omnia dat omnibus non in mensura»: ergo etc. — Item, eadem largitate et liberalitate dat gratiam membris, qua dat gratiam capiti; sed primum fecit largitate immensa: ergo et secundum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cum dicitur Deus dare spiritum *non ad mensuram* sive *non in mensura*, hoc dupliciter potest intelligi: vel quia fiat privatio mensurae respectu *doni dati*; et sic accipit Augustinus, cum dicit[^p292-4], quod Sanctis non convenit illud quod dicitur de Christo, quod datus sit ei spiritus non ad mensuram. Alio modo potest intelligi privatio mensurae respectu *largitatis ipsius impartientis*; et sic intelligitur illa Glossa praedicta, quoniam non intendit dicere, quod gratia collata unicuique sit sine mensura, cum dicat Apostolus[^p292-5]: *Unicuique, sicut mensus est Deus mensuram fidei;* sed hoc vult dicere, quod illa gratia confertur ex liberalitate immensa, cuius signum est, quod *omnibus dat affluenter et non improperat.* Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta. — Posset etiam dici, quod Augustinus intelligit respectu *singularis personae,* sed praedicta Glossa respectu *totius Ecclesiae;* et ideo non est controversia, quoniam in Ecclesia est plenitudo numerositatis, quae excedit mensuram cuiuslibet Sancti, sicut dictum est supra[^p292-6].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Acceperunt de plenitudine non secundum essentiam, sed secundum similitudinem.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quoniam secundum hoc posset dici, quod accepimus de plenitudine gratiae Petri secundum similitudinem; habuimus enim gratiam similem ei. — Item, huic expositioni videtur littera sequens in textu Evangelii[^p292-7] repugnare, cum additur: *Lex per Moysen data est, gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est;* sed Moyses illam eandem Legem communicavit aliis, quam suscepit: ergo Christus eandem gratiam. — Item, nos participamus carni et sanguini eius per veritatem et substantiam[^p292-8]: ergo pari ratione et gratiae; aut si non, quaeritur: quare non?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cum dicitur aliquis accipere *de* aliquo, *de* potest importare habitudinem partis ad totum, sicut[^p292-9] aliquis accipit de vino, quod est in dolio; vel potest importare habitudinem principiati ad principium, sicut, si aliquis accendat candelam ad ignem alterius candelae, dicitur accepisse de eius lumine. In utraque autem harum comparationum haec praepositio *de* importat aliquam unitatem et convenientiam; sed in prima notat convenientiam in *substantia* et natura, in secunda vero notat convenientiam in *conformitate* quadam, quae attenditur secundum aliquod commune[^p292-10]. — Quoniam ergo gratia Christi non fuit transfusa in nos per decisionem partis a parte, sed efficaciam habuit, ut Deus nobis consimilem gratiam daret merito gratiae Christi; hinc est, quod Magister dicit, nos accepisse de gratia Christi; non quantum ad *essentiam*, sed quantum ad *similitudinis convenientiam*, nolens per hoc excludere redundantiam et influentiam gratiae capitis, sed volens auferre divisionem et transmutationem gratiae ab uno subiecto in aliud, ne falso intelligatur illud verbum evangelicum. — Nec est simile de Lege et corpore Christi respectu gratiae, quia tam Lex quam Christi corpus potest transferri de manu in manum, non

<!-- page 293 -->

sic gratia de subiecto in subiectum[^p293-1]. Et per hoc patet totum.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Sane potest dici, ipsum secundum hominem a conceptione accepisse gratiae plenitudinem;* quoniam super illud Lucae quarto[^p293-2]: *Hodie impleta est Scriptura,* dicit Glossa: «Prae omnibus Sanctis unctus est unctione spirituali, quando descendit super eum Spiritus sanctus in specie columbae»: sed hoc fuit, quando iam erat triginta annorum: ergo non ab ipsa conceptione. — Item, si ab ipsa conceptione habuit plenitudinem, frustra ergo descendit super eum Spiritus sanctus, dum baptizatur a Ioanne, sicut dicitur Lucae tertio et Matthaei tertio[^p293-3].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est loqui de plenitudine secundum *existentiam*[^p293-4] et secundum *apparentiam* et secundum *redundantiam.* Dico ergo, quod in Christo ab instanti conceptionis fuit plenitudo secundum *existentiam*, quia omnem habuit gratiae perfectionem. — Secundum autem *apparentiam* fuit in descensu columbae, ubi testimonium habuit de supernis, quod ipse esset unigenitus Filius Dei; et tunc apparuit, quod omni gratia plenus fuit, cum Spiritus sanctus in columbae specie super eum requievit. Unde in temporibus retroactis per opera exteriora apparebat proficere, sed tunc apparuit omni bono repletus esse[^p293-5]. — Secundum *redundantiam* fuit ex tunc et deinceps, quia ex tunc aliquos sanctificavit et verba vitae disseminavit et nostrae postmodum reparationis mysterium consummavit. — Et sic patet, quod non est controversia, quoniam illa Glossa intelligitur quantum ad redundantiam, vel apparentiam; non sic littera praesens.

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de illa responsione Magistri, qua explanat verba Ambrosii, ultimo capitulo dicens: *Proficiebat humanus sensus in eo secundum ostensionem et aliorum hominum opinionem.* Videtur enim insufficienter dicere, quod ita possit dici de sensu Dei, quod proficiebat secundum ostensionem. — Item, non videtur ista expositio sufficere ad intellectum Ambrosii, quia Ambrosius vult probare duas naturas et duos sensus in Christo, per hoc quod Christus proficiebat. Si ergo veritas naturae non probatur nisi per veritatem profectus[^p293-6], omnino videtur velle intelligere Ambrosius, quod Christus profecerit veraci profectu.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio Magister veritatem dicit; sed aliquid plus voluit dicere Ambrosius, non tamen tantum voluit dicere, quantum verba sonare videntur. Videtur enim in his verbis sensisse, quod Christus secundum humanam naturam habuit ignorantiam, quae expulsa fuit per scientiam acquisitam. Propter quod sciendum, quod non vult illud dicere, sed hoc vult dicere, quod sensus exterior profecerit veraciter quantum ad cognitionem experientiae. Unde si dicat, illum puerum ignorasse, non est aliud dicere quam inexpertum esse; et per hoc satis probatur veritas humanae naturae, quia talis experientia competit ei secundum naturam assumtam. Sed haec melius erunt manifestanda, cum agetur de Christi scientia, quod quidem fiet in distinctione proxima[^p293-7].

---

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

### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked concerning that which he says: *Christ is the head, in whom are all the senses, but in the Saints as it were touch alone.* But on the contrary: Origen on Leviticus[^p291-1] distinguishes five spiritual senses, corresponding to the five bodily ones. And in the same place he says that all those senses are in holy and spiritual men: therefore he does not say that in the Saints there is touch alone. — Likewise, among the spiritual senses touch is the nobler and more perfect sense, for the reason that it joins one more closely to that one in which is the highest nobility, namely God: therefore it seems that much more than touch ought the other senses to be found in holy men.

It is therefore a question what Augustine here calls the five spiritual senses. And in connection with this, what the spiritual senses are, and how they are distinguished.

**I respond:** It must be said that "sense" names the use of some power existing in a living thing and from a living thing according to nature[^p291-2]. In this same way too, among spiritual things "sense" means the use of the gratuitous gifts, which gifts indeed are vital in the very respect in which they are gratuitous. — "Sense," therefore, can be taken *broadly*, for any perfect and evident use of grace. And thus does Augustine take it in the text[^p291-3], when he says that in Christ there were «all the senses, but in the others touch alone»; because Christ had the gifts of graces with respect to the habits and their uses in every kind of fullness of multitude and of perfection; but the others have them only insofar as suffices for the use of the spiritual life. And because touch is the sense most necessary to life[^p291-4], therefore he says that in the other Saints there is touch alone. Hence, just as a perfect animal exceeds imperfect animals in the nobility of life and the integrity of the senses; so Christ in the fullness of grace has excellence with respect to all the Saints.

In another way "sense" can be said *strictly*; and thus the spiritual sense is called the interior use of grace with respect to God himself according to a proportion to the five senses. And thus do Origen and Bernard[^p291-5] take it, who distinguish five interior senses, the number of which

it is easy to assign. For each of those senses, as Bernard holds, has its root in the *intellect* and the *affection*, for the reason that they express an experiential cognition. But some of them hold more on the side of the *intellect*, as sight and hearing; some on the side of the *affection*, as smell, taste, and touch. And their sufficiency is shown thus: because on the side of the intellect it happens that one is occupied about the cognition of something in two ways: either by *one's own intuition*, and thus there is sight; or by *another's prompting* or instruction, and thus hearing. — But concerning the affection one happens to find a threefold state: either in *remoteness*, and thus smell; or in *approach*, and thus taste; or in *union*, and thus touch, which is the more perfect among all the senses and the more spiritual on account of this, that it most of all unites one to him who is the highest spirit; on account of which it is said in First Corinthians, chapter six[^p292-1]: *He who clings to God is one spirit.* — From these things the text and the response to what was asked are clear. For Augustine takes "senses" otherwise than Origen and Bernard. That also is clear which was asked in the last place[^p292-2].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says, that to the Saints God gives *the spirit by measure.* On the contrary, James, chapter one[^p292-3]: *Who gives to all abundantly* etc.; the Gloss: «He gives all things to all not in measure»: therefore etc. — Likewise, with the same bounty and liberality he gives grace to the members, with which he gives grace to the head; but the first he did with immense liberality: therefore the second also.

**I respond:** It must be said that when God is said to give the spirit *not by measure* or *not in measure*, this can be understood in two ways: either because there comes to be a privation of measure with respect to the *gift given*; and thus Augustine takes it, when he says[^p292-4] that there does not apply to the Saints that which is said of Christ, that the spirit was given to him not by measure. In another way the privation of measure can be understood with respect to the *liberality of the bestower himself*; and thus is that aforesaid Gloss understood, since it does not intend to say that the grace conferred on each is without measure, since the Apostle says[^p292-5]: *To each one, according as God has meted out the measure of faith;* but it means to say that that grace is conferred out of immense liberality, the sign of which is that *he gives to all abundantly and does not upbraid.* And thus the response to the objections is clear. — It could also be said that Augustine understands it with respect to the *singular person*, but the aforesaid Gloss with respect to the *whole Church*; and therefore there is no controversy, since in the Church there is a fullness of multitude, which exceeds the measure of any single Saint, as was said above[^p292-6].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *They have received of the fullness not according to essence, but according to likeness.* For it seems false to say it, since according to this it could be said that we have received of the fullness of Peter's grace according to likeness; for we have had grace like to his. — Likewise, to this exposition the text following in the text of the Gospel[^p292-7] seems to be opposed, when it is added: *The Law was given through Moses, grace and truth came to be through Jesus Christ;* but Moses communicated that same Law to others, which he received: therefore Christ the same grace. — Likewise, we participate in his flesh and blood through truth and substance[^p292-8]: therefore by parity of reasoning also in grace; or if not, it is asked: why not?

**I respond:** It must be said that when someone is said to receive *of* something, *of* can import the relation of a part to the whole, as[^p292-9] one receives of the wine that is in the cask; or it can import the relation of the originated to its principle, as, if someone kindles a candle at the fire of another candle, he is said to have received of its light. But in each of these comparisons this preposition *of* imports some unity and agreement; but in the first it notes an agreement in *substance* and nature, while in the second it notes an agreement in a certain *conformity*, which is regarded according to something common[^p292-10]. — Since, therefore, the grace of Christ was not transfused into us by a cutting off of part from part, but had efficacy, so that God should give us a grace conformed to him by the merit of Christ's grace; hence it is that the Master says that we have received of the grace of Christ; not as to *essence*, but as to *agreement of likeness*, not intending by this to exclude the redundance and influence of the grace of the head, but intending to remove the division and transmutation of grace from one subject into another, lest that evangelical word be falsely understood. — Nor is the case the same regarding the Law and the body of Christ with respect to grace, because both the Law and the body of Christ can be transferred from hand to hand, not

so grace from subject to subject[^p293-1]. And by this the whole is clear.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *It can rightly be said that he, according to the man, received the fullness of grace from conception;* since upon that text of Luke, chapter four[^p293-2]: *Today is the Scripture fulfilled,* the Gloss says: «Before all the Saints he was anointed with a spiritual anointing, when the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove»: but this was when he was already thirty years old: therefore not from conception itself. — Likewise, if from conception itself he had the fullness, then in vain did the Holy Spirit descend upon him while he is baptized by John, as is said in Luke, chapter three, and Matthew, chapter three[^p293-3].

**I respond:** It must be said that one may speak of fullness according to *existence*[^p293-4] and according to *manifestation* and according to *redundance.* I say therefore that in Christ from the instant of conception there was fullness according to *existence*, because he had every perfection of grace. — But according to *manifestation* it was at the descent of the dove, where he had testimony from on high that he himself was the only-begotten Son of God; and then it appeared that he was full of every grace, when the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove rested upon him. Hence in past times he appeared through exterior works to make progress, but then it appeared that he was filled with every good[^p293-5]. — According to *redundance* it was from that time and thenceforth, because from that time he sanctified some and disseminated the words of life and afterward consummated the mystery of our reparation. — And thus it is clear that there is no controversy, since that Gloss is understood as to redundance, or manifestation; not so the present text.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked concerning that response of the Master, by which he explains the words of Ambrose, saying in the last chapter: *The human sense in him made progress according to manifestation and the opinion of other men.* For it seems to be said insufficiently, that it could thus be said of the sense of God, that it made progress according to manifestation. — Likewise, this exposition does not seem to suffice for the understanding of Ambrose, because Ambrose wishes to prove two natures and two senses in Christ, through this, that Christ made progress. If therefore the truth of the nature is not proved except through the truth of progress[^p293-6], it seems altogether that Ambrose means to understand that Christ made progress by a true progress.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt the Master speaks the truth; but Ambrose wished to say something more, yet did not wish to say so much as the words seem to sound. For he seems in these words to have meant that Christ according to his human nature had an ignorance, which was expelled through acquired knowledge. On account of which it must be known that he does not mean to say that, but he means to say this, that the exterior sense made progress truly as to the cognition of experience. Hence if he says that that boy was ignorant, it is nothing other than to say that he was inexperienced; and by this the truth of the human nature is sufficiently proved, because such experience belongs to him according to the assumed nature. But these things will be better made clear when treatment is made of Christ's knowledge, which indeed will be done in the next distinction[^p293-7].

---

la: Homil. 3. n. 7. Exponens ibi verba Lev. 5, 16: *Partem quintam ponet supra,* ait: *Quinque numerus frequenter, immo pene semper pro quinque sensibus accipitur. Scire ergo debemus, hoc modo istos quinque sensus in sanctis actibus posse restitui, ut si forte praesumsimus abuti eis in saecularibus actibus... restituamus nunc et ipsos quinque sanctis actibus religiosisque ministeriis, et alios his quinque addamus, qui sunt interioris hominis sensus, per quos vel mundi corde effecti Deum videmus, vel aures habemus ad audienda ea quae docet Iesus* etc. — Paulo inferius pro *ergo nihil dicit* edd. *ergo male dicit.*

en: Homily 3, n. 7. Expounding there the words of Lev. 5, 16: *He shall put a fifth part above,* he says: *The number five frequently, indeed almost always, is taken for the five senses. We ought therefore to know that in this way these five senses can be restored in holy acts, so that if perhaps we have presumed to abuse them in secular acts... we may now restore these five also to holy acts and religious ministries, and add to these five others, which are the senses of the interior man, through which either, being clean of heart, we see God, or have ears for hearing the things that Jesus teaches,* etc. — A little below, for *ergo nihil dicit* the editions read *ergo male dicit.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 13. et 52. seqq. (c. 2. et 5.), ubi quod hic de sensu dicitur, largiore modo accepto, insinuatur de ipso stricte sumto, sive prout est potentia organica.

en: Cf. Aristotle, II *On the Soul*, text 13 and 52 ff. (cc. 2 and 5), where what is here said of sense, taken in the broader way, is intimated of it taken strictly, or as it is an organic power.

la: Hic, in principio.

en: Here, at the beginning.

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 17. seqq. et 27. seqq. (c. 2. seq.), nec non III. text. 60. seqq. (c. 12. seq.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, II *On the Soul*, text 17 ff. and 27 ff. (c. 2 f.), and also III, text 60 ff. (c. 12 f.).

la: Serm. 10. de Diversis, n. 1. seqq., et de Natura et dignitate amoris (inter Bernardi opera, sed verus eius auctor est Guilelmus, abbas S. Theoderici), c. 6. n. 15; c. 7. n. 16. seqq. et c. 10. n. 28. seqq. — Paulo superius pro *interior* codd. M O *interius.*

en: *Sermon 10 on Various Subjects*, n. 1 ff., and *On the Nature and Dignity of Love* (among Bernard's works, but its true author is William, abbot of St. Thierry), c. 6, n. 15; c. 7, n. 16 ff., and c. 10, n. 28 ff. — A little above, for *interior* codices M O read *interius.*

la: Vers. 17. — Paulo ante pro *unit ei* edd. cum paucis codd. *unitur ei,* et dein pro *propter quod* cod. K *propter hoc quidem.*

en: Verse 17. — A little before, for *unit ei* the editions, with a few codices, read *unitur ei,* and then for *propter quod* codex K reads *propter hoc quidem.*

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 4; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. on this doubt Bl. Albert, here a. 4; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Vers. 5. — Glossam, quae est interlinearis, Lyranus sic affert: *Quia dona eius non sunt ad mensuram.*

en: Verse 5. — The Gloss, which is interlinear, Lyra cites thus: *Because his gifts are not by measure.*

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 14. n. 10. Cfr. supra pag. 278, nota 1.

en: On John's Gospel, tract 14, n. 10. Cf. above, p. 278, note 1.

la: Rom. 12, 3: *Unicuique, sicut Deus divisit mensuram fidei.* Cfr. II. Cor. 10, 13. — Voci *mensuram* edd. praemittunt *secundum,* et deinde pro *sed hoc* substituunt *sed hic.*

en: Rom. 12, 3: *To each one, as God has apportioned the measure of faith.* Cf. II Cor. 10, 13. — Before the word *mensuram* the editions prefix *secundum,* and then for *sed hoc* substitute *sed hic.*

la: Supra a. 1. q. 3, et d. 4. a. 2. q. 2. ad 2. — De hoc dubio vide S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Above, a. 1, q. 3, and d. 4, a. 2, q. 2, ad 2. — On this doubt see St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Ioan. 1, 17. — Pro *repugnare,* edd., omissis (etiam in codd. G H) verbis *in textu Evangelii,* exhibent *contradicere,* cod. G *esse contraria.*

en: John 1, 17. — For *repugnare,* the editions, omitting (also in codices G H) the words *in textu Evangelii,* present *contradicere,* codex G *esse contraria.*

la: Cod. A *sicuti si;* edd. sic: *sicut cum aliquis dicitur accipere de vino.* Paulo inferius pro *de eius lumine* edd. *de lumine alterius candelae.*

en: Codex A *sicuti si;* the editions thus: *sicut cum aliquis dicitur accipere de vino.* A little below, for *de eius lumine* the editions read *de lumine alterius candelae.*

en: Cf. I *Sentences*, d. 5, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Quia gratia est accidens (II. Sent. d. 26. q. 3. seq.), et nullum accidens transire potest de subiecto in subiectum, ut Boeth. docet, de quo videsis tom. I. pag. 462, nota 11. — De hoc dub. cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. Thom., hic circa lit. (ubi est haec sententia: «Quod sumitur ibi similitudo active, in quantum scil. Christus sibi alios assimilat in gratia... quod alii [v. gr. Petro] non convenit»); Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Because grace is an accident (II *Sentences*, d. 26, q. 3 f.), and no accident can pass from subject to subject, as Boethius teaches, on which see vol. I, p. 462, note 11. — On this doubt cf. Bl. Albert, here a. 5; St. Thomas, here on the text (where this opinion is found: «That the likeness is taken there actively, namely insofar as Christ assimilates others to himself in grace... which does not belong to others [e.g. to Peter]»); Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Vers. 21. — Glossa sumta est ex Beda, in hunc loc.

en: Verse 21. — The Gloss is taken from Bede, on this passage.

la: Pro *existentiam* edd. hic et paulo inferius perperam *excellentiam.*

en: For *existentiam* the editions here and a little below wrongly read *excellentiam.*

la: Nota hic quod Hug. a S. Vict., Qq. in Epist. ad Phil. q. 9, bene ait: *Tunc res dicitur fieri, quando innotescit.* Cfr. etiam supra pag. 62, nota 7. et d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 2. ad 1. — Mox post *deinceps* cod. F adiicit *exstitit,* et subinde pro *aliquos* cod. K substituit *alios.* Post pauca pro *mysterium* edd. *ministerium.*

en: Note here that Hugh of St. Victor, *Questions on the Epistle to the Philippians*, q. 9, well says: *A thing is then said to come to be, when it becomes known.* Cf. also above, p. 62, note 7, and d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 2, ad 1. — Soon after *deinceps* codex F adds *exstitit,* and thereupon for *aliquos* codex K substitutes *alios.* A little later, for *mysterium* the editions read *ministerium.*

la: Cod. K *profectionis,* edd. *perfectionis.*

en: Codex K *profectionis,* the editions *perfectionis.*

la: Art. 3. q. 2. — Cod. bb addit *dante Domino.* — De ut. huius dubii vide etiam B. Albert., hic a. 10. seqq.; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Art. 3, q. 2. — Codex bb adds *dante Domino.* — On the usefulness of this doubt see also Bl. Albert, here a. 10 ff.; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 291–293 (PDF 313–315; offset pdf = printed + 22), Left column top→bottom then Right column, body then footers; OCR base (raw `bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 20511–20651) used only for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. PDF authoritative for fragmented prose and all footers per the Vol II/III override. Printed page numbers confirmed eyes-on from running-head TEXT (never OCR'd digits): p.291 head `DIST. XIII. DUBIA. 291`; p.292 head `292 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; **p.293 head reads `DISTINCTIO XIV. 293`** — this is a page-top RUNNING HEAD only; the body of p.293 still prints d.13 Dub. III tail + Dub. IV + Dub. V. The real `DISTINCTIO XIV.` (d.14 littera, `Cap. I. Si anima Christi habuit sapientiam parem cum Deo...`) begins below, at raw 20652.

**Number of dubia:** FIVE — Dub. I (raw 20513), Dub. II (raw 20573, OCR `Dcb. H.`), Dub. III (raw 20557 in R-col header but body opens in p.292 R), Dub. IV (raw 20618), Dub. V (raw 20618 R-col). `type: dubia`, `has_scholion: false` (dubia carry no scholion).

**Page-split / reading-order map** (two-column reflow):
- **Dub. I** — opens p.291 L (`In parte ista... Christus est caput... quasi solus tactus`), Respondeo runs p.291 L→R, continues to p.291 R bottom (`...quorum numerum`) → p.292 L top (`facile est assignare... ultimo quaerebatur`).
- **Dub. II** — p.292 L (`Item quaeritur... spiritum ad mensuram`) → Respondeo → p.292 R top (`...sicut dictum est supra`).
- **Dub. III** — p.292 R (`Acceperunt de plenitudine...`) → Respondeo runs to p.292 R bottom (`...de manu in manum, non`) → p.293 L top (`sic gratia de subiecto in subiectum. Et per hoc patet totum`).
- **Dub. IV** — p.293 L (`Item quaeritur... a conceptione accepisse gratiae plenitudinem`) → Respondeo → p.293 R top (`...ad redundantiam, vel apparentiam; non sic littera praesens`).
- **Dub. V** — p.293 R (`Item quaeritur de illa responsione Magistri...`) → Respondeo → ends p.293 R (`...fiet in distinctione proxima`, raw 20651).

**Apparatus:** 22 entries, per-page restart, page-suffixed slugs.
- p.291: footers nn.1–5 → `[^p291-1]`–`[^p291-5]` (n.1 left-col, nn.2–5 right-col block).
- p.292: footers nn.1–10 → `[^p292-1]`–`[^p292-10]` (nn.1–5 left-col Dub. I/II; nn.6–10 right-col Dub. II/III).
- p.293: footers nn.1–7 → `[^p293-1]`–`[^p293-7]` (nn.1–4 left-col Dub. III tail/IV; nn.5–7 right-col Dub. IV/V).

**Hand-offs.** *Picked up:* NONE — the dubia open a fresh footer sequence on p.291 (q3's Scholion at the top of p.291 carries no numbered apparatus; per d13-a2-q3 commits 9bb84db + 9b8e5ca, NO footer migrates into the dubia). *Forwarded:* NONE — this is the LAST unit of d.13; Dub. V's Respondeo closes the distinction at raw 20651, and the next numbered footer block belongs to d.14.

**Boundary note.** DISTINCTIO XIV begins at raw **20652** (`DISTINCTIO XIV. / Cap. I. / Si anima Christi habuit sapientiam parem cum Deo, et si omnia scit, quae Deus.`). The earlier `DISTINCTIO XIV.` at raw 20613 is a p.293 page-top running head, NOT the distinction start (confirmed eyes-on against the 450 dpi p.293 bands). Boundary clean; no footer leak across the seam.

**Marginalia trimmed** (editorial side-glosses, not Bonaventure's text): `Quaestiones incidentales`, `Sensus large sumtus`, `Sensus stricte sumtus`, `Notandum`, `Sufficientia assignati numeri`, `Ad quaestiones incidentes`, `Distinctio`, `Ad obiect. 2`, `Aliter`.

**`[?]` flags:** none — the column-band reads were clean and confirmed line-by-line against the 450 dpi p.291/292/293 bands.

**DISTINCTIO XIII is now COMPLETE** (all 9 units: littera, divisio, a1-q1/q2/q3, a2-q1/q2/q3, dubia).

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. 14

title_alt: Littera Magistri — Distinctio XIV (Cap. I–II)

title_alt: The Master's Text — Distinction XIV (Chapters I–II)

source_text:
<!-- page 293 -->

# DISTINCTIO XIV.

### Cap. I. *Si anima Christi habuit sapientiam parem cum Deo, et si omnia scit, quae Deus.*

Hic quaeri opus est, cum anima Christi esset sapiens sapientia gratuita, utrum habuerit sapientiam aequalem Deo sive omnium rerum scientiam habuerit vel habeat, id est, utrum omnia sciat, quae Deus scit. — Quibusdam placet, quod nec parem cum Deo habeat scientiam nec omnia sciat, quae Deus, quia in nullo creatura aequatur Creatori. Cum igitur anima illa creatura sit, in nullo aequatur Creatori, ergo nec in sapientia. Non ergo habet aequalem cum Deo sapientiam nec scit omnia, quae Deus. Item, si anima illa aequalem habet cum Deo sapientiam, non ergo Deus in omni bono maiorem habet sufficientiam quam eius creatura. — Inducunt etiam auctoritates ad idem probandum. Ait<!-- page 294 --> enim Propheta[^p294-1] ex persona hominis assumti: *Mirabilis facta est scientia tua ex me, et non potero ad eam.* Quod exponens Cassiodorus ait: « Veritas humanae conditionis ostenditur, quia homo assumtus divinae substantiae non potest aequari in scientia, vel in alio ». Apostolus[^p294-2] etiam ait: *Nemo novit quae sunt Dei, nisi Spiritus Dei, qui solus scrutatur omnia, etiam profunda Dei.* His aliisque pluribus rationibus et auctoritatibus nituntur qui animam Christi asserunt nec parem cum Deo habere scientiam, nec omnia scire, quae Deus, quia si omnia scit, quae Deus, scit ergo creare mundum, scit etiam creare se ipsam.

Quibus respondentes dicimus, animam Christi per sapientiam gratis datam in Verbo Dei, cui unita est quod[^p294-3] etiam perfecte intelligit, omnia scire, quae Deus scit, sed non omnia posse, quae potest Deus, nec ita clare ac perspicue omnia capit, ut Deus; et ideo non aequatur Creatori suo in scientia, etsi omnia sciat, quae et ipse; nec eius sapientia aequalis est sapientiae Dei, quia illa multo est dignior digniusque et perfectius omnia capit quam illius animae sapientia. Ergo et in scientia maiorem habet sufficientiam Deus quam anima illa, quae dignior est omni creatura. Illud vero Apostoli, quod inducunt: *Nemo novit quae Dei sunt nisi Spiritus Dei, qui solus scrutatur omnia*, pro nobis facit. Mox enim addit Apostolus[^p294-4]: *Nos autem Spiritum Dei habemus*, ut per Spiritum, quem habebat, Dei profunda se scire ostenderet. Sed anima illa prae omnibus *Spiritum Dei* habuit, cui *Spiritus non est datus ad mensuram*, ut ait Ioannes Evangelista. Dona igitur Spiritus sancti sine mensura habuit, ergo et sapientiam. Omnia ergo scivit anima illa. Si enim quaedam scivit, quaedam non, non sine mensura scientiam habuit; sed sine mensura scientiam habuit: scit igitur omnia. Fulgentius[^p294-5] etiam in sermone quodam multa inducit, quibus asserit, animam illam rerum omnium scientiam habere, utens auctoritate Apostoli dicentis: *In quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi.* Quod etiam ratione probari potest sic: nihil scit aliquis, quod eius anima ignorat; sed Christus secundum omnium concessionem omnia scit: ergo anima eius omnia scit. — Ad id vero quod dicunt: si omnia scit, ergo scit creare mundum vel se ipsam; respondemus, quod *scientiam* habet creandi mundum, sed non *potentiam*, et creandi animam; et scit, quomodo Deus se[^p294-6] ipsam creaverit: habet ergo scientiam sui creatae, sed non sui creandae, quia non est creanda, sed creata.

### Cap. II. *Quare Deus non dedit illi animae potentiam omnium, ut scientiam.*

Si vero quaeritur, quare Deus non ei dederit potentiam faciendi omnia, ut scientiam; responderi potest, quia naturaliter capax est scientiae; et ideo id ei congrue datum est sine mensura, cuius ipsa naturaliter capax est. Non est autem ei datum posse facere omnia, quae Deus facit[^p294-7], ne omnipotens, et per hoc Deus putaretur. Verumtamen forte nec potentiam faciendi omnia ei Deus praestare potuit, etsi potentiam faciendi aliqua, quae non facere potest. Scit igitur anima Christi omnia, quae Deus, in Verbo Dei, quod liquidius et praesentius omni creaturae contemplatur ut ei unita, in quo etiam Angeli et quae Dei sunt et quae futura sunt cognoscunt.

Sed si anima illa non habet tantam potentiam, quantam et Deus, nec homo assumtus tantam potentiam, quantam et Deus; quomodo ergo intelligitur illud Ambrosii super Lucam[^p294-8], ubi Angelus de nascituro Filio Virginis ait: *Hic erit magnus et Filius Altissimi vocabitur?* Non ideo, inquit, erit magnus, quod ante partum Virginis magnus non fuerit, sed quia potentiam, quam Dei Filius naturaliter habet, homo erat ex tempore accepturus, ut una sit persona homo et Deus. — Ecce aperte dicit, quod homo erat accepturus ex tempore potentiam, quam habuit Dei Filius naturaliter. Sed si homo accepturus erat illam potentiam, ergo vel *persona*, vel *natura* hominis; sed persona non, quia semper habuit et habet: ergo natura; si natura: ergo anima. Nam de carne constat, quod accipere non posset. — Ad quod dicimus, illud esse accipiendum de persona, sed non in quantum est Dei, immo in quantum est hominis persona. Una est enim persona Dei et hominis, Filii Dei et filii hominis, quae, in quantum est Dei persona, semper et naturaliter omnipotentiam habuit, sed in quantum est hominis, non semper fuit. Illa ergo persona, quae semper fuerat Dei, futura erat hominis persona; et secundum hoc, quod futura erat hominis persona, acceptura erat ex tempore potentiam, quam naturaliter et semper habuerat, in quantum Dei persona. — Secundum hanc distinctionem illud et similia sane accipi possunt. Quae distinctio in pluribus quaestionum articulis est necessaria adversus quorumdam perplexam verbositatem[^p294-9]. Sed cum de rebus constat, in verbis frustra habetur controversia.

english:
# DISTINCTION XIV.

### Chapter I. *Whether the soul of Christ had wisdom equal to God, and whether it knows all things that God knows.*

Here it is necessary to ask, since the soul of Christ was wise with a gratuitous wisdom, whether it had wisdom equal to God, that is, whether it had or has knowledge of all things, that is, whether it knows all things that God knows. — Some hold that it has neither knowledge equal to God nor knows all things that God does, because in nothing is a creature made equal to the Creator. Since therefore that soul is a creature, it is in nothing made equal to the Creator, and therefore not in wisdom either. It does not, then, have wisdom equal to God, nor does it know all things that God knows. Likewise, if that soul has wisdom equal to God, then God does not have, in every good, a greater sufficiency than his creature. — They also bring forward authorities to prove the same. For the Prophet[^p294-1] says, in the person of the man assumed: *Wonderful is thy knowledge made above me, and I shall not be able to reach it.* Expounding which, Cassiodorus says: « The truth of the human condition is shown, because the man assumed cannot be made equal to the divine substance in knowledge, or in anything else ». The Apostle[^p294-2] also says: *No one knows the things that are of God, except the Spirit of God, who alone searches all things, even the deep things of God.* By these and many other reasons and authorities they rely who assert that the soul of Christ neither has knowledge equal to God, nor knows all things that God knows, because if it knows all things that God knows, then it knows how to create the world, it knows also how to create itself.

Responding to whom we say that the soul of Christ, through the wisdom freely given in the Word of God, to which it is united in such a way that[^p294-3] it also understands perfectly, knows all things that God knows, but cannot do all things that God can do, nor does it grasp all things as clearly and distinctly as God; and therefore it is not made equal to its Creator in knowledge, even though it knows all things that he does; nor is its wisdom equal to the wisdom of God, because that wisdom is far more worthy and grasps all things more worthily and more perfectly than the wisdom of that soul. Therefore in knowledge too God has a greater sufficiency than that soul, which is more worthy than every creature. But that text of the Apostle which they bring forward: *No one knows the things that are of God except the Spirit of God, who alone searches all things*, makes for our side. For soon the Apostle[^p294-4] adds: *But we have the Spirit of God*, that through the Spirit, which he had, he might show that he knew the deep things of God. But that soul above all others had *the Spirit of God*, to whom *the Spirit was not given by measure*, as John the Evangelist says. Therefore it had the gifts of the Holy Spirit without measure, and therefore wisdom too. That soul, then, knew all things. For if it knew some things and not others, it did not have knowledge without measure; but it did have knowledge without measure: therefore it knows all things. Fulgentius[^p294-5] also, in a certain sermon, brings forward many things by which he asserts that that soul has knowledge of all things, using the authority of the Apostle, who says: *In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.* Which can also be proved by reason thus: no one knows anything that his soul is ignorant of; but Christ, by the concession of all, knows all things: therefore his soul knows all things. — But to that which they say: if it knows all things, then it knows how to create the world or itself; we respond that it has the *knowledge* of creating the world, but not the *power*, and of creating a soul; and it knows how God created it[^p294-6]: it has therefore knowledge of itself as created, but not of itself as to-be-created, because it is not to-be-created, but created.

### Chapter II. *Why God did not give to that soul the power of all things, as he gave knowledge.*

But if it is asked why God did not give it the power of doing all things, as he gave knowledge; it can be answered that it is naturally capable of knowledge; and therefore that, of which it is naturally capable, was fittingly given to it without measure. But it was not given to it to be able to do all things that God does[^p294-7], lest it should be thought omnipotent, and through this God. Nevertheless perhaps God could not even bestow on it the power of doing all things, although the power of doing some things, which it cannot do. The soul of Christ therefore knows all things that God knows, in the Word of God, which it contemplates more clearly and more presently than every creature, as being united to it, in which also the Angels know both the things that are of God and the things that are to come.

But if that soul does not have as great a power as God, nor the man assumed as great a power as God; how then is that saying of Ambrose on Luke[^p294-8] to be understood, where the Angel says of the Son to be born of the Virgin: *He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High?* He shall not, he says, be great because before the Virgin's bearing he was not great, but because the man was to receive in time the power which the Son of God has naturally, so that there might be one person, man and God. — Behold, he plainly says that the man was to receive in time the power which the Son of God had naturally. But if the man was to receive that power, then either the *person* or the *nature* of the man [was to receive it]; but not the person, because it always had and has it: therefore the nature; if the nature: therefore the soul. For concerning the flesh it is established that it could not receive it. — To which we say that this is to be understood of the person, but not insofar as it is of God, rather insofar as it is the person of the man. For the person of God and of man, of the Son of God and the son of man, is one, which, insofar as it is the person of God, always and naturally had omnipotence, but insofar as it is of man, did not always exist. That person, therefore, which had always been God's, was to be the person of the man; and according to this, that it was to be the person of the man, it was to receive in time the power which it had naturally and always had, insofar as it was the person of God. — According to this distinction that saying and the like can be soundly understood. Which distinction is necessary in many articles of the questions against the perplexed verbosity[^p294-9] of certain men. But when there is agreement about the things, there is vain controversy in words.

la: Psalm. 138, 6; et Cassiod. Exposit. in Psalter. loc. cit. ad v. 5. — Quoad doctrinam cfr. Hugo a S. Victore Sum. Sent. tr. I. c. 16, et opusculum de Sapientia animae Christi.

en: Psalm 138:6; and Cassiodorus, *Exposition on the Psalter*, at the cited place, on v. 5. — On the doctrine cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *Summa Sententiarum*, tr. I, c. 16, and the opusculum *On the Wisdom of the Soul of Christ*.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 2, 11. 10. — Inferius post *scire, quae Deus* edd., excepta I, adiiciunt *scit*, et deinde codd. A B C et ed. 5 post *omnia scit* omittunt *quae Deus*.

en: *Epistle*, I Corinthians 2:11, 10. — Below, after *scire, quae Deus*, the editions, except I, add *scit*, and then codices A B C and ed. 5, after *omnia scit*, omit *quae Deus*.

la: Vat. et ed. 4 *unde*, et pro *etiam* codd. A D et edd. I, 8 *et*.

en: The Vatican edition and ed. 4 read *unde*, and for *etiam* codices A D and editions I, 8 read *et*.

la: Loc. cit. v. 12. — Locus seq. est Ioan. 3, 34.

en: At the cited place, v. 12. — The following passage is John 3:34.

la: Epist. 14. ad Ferrandum, q. 3. n. 29. Locus Scripturae est Coloss. 2, 3.

en: *Epistle* 14, to Ferrandus, q. 3, n. 29. The Scripture passage is Colossians 2:3.

la: Edd. 1, 8 omittunt *se*.

en: Editions 1, 8 omit *se*.

la: Edd. I, 8 *fecit, ne anima*, addentes *anima*. Porro ante *in Verbo Dei* solae edd., excepta I, repetunt *scit*.

en: Editions I, 8 read *fecit, ne anima*, adding *anima*. Further, before *in Verbo Dei*, the editions alone, except I, repeat *scit*.

la: Apud Lyranum ad hunc locum Luc. I, 32, sub nomine Ambrosii; invenitur autem apud Bedam, homil. in Annunt. — Supra post *assumtus* edd. I, 8 omittunt *tantam potentiam*.

en: In Lyra at this passage, Luke 1:32, under the name of Ambrose; it is found, however, in Bede, *homily on the Annunciation*. — Above, after *assumtus*, editions I, 8 omit *tantam potentiam*.

la: Cod. D *volubilitatem*.

en: Codex D reads *volubilitatem* [volubility].

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.293–294 (PDF 315–316; offset `pdf = printed + 22`; raw OCR lines 20652–20742 of `raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`), reading each page Left column top→bottom then Right column, body bands then footer bands. The IA djvu OCR — heavily cascade-fragmented in this two-column band — served only as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing; the column-band PDF read is authoritative for the Quaracchi italics, punctuation, and all footers (per the VOL II/III OVERRIDE in `CLAUDE.md`). Running heads confirmed via the low-dpi render: top-right `DISTINCTIO XIV.` with page number `293` (p.293) and top `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` with page number `294` (p.294) — printed pages **293–294** confirmed from running-head TEXT, not OCR'd digits.

This is the Lombard *littera* opening **DISTINCTIO XIV** (Cap. I–II), on the knowledge of Christ's soul as man (*De plenitudine scientiae, quam habuit anima Christi*): Cap. I, whether the soul of Christ had wisdom equal to God and knows all that God knows; Cap. II, why God did not give that soul the power of all things as he gave it knowledge. The marginal labels in the printed text (`opinio 1`, `Dubium 1/2/3/4`, `Auctoritates`, `Cassiodorus`, `Opinio Magistri`, `Fulgentius`, `Obiicitur`, `Ambrosius`, `Solutio`) are Quaracchi editorial marginalia, not part of the Master's text, and are omitted from the body.

**Boundary.** `DISTINCTIO XIV.` (the real distinction divider) opens at raw **20652** on printed p.293. (Beware: a `DISTINCTIO XIV.` string also appears at raw 20613 — that is the p.293 page-top running head sitting above the still-running d.13 dubia, not the distinction start.) The littera body runs raw 20652→**20742**, ending `…in verbis frustra habetur controversia.` The Bonaventure commentary opener `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIV.` begins at raw **20744** and `DIVISIO TEXTUS.` at raw **20748** — both belong to the **d14-divisio** chunk and are excluded here.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.293** (raw 20652 → mid-page): the d.14 littera occupies the *lower portion* of the page below the `DISTINCTIO XIV.` divider; the upper portion (above the divider) is the still-running **d.13 dubia** (DUB. IV). Cap. I's lemma + opening body run in the RIGHT column. **The d.14 littera carries NO footnote marker on p.293** (Cap. I's text bears no superscripts), so it claims no p.293 footer. All seven p.293 NOTAE — left-col nn.1–4 and right-col nn.5–7 — belong to the d.13 dubia and were captured in `bon-sent-III-d13-dubia.md` as `[^p293-1]`–`[^p293-7]`.
- **p.294** (raw → 20742): Cap. I tail (`-enim Propheta…`) continues in the LEFT column, Cap. II runs LEFT→RIGHT; the littera ends `…in verbis frustra habetur controversia.` All nine NOTAE AD LIBRUM SENTENTIARUM (left-col nn.1–4, right-col nn.5–9) are the littera's → `[^p294-1]`–`[^p294-9]`. Markers: `Propheta[^p294-1]`, `Apostolus[^p294-2]`, `quod[^p294-3]` (the *unde/et* variant), `Apostolus[^p294-4]` (*Nos autem Spiritum Dei habemus*), `Fulgentius[^p294-5]`, `Deus se[^p294-6] ipsam`, `Deus facit[^p294-7]`, `super Lucam[^p294-8]`, `verbositatem[^p294-9]`.

**Shared page p.293 (with d13-dubia).** Confirmed eyes-on at 450 dpi that p.293's two footer columns both anchor to the d.13 dubia (DUB. IV) text above the `DISTINCTIO XIV.` divider — footer 5 (`Nota hic quod Hug. a S. Vict.…Tunc res dicitur fieri, quando innotescit`), footer 6 (`Cod. K profectionis, edd. perfectionis`), and footer 7 (`Art. 3. q. 2.…De solut. huius dubii vide etiam B. Albert.…`) explicitly reference the dubium's solution. `bon-sent-III-d13-dubia.md` already holds all seven (`[^p293-1]`–`[^p293-7]`); no re-claim and no leak.

**Apparatus count:** 9 entries (all on p.294, nn.1–9). Marker pairing 9/9 clean in both Latin and English bodies.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* NONE from d.13 — the d.13 dubia closed cleanly at raw 20651 on printed p.293 with no footer leak into d.14 (the littera carries no p.293 footer; confirmed eyes-on).
- *Forwarded to `bon-sent-III-d14-divisio`:* none of p.294's footers — all nine are the littera's, exhausted above. The d14-divisio chunk's footers begin fresh with the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIV.` / `DIVISIO TEXTUS.` block at raw 20744/20748 (printed p.295+), whose NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM are entirely its own.

**`[?]` flags:** none. The text was fully legible at 450 dpi across both pages.