title: Dist. 8, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 195 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum Christus sit filius naturalis ratione utriusque nativitatis, videlicet temporalis et aeternae.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Christus sit filius naturalis ratione utriusque nativitatis, videlicet temporalis et aeternae. Et quod sic, videtur. De generatione enim aeterna non est dubium, de generatione vero temporali ostenditur sic.

*(Fundamenta.)*

1. Qui conformis est in natura ei, a quo generatur, est filius naturalis[^1]; sed Filius Dei conformis est Mariae, ex qua est natus: ergo est naturalis filius ipsius.

2. Item, qui trahit naturam ab eo, a quo generatur, est filius naturalis; sed Christus a Virgine naturam traxit humanam: ergo est filius naturalis ipsius Virginis.

3. Item, natura est principium rei genitae[^2] et filiationis eiusdem ex parte mulieris ex hoc, quod concipit, nutrit et parit; et hoc totum Virgini competit respectu Christi: ergo Christus est eius filius naturalis.

<!-- page 196 -->

4. Item, si Christus est filius Virginis, aut ergo *naturalis*, aut *adoptivus*; non adoptivus, quia tunc non esset vera mater, nec ad Virginem spectat filium adoptare, nec Deus adoptari potest a creatura in filium, sed magis e converso: ergo videtur, quod sit *naturalis* eius filius.

**Sed contra:** *(Ad oppositum.)* 1. Nullus, qui est filius per gratiam, est filius per naturam, quia natura et gratia ex opposito dividuntur; sed quod Christus fecit se filium Virginis, hoc fuit dignationis et gratiae: ergo non est filius naturalis.

2. Item, nullus, qui voluntarie generatur, est filius naturalis, quia natura et voluntas sunt principia disparata[^3]; sed Christus voluntarie genitus est de Virgine: ergo non est eius filius naturalis.

3. Item, nullus est filius naturalis, cuius generatio fit[^4] supra naturam; sed generatio Filii Dei ex Matre fuit per miraculum supra naturam, et nativitas similiter: ergo non est naturalis eius filius.

4. Item, nullus filius naturalis est prior suo principio generante, quoniam, si prior est, accidit ei[^5], quod producatur ab illo: ergo non est naturalis filius; sed Christus prior fuit quam Virgo, quae ipsum concepit: ergo ex parte temporalis nativitatis Christus non potest esse filius naturalis.

### Conclusio.

> Christus est filius naturalis secundum utramque nativitatem, temporalem videlicet et aeternam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod penes utramque nativitatem Christus est filius naturalis. — *(Conclusio.)* Et *(Ratio)* ratio huius est, quoniam utraque nativitas consistit in productione similis ex simili secundum similitudinem per convenientiam in natura[^6]. Unde secundum nativitatem *aeternam* generatur similis Patri, secundum nativitatem *temporalem* generatur similis Matri. Ideo utraque nativitas est naturalis, et ratione utriusque nativitatis Christus naturalis filius debet dici.

*(Quaestio incidens solvitur.)* Si autem tu quaeras, quam habitudinem dicit iste terminus *naturalis*; dicendum, quod magis dicit habitudinem *principii* quam habitudinem *formae*. Dicitur enim filius naturalis qui est a natura et qui trahit naturam ab aliquo, non quod ipsa filiatio sit proprietas consequens ipsam naturam. Unde haec est magis propria: *(Corollarium)* Christus est filius *naturalis* vel *natura*, quam: Christus est filius *essentialis*, vel filius *essentia*. Natura enim plus dicit in habitudinem principii vel causae, quam dicit in habitudinem formae[^7]. — Fatendum est ergo[^8], Christum filium naturalem Virginis esse ratione temporalis nativitatis, sicut rationes ad primam partem ostendunt: et ideo concedendae sunt.

*(Solutio oppositorum.)* 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod nullus, qui est filius per gratiam, est filius per naturam; dicendum, *(Notandum)* quod si illud intelligatur de gratia adoptionis, verum est; si vero intelligatur de gratia unionis, non est verum, quia, sicut habitum est supra[^9], « ista gratia fuit quodam modo isti homini naturalis ». — *(Alia solutio.)* Aliter etiam potest dici, quod verum est secundum eandem naturam. Christus autem nominat hypostasim in duabus naturis, et secundum illam duplicem naturam naturalis est filius Patris et naturalis est filius Matris, ita quod secundum divinam naturam comparetur ad Patrem, et secundum humanam comparetur ad Matrem. *(Notandum.)* Si autem mutua fiat comparatio, ut hypostasis illa secundum *divinam* naturam comparetur ad Matrem, et secundum *humanam* comparetur ad Patrem; sic non dicitur *proprie* filius naturalis; potest tamen dici naturalis filius per *gratiam unionis*, quae facit naturales proprietates invicem communicare[^10].

*(Nota transpositionem solutionum.)* 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod generatio Christi est supra naturam; dicendum, quod ita est supra naturam, quod est secundum naturam, ut dictum est supra[^11], quia ibi divina potentia in nullo praeiudicabat naturae; et ideo modus ille operandi non excludit naturae operationem nec aufert proli naturalem filiationem.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nihil generatur naturaliter quod generatur voluntarie; dicendum, quod falsum est, secundum quod naturam voluntas concomitatur; unde esto, quod natura esset omnino obediens voluntati, sicut et in Adam erat, idem generaretur, patre volente et natura operante. Et quoniam voluntas Filii non tollit vim generativam Matri; ideo non sequitur, quod si voluntarie ex ea nascitur, quod non naturaliter nascatur[^12].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nullus filius est prior suo principio generante; dicendum, *(Notandum)* quod verum est secundum eam naturam, secundum quam est filius eius; et sic non habet instantiam in proposito, quia Christus secundum humanam naturam posterior est Virgine, quae ipsum concepit[^13].

<!-- page 197 -->

Si autem simpliciter intelligatur, habet instantiam in proposito, quia Christus habet in se duas naturas, secundum quarum unam praecedit tam naturam creatam quam maternale principium. *(Notandum.)* Ubi autem instantia est in proposito, ita quod non in alio, ferenda est secundum philosophicum documentum[^14].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether Christ is a natural son by reason of each nativity, namely the temporal and the eternal.*

Thirdly it is asked whether Christ is a natural son by reason of each nativity, namely the temporal and the eternal. And that he is, it seems. For concerning the eternal generation there is no doubt; but concerning the temporal generation it is shown thus.

*(Foundations.)*

1. He who is conformed in nature to the one from whom he is generated is a natural son[^1]; but the Son of God is conformed to Mary, from whom he was born: therefore he is her natural son.

2. Likewise, he who draws his nature from the one by whom he is generated is a natural son; but Christ drew his human nature from the Virgin: therefore he is the natural son of the Virgin herself.

3. Likewise, nature is the principle of the thing generated[^2] and of its filiation on the part of the woman by the fact that she conceives, nourishes, and gives birth; and all this belongs to the Virgin with respect to Christ: therefore Christ is her natural son.

4. Likewise, if Christ is the son of the Virgin, then he is either *natural* or *adoptive*; not adoptive, because then she would not be a true mother, nor does it belong to the Virgin to adopt a son, nor can God be adopted by a creature into sonship, but rather the reverse: therefore it seems that he is her *natural* son.

**On the contrary:** *(To the opposite.)* 1. No one who is a son by grace is a son by nature, because nature and grace are divided in opposition; but that Christ made himself the son of the Virgin was a matter of condescension and grace: therefore he is not a natural son.

2. Likewise, no one who is generated voluntarily is a natural son, because nature and will are disparate principles[^3]; but Christ was generated voluntarily of the Virgin: therefore he is not her natural son.

3. Likewise, no one is a natural son whose generation occurs[^4] above nature; but the generation of the Son of God from the Mother was through a miracle above nature, and likewise his nativity: therefore he is not her natural son.

4. Likewise, no natural son is prior to his generating principle, since, if he is prior, it is accidental to him[^5] that he be produced from it: therefore he is not a natural son; but Christ was prior to the Virgin who conceived him: therefore on the side of the temporal nativity Christ cannot be a natural son.

### Conclusion.

> Christ is a natural son according to each nativity, namely the temporal and the eternal.

**I respond:** It must be said that with respect to each nativity Christ is a natural son. — *(Conclusion.)* And *(Ground)* the ground of this is that each nativity consists in the production of like from like according to likeness through agreement in nature[^6]. Hence according to the *eternal* nativity one like the Father is generated, according to the *temporal* nativity one like the Mother is generated. Therefore each nativity is natural, and by reason of each nativity Christ ought to be called a natural son.

*(An incidental question is resolved.)* But if you ask what relation this term *natural* expresses; it must be said that it expresses the relation of a *principle* rather than the relation of a *form*. For a natural son is so called who is from nature and who draws his nature from someone, not that the filiation itself is a property consequent upon the nature itself. Hence this is more proper: *(Corollary)* Christ is a *natural* son or a son *by nature*, than: Christ is an *essential* son, or a son *by essence*. For "nature" expresses more the relation of a principle or cause than it expresses the relation of a form[^7]. — It must therefore be admitted[^8] that Christ is the natural son of the Virgin by reason of the temporal nativity, just as the reasons for the first part show: and therefore they are to be conceded.

*(Resolution of the opposing arguments.)* 1. To that, then, which is first objected on the contrary, that no one who is a son by grace is a son by nature; it must be said *(Note)* that if that be understood of the grace of adoption, it is true; but if it be understood of the grace of union, it is not true, because, as has been held above[^9], "this grace was in a certain way natural to this man." — *(Another solution.)* It can also be said otherwise, that it is true with respect to one and the same nature. But Christ names a hypostasis in two natures, and according to that twofold nature he is the natural son of the Father and the natural son of the Mother, so that according to the divine nature he is compared to the Father, and according to the human he is compared to the Mother. *(Note.)* But if a mutual comparison be made, so that that hypostasis according to its *divine* nature be compared to the Mother, and according to its *human* be compared to the Father; thus he is not *properly* called a natural son; yet he can be called a natural son by the *grace of union*, which makes the natural properties to be communicated to one another[^10].

*(Note the transposition of the solutions.)* 3. To that which is objected, that the generation of Christ is above nature; it must be said that it is above nature in such a way that it is according to nature, as was said above[^11], because there the divine power in no way prejudiced nature; and therefore that mode of operating does not exclude the operation of nature nor take away from the offspring its natural filiation.

2. To that which is objected, that nothing that is generated voluntarily is generated naturally; it must be said that it is false, in the sense in which the will accompanies nature; hence granting that nature were wholly obedient to the will, as it was in Adam, the same would be generated, with the father willing and nature operating. And since the will of the Son does not take away the generative power from the Mother; therefore it does not follow that, if he is born voluntarily of her, he is not born naturally[^12].

4. To that which is objected, that no son is prior to his generating principle; it must be said *(Note)* that it is true with respect to that nature according to which he is her son; and thus there is no counterinstance in the matter at hand, because Christ according to his human nature is posterior to the Virgin who conceived him[^13].

But if it be understood without qualification, there is a counterinstance in the matter at hand, because Christ has in himself two natures, according to one of which he precedes both the created nature and the maternal principle. *(Note.)* But where there is a counterinstance in the matter at hand, in such a way that there is none in another case, it must be brought forward according to philosophical teaching[^14].

---

la: (p.195, nota 2) In seq. arg. *est eius filius naturalis*. Paulo superius pro *De generatione enim* cod. U *De generatione eius*.

en: (p.195, note 2) In the following argument, *is his natural son*. A little above, for *For concerning the generation* codex U reads *Concerning his generation*.

la: (p.195, nota 3) Cod. A *generatae*.

en: (p.195, note 3) Codex A reads *generatae* ("of her who is generated").

la: (p.196, nota 2) Cfr. Aristot., II. *Phys.* text. 49. (c. 8.) et III. *Ethic.* c. 5.

en: (p.196, note 2) Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* II, text 49 (c. 8), and *Nicomachean Ethics* III, c. 5.

la: (p.196, nota 3) Plurimi codd. non male *sit*.

en: (p.196, note 3) Very many codices read, not badly, *sit* ("be").

la: (p.196, nota 4) Sive: *accidentale est ei*. — Deinde post *naturalis filius* Vat. adiicit *ipsius*.

en: (p.196, note 4) Or: *it is accidental to him*. — Then after *natural son* the Vatican edition adds *of him*.

la: (p.196, nota 5) Communiter generatio definitur: *origo viventis a vivente, ut principio coniuncto, in similitudinem naturae.*

en: (p.196, note 5) Generation is commonly defined: *the origin of a living thing from a living thing, as from a conjoined principle, unto a likeness of nature.*

la: (p.196, nota 6) Cfr. supra pag. 188, nota 1. — Paulo superius post *vel natura* [ablativus pro *a natura*], quam Z bb subdunt *haec*.

en: (p.196, note 6) Cf. above p. 188, note 1. — A little above, after *or by nature* [the ablative used for "from nature"], which Z and bb append: *these things*.

la: (p.196) Pro *Fatendum* cod. K *Concedendum*. Paulo inferius post *ad primam partem* cod. A subiicit *inductae*.

en: (p.196) For *It must be admitted* codex K reads *It must be conceded*. A little below, after *for the first part* codex A subjoins *adduced*.

la: (p.196, nota 7) Dist. 4. a. 2. q. 3, ubi etiam Augustini verbi hic allati expositio habetur.

en: (p.196, note 7) Distinction 4, article 2, question 3, where there is also an exposition of the saying of Augustine here adduced.

en: (p.196, note 8) Cf. above, distinction 4, article 3, question 3, reply to the second.

la: (p.196, nota 9) Dist. 4. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — Paulo ante Vat. post *quod est* interserit *etiam*.

en: (p.196, note 9) Distinction 4, article 3, question 1 and following. — A little before, after *which is*, the Vatican edition inserts *also*.

la: (p.196, nota 10) Cfr. I. *Sent.* d. 6. q. 2, ubi quaeritur, utrum generatio Filii sit secundum rationem voluntatis.

en: (p.196, note 10) Cf. *Sentences* I, distinction 6, question 2, where it is asked whether the generation of the Son is according to the account of the will.

la: (p.196, nota 1) Vide supra pag. 29, nota 1.

en: (p.196, note 1) See above, p. 29, note 1.

la: (p.197, nota 1) *Vel aliis verbis:* ubi autem proponitur res, quae unica est in suo genere, ex *ipsa* potest et debet ferri instantia, ut etiam Aristot. docet. Nam VIII. *Topic.*, insinuans locos sive *documenta* (cfr. B. Albert., Comment. in VIII. *Topic.* tr. 1. c. 2.), ex quibus tam qui opponit (interrogat) quam qui respondet argumenta depromere possit, inter locos respondenti servientes (c. 2.) locum affert *de instantia*, admonens simul: « Efflagitandum autem, instantias non in eo quod proponitur ferre, nisi *unum* tantum sit huiusmodi, ut dualitas parium numerorum solus primus [in quo casu instari potest contra eum qui inductione ex aliis numeris probat, binarium non esse primum]. Nam oportet, et eum qui instat, in altero [quam in proposito] instantiam inferre aut dicere, quod *hoc solum* tale est ». — Paulo superius pro *maternale* codd. A G Y Z *materiale*, cod. bb *naturale*. — *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*

en: (p.197, note 1) *Or in other words:* where, however, a thing is proposed that is unique in its kind, from *that very thing* a counterinstance can and ought to be brought, as Aristotle too teaches. For in *Topics* VIII, introducing the "places" or *teachings* (cf. Bl. Albert, Commentary on *Topics* VIII, tract. 1, c. 2) from which both the one who objects (interrogates) and the one who responds may draw their arguments, among the places serving the respondent (c. 2) he adduces the place *concerning the counterinstance*, admonishing at the same time: "It must be required, however, that counterinstances be brought not in what is proposed, unless only *one* of this kind exists — as the dyad is the only even prime number [in which case a counterinstance can be raised against one who proves by induction from other numbers that two is not prime]. For it is necessary that the one who raises the counterinstance bring it in another case [than the one proposed] or say that *this alone* is such." — A little above, for *maternal* codices A G Y Z read *material*, codex bb *natural*. — *See the scholion to the preceding question.* ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.195–197 (PDF 217–219; offset pdf = printed + 22), read Left column top→bottom then Right, cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 13987–14081). The Respondeo, the *Quaestio incidens* solution, and the Solutio oppositorum are cascade-shattered in the OCR (diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation + two-column bleed), so the PDF column bands are authoritative there; clean running prose (Fundamenta / Sed contra) tracks the OCR. Fresh literal English.

**Alignment VERIFIED.** Opener (raw 13987) reads *Tertio quaeritur, utrum Christus sit filius naturalis ratione utriusque nativitatis, videlicet temporalis et aeternae* — the "natural son by reason of both nativities" question. NOT q1 (*Christum bis esse natum*) nor q2 (*in Christo sint duae filiationes*).

**Page-split map.**
- **p.195** (running head `DIST. VIII. ART. II. QUAEST. III.`): q3 OPENS at the foot of both columns, below q2's SCHOLION §I–III which fills the upper page. QUAEST. III header + 2-line title + opener + *Fundamenta* arg.1 (L-col foot) + arg.2 + arg.3 (R-col foot).
- **p.196** (running head `196 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`): *Fundamenta* arg.4 (*aut naturalis aut adoptivus*) + *Sed contra* [*Ad oppositum*] args 1–4 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (*Conclusio* / *Ratio* — each nativity = production of like from like) + *Quaestio incidens solvitur* (*naturalis* = relation of principle, not form; *Corollarium*) + Solutio oppositorum *Ad 1* (*Notandum* / *Alia solutio* / *Notandum*) + *Ad 3* (*Nota transpositionem solutionum* — replies print in order 1, 3, 2, 4) + *Ad 2* + *Ad 4* start (*Notandum*).
- **p.197** (running head `DIST. VIII. DUBIA.`): q3's *Ad 4* tail (3 lines, *…ferenda est secundum philosophicum documentum¹*), then `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` opens immediately. q3 ends a few lines into p.197-L.

**Apparatus (14 entries), page-split map:** p.195 notes 2–3 (`[^1]`–`[^2]`) + p.196 notes 1–10 (`[^3]`–`[^13]`, ordered by body-marker reading position: arg.2 *disparata²*=n.2, arg.3 *fit³*=n.3, S.c.4 *accidit ei⁴*=n.4, Respondeo *natura⁵*=n.5, corollary *formae⁶*=n.6, the *Fatendum*/*Concedendum* variant=unnumbered p.196 fragment folded as `[^8]`, Ad 1 *supra⁷*=n.7, Ad 1 *communicare⁸*=n.8, Ad 3 *supra⁹*=n.9, Ad 2 *nascatur¹⁰*=n.10, Ad 4 *Vide supra pag.29¹*=n.1) + p.197 note 1 (`[^14]`, the long Aristot. *Topics* VIII / B. Albert *de instantia* note, ending *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*). No per-page suffixes needed (continuous body-marker sequence `[^1]`–`[^14]`; no cross-page marker collision).

**Footer hand-off.**
- **RECEIVED from d8-a2-q2: NONE** as a body marker (q2 exhausted its p.193 n.3–8 + p.194 n.1–7 + p.195 n.1 at its SCHOLION). q3 PICKS UP **p.195 footer notes 2–3** as its own first footers (CONFIRMED eyes-on p.195-R footer band: note 2 keys arg.1 *naturalis²*; note 3 keys arg.3 *genitae³*).
- **FORWARDED to d8-dubia: p.197 footer notes 2+** belong to the DUBIA block (q3 owns only p.197 note 1, the *documentum¹* marker). The p.197-R footer band shows notes 2, 3, 4… keying the Dub. I–III bodies. q3's p.195 n.2–3 + p.196 n.1–10 + p.197 n.1 are fully exhausted.

**Scholion disposition: has_scholion FALSE.** q3 ends with the *Ad 4* reply on p.197, immediately followed by `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` (raw 14082) — no SCHOLION block. q2's SCHOLION §III is a forward note on this 3rd question (Christ's temporal nativity respectu Matris, commentator list Alex. Hal. / Aegid. R. / Richard a Med. / Dionys. Carth.), and q3's own p.197 note 1 (`[^14]`) explicitly redirects *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* — confirming the forecast.

**DUBIA hand-off for the next chunk.** DUBIA opener = raw **14082** (`DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` → `Dub. I.` at ~14084); **3 dubia** confirmed (Dub. I ~14084, Dub. II raw 14108, Dub. III raw 14102/14118). DUBIA block runs raw 14082 → just before `DISTINCTIO IX` raw **14147** (`Cap. Unicum`). After d8-dubia, DIST. VIII is COMPLETE (9 chunks).

**`[?]` flags:** none.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 8, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Distinctio VIII)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Distinction VIII)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 197 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur: *Res, quae non est de Patre genita, non videtur de Matre nata.* Sed *contra:* Humana natura non est ex Patre genita, ergo non est de Matre nata. — Item, Christus secundum humanam naturam «conceptus est de Spiritu sancto et natus ex Maria Virgine», ita quod Spiritus sanctus non est eius pater, licet Virgo sit eius mater[^1]: ergo non videtur praedictus sermo veritatem habere.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Magister loquitur de illa nativitate, qua res aliqua dicitur nasci, ita quod vindicat sibi proprietatem sive denominationem filiationis. Hoc autem non habet humana natura in Christo; et ideo non est recta instantia contra illud quod dicit Magister in littera[^2].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Unam nativitatem ex Patre veneramur, quae est supra causam, rationem, tempus et naturam.* Sed *contra:* Generatio Filii Dei ex Patre est generatio naturalis; sed generatio naturalis est secundum naturam, non supra naturam: ergo etc.; ergo falsum dicit, quod sit supra naturam.

*(Quaestio incidens.)* Iuxta hoc quaeritur: penes quae distinguuntur illa quatuor, quae in auctoritate proponuntur? Videtur enim, quod non sit nisi verborum inculcatio.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *natura* non accipitur ita communiter, sed pro natura creata; unde non vult dicere, quod generatio Filii sit supra naturam *aeternam*, quae est natura *naturans*, sed super naturam *creatam*, quae consuevit dici natura *naturata*[^3].

*(Ad quaesitum incidentem.)* Et nota, quod ista quatuor distinguuntur sic, ut *causa* referatur ad naturam angelicam, *ratio* ad naturam humanam, *tempus* ad virtutem caelestem, et *natura* ad virtutem[^4] inferioris creaturae, ut sit sensus: generatio illa est supra *causam*, id est virtutem angelicam; et *rationem*, id est virtutem humanam; et *tempus*, id est operationem caelestem; et *naturam*, id est virtutem inferiorem. — *(Aliter.)* Vel aliter, ut *causa* referatur ad virtutem agentem, et *ratio* ad potentiam agnoscentem, et *tempus* ad mensuram limitantem, et *natura* ad modi operandi consuetudinem[^5].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *Christus natus est homo ex muliere in tempore conceptionis.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia conceptio illa non fuit in tempore, sed in instanti. — Item, si conceptio sua fuit similis nostrae quantum ad tempus, ergo non videtur verum quod subiungit, quod fuit supra legem nostrae conceptionis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod conceptio dupliciter accipitur. *(Duplex conceptio.)* Uno modo dicitur *conceptio* ipsa operatio naturae in formatione corporis usque ad susceptionem animae. Alio modo dicitur *conceptio* large in nutritione et perfectione corporis usque ad partum et egressum ipsius de ventre. Si igitur primo modo dicatur conceptio, sic Christi conceptio non fuit *secundum* nos, sed *supra* nos, nec fuit in tempore, sed in instanti. Si autem secundo modo dicatur conceptio *large*, sic fuit *secundum* nos, quia novem mensibus nutritus fuit et crevit in utero Matris, ut alii homines, antequam nasceretur. Et hoc sufficientius habitum est supra[^6].

---

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

### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about this which is said: *A thing which is not begotten of the Father does not seem to be born of the Mother.* But, on the contrary: The human nature is not begotten of the Father; therefore it is not born of the Mother. — Likewise, Christ according to his human nature "was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary," in such a way that the Holy Spirit is not his father, although the Virgin is his mother[^1]: therefore the aforesaid statement does not seem to hold the truth.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master is speaking of that nativity by which a thing is said to be born in such a way that it claims for itself the property or denomination of filiation. But the human nature in Christ does not have this; and therefore there is no valid objection against what the Master says in the text[^2].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *We venerate one nativity from the Father, which is above cause, reason, time, and nature.* But, on the contrary: The generation of the Son of God from the Father is a natural generation; but a natural generation is according to nature, not above nature: therefore etc.; therefore he says falsely that it is above nature.

*(Incidental question.)* Alongside this it is asked: by what are those four things distinguished which are set forth in the authority? For it seems that it is nothing but a piling-up of words.

**I respond:** It must be said that *nature* is not taken so generally, but for created nature; whence he does not mean to say that the generation of the Son is above *eternal* nature, which is nature *naturing*, but above *created* nature, which is wont to be called nature *natured*[^3].

*(To the incidental question.)* And note that those four things are distinguished thus, so that *cause* refers to the angelic nature, *reason* to the human nature, *time* to the heavenly power, and *nature* to the power[^4] of the lower creature, so that the sense is: that generation is above *cause*, that is, above the angelic power; and above *reason*, that is, the human power; and above *time*, that is, the heavenly operation; and above *nature*, that is, the lower power. — *(Otherwise.)* Or otherwise, so that *cause* refers to the acting power, and *reason* to the knowing potency, and *time* to the limiting measure, and *nature* to the customary mode of operating[^5].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *Christ was born a man of a woman at the time of conception.* For it seems false to say so, because that conception was not in time, but in an instant. — Likewise, if his conception was like ours as regards time, then it does not seem true what he adds, namely that it was above the law of our conception.

**I respond:** It must be said that conception is taken in two ways. *(Twofold conception.)* In one way *conception* is called the very operation of nature in the formation of the body up to the reception of the soul. In another way *conception* is called broadly the nutrition and perfecting of the body up to the birth and its egress from the womb. If therefore conception is taken in the first way, then Christ's conception was not *according to* us, but *above* us, nor was it in time, but in an instant. But if conception is taken in the second way, *broadly*, then it was *according to* us, because for nine months he was nourished and grew in the womb of the Mother, like other men, before he was born. And this has been treated more sufficiently above[^6].

---

la: Cfr. supra d. 4. a. 1. q. 2. — Pro *natus ex Maria Virgine*, quod in Symb. Apost. habetur, multi codd. *natus de Maria Virgine*.

en: Cf. above, d. 4, a. 1, q. 2. — For *born of Mary the Virgin*, which is found in the Apostles' Creed, many codices read *born from Mary the Virgin*.

la: Hic c. 1. Vide supra a. 1. q. 1.

en: Here, c. 1. See above, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Haec naturae distinctio fundamentum est totius libri condemnati Erigenae *de Divisione naturae* (cfr. II. Sent. d. 1. p. I. a. 3. q. 2. in scholio). Eadem tangitur etiam ab August., XV. *de Trin.* c. 1. n. 1: «Deus est natura, scilicet non creata, sed creatrix». Cfr. ibi XIV. c. 9. n. 12. et II. *de Anima et eius origine*, c. 3. n. 5.

en: This distinction of nature is the foundation of the whole condemned book of Erigena *On the Division of Nature* (cf. II Sent., d. 1, p. I, a. 3, q. 2, in the scholion). The same is touched upon also by Augustine, *On the Trinity* XV, c. 1, n. 1: "God is a nature, namely not created, but creating." Cf. there XIV, c. 9, n. 12, and *On the Soul and its Origin* II, c. 3, n. 5.

la: Codd. N Y subiiciunt *inferiorem vel.*

en: Codices N, Y add *the lower, or.*

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. on this doubt Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed p.197 (PDF p.219), read Left column top→bottom then Right column, cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 14082–14146). The Respondeo/incidens passages were lightly cascade-shattered in the OCR; the PDF column bands are authoritative per the VOL II OVERRIDE (applies to Vol III). Running head: `DIST. VIII. DUBIA.`

**Dubia count.** THREE dubia (Dub. I, II, III) verified eyes-on against the PDF column bands and the raw (Dub. I raw 14084-area; Dub. II raw 14108 [left-col marker]; Dub. III raw 14102 [right-col marker, interleaved]). Dub. I = whether the human nature can be said "born of the Mother" (the Master speaks of the nativity claiming the property/denomination of filiation, which the human nature in Christ lacks). Dub. II = whether the nativity from the Father is "above cause, reason, time, and nature" (*natura* = created nature only; plus the *Ad quaesitum incidentem* fourfold gloss and *Vel aliter* alternative). Dub. III = whether "Christ was born a man of a woman at the time of conception" should be conceded (*Duplex conceptio*: the operation of nature forming the body up to the reception of the soul, vs. conception taken broadly).

**Page-split map (single page).**
- p.197 (running head `DIST. VIII. DUBIA.`): the entire DUBIA block. Above it (upper L/R columns) is d8-a2-q3's Ad 4 tail ending *…secundum philosophicum documentum¹*; the `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` header opens mid-L-column. Reading order: L-col = DUB. I body + DUB. II body (through the *Quaestio incidens*); R-col = the *Ad quaesitum incidentem* fourfold gloss (continuation of DUB. II) + DUB. III body. The whole block is contained on p.197 — DISTINCTIO IX begins fresh at the top of p.198.

**Apparatus = 6 entries**, all from the p.197-R footer band (notes 2–7), keyed continuously `[^1]`–`[^6]`:
- `[^1]` = p.197 note 2 (*Cfr. supra d.4 a.1 q.2… natus de Maria Virgine*), keying DUB. I *eius mater²*.
- `[^2]` = p.197 note 3 (*Hic c.1. Vide supra a.1 q.1.*), keying DUB. I *in littera³*.
- `[^3]` = p.197 note 4 (Erigena *de Divisione naturae* / August. XV *de Trin.*), keying DUB. II *naturata⁴*.
- `[^4]` = p.197 note 5 (*Codd. NY subiiciunt inferiorem vel.*), keying DUB. II *virtutem⁵ inferioris*.
- `[^5]` = p.197 note 6 (*Cfr. … Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med.*), keying DUB. II *consuetudinem⁶*.
- `[^6]` = p.197 note 7 (*Dist. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 2.*), keying DUB. III *habitum est supra⁷*.
Single page → no per-page suffix needed.

**Footer hand-off.** RECEIVED from d8-a2-q3: p.197 footer notes 2+ (q3 owns only p.197 note 1, the long Aristotle *Topic.* VIII / B. Albert *de instantia* note keying q3's Ad 4 *documentum¹*; CONFIRMED eyes-on the p.197-L footer band). The DUBIA's own first footer is p.197 note 2. NONE FORWARDED — the DUBIA's last footer is p.197 note 7 (*Dist. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 2.*); DISTINCTIO IX opens its own fresh `NOTAE` sequence on p.198.

**has_scholion: false.** No SCHOLION block in the raw or PDF for the DUBIA (matches d6-/d7-dubia template).

**Boundary lock at DISTINCTIO IX raw 14147.** DUB. III ends p.197-R *…sufficientius habitum est supra⁷*; the raw then has `DISTINCTIO IX.` at line 14147 (`Cap. Unicum.`, rubric *De adoratione exhibenda humanitati Christi*) opening fresh at the TOP of printed p.198 (running head `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` / `DISTINCTIO IX`). NO footer leaks into d.9 — DIST. IX's footers print under their own fresh `NOTAE` block on p.198. CONFIRMED eyes-on: p.198 top is DIST. IX content (*Praeterea investigari oportet, utrum caro Christi… latria…*), not the DUBIA.

**DISTINCTIO VIII is now COMPLETE** — 9/9 chunks: littera, divisio, a1-q1/q2/q3, a2-q1/q2/q3, dubia.

**`[?]` flags:** none.

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. 9

title_alt: Distinctio IX — textus Magistri Sententiarum (Cap. Unicum)

title_alt: Distinction IX — text of the Master of the Sentences (Single Chapter)

source_text:
<!-- page 198 -->

### DISTINCTIO IX.

### Cap. Unicum. *De adoratione exhibenda humanitati Christi.*

Praeterea investigari oportet, utrum caro Christi et anima una eademque cum Verbo debeant adoratione adorari, illa scilicet, quae *latria* dicitur. Si enim animae vel carni Christi[^1] exhibetur *latria*, quae intelligitur servitus sive cultus soli Creatori debitus; cum anima Christi vel caro creatura tantum sit, creaturae exhibetur quod soli Creatori debetur; quod facienti in idololatriam deputatur. *(Opinio 1.)* — Ideo quibusdam videtur, non illa adoratione, quae *latria* est, carnem Christi vel animam esse adorandam, sed illa quae *dulia* est, cuius duas species vel modos esse dicunt. Est enim cuiusdam modi *dulia*, quae creaturae cuilibet exhiberi potest; et est quaedam soli humanitati Christi[^2] exhibenda, non alii creaturae; quia Christi humanitas super omnem creaturam est veneranda et diligenda, non tamen adeo, ut cultus divinitati debitus ei exhibeatur, *(Dubium 1.)* qui cultus in dilectione et sacrificii exhibitione atque reverentia consistit, qui Latine dicitur *pietas*, Graece autem *theosebia*, id est Dei cultus, vel *eusebia*, id est bonus cultus.

*(Opinio 2. et vera.)* Aliis autem placet, Christi humanitatem una adoratione cum Verbo esse adorandam, non propter se, sed propter illum cuius est scabellum, cui est unita. Neque ipsa humanitas *sola* vel nuda, sed cum Verbo, cui est unita; nec propter se, sed propter illum[^3] est adoranda. Nec qui hoc facit idololatriae reus iudicari potest, quia nec soli creaturae nec propter ipsam, sed Creatori cum humanitate et in humanitate sua servit.

*(Damascenus.)* De hoc Ioannes Damascenus[^4] ita ait: «Duae sunt naturae Christi, ratione et modo differentes, unitae vero secundum hypostasim. Unus igitur Christus est Deus perfectus et homo perfectus, *(Dubium 2.)* quem adoramus cum Patre et Spiritu una adoratione cum incontaminata eius carne, non inadorabilem carnem dicentes — adoratur enim in una Verbi hypostasi, quae hypostasis generata est — non creaturae venerationem praebentes. Non enim ut *nudam* carnem adoramus, sed ut *unitam* deitati, in unam hypostasim Dei Verbi duabus reductis naturis. Timeo carbonem tangere propter ligno copulatum ignem. Adoro Christi, Dei mei, simul utramque naturam[^5] propter carni unitam deitatem. Non enim quartam appono personam in Trinitate, sed unam personam confiteor Verbi et carnis eius». *(Confirmatur per Augustinum.)* — His verbis insinuari videtur, Christi humanitatem una adoratione cum Verbo esse adorandam. — De hoc etiam Augustinus[^6] ex sermone Domini, ubi dicit: *Non turbetur cor vestrum*, ita dicit: «Dicunt haeretici, Filium non natura esse Deum, sed creatum. Quibus respondendum est, quia, si Filius non est Deus natura, sed creatura, nec colendus est omnino nec ut Deus adorandus, dicente Apostolo: *Coluerunt et servierunt potius creaturae quam Creatori*. *(Replicant illi.)* — Sed illi ad hoc replicabunt et dicent: Quid est, quod carnem eius, quam creaturam esse non negas, simul cum divinitate adoras et ei non minus quam divinitati deservis? *(Dubium 3.)* — Ego dominicam carnem, immo perfectam in Christo humanitatem, ideo adoro, quod a divinitate suscepta et deitati unita est; ut non alium et alium, sed unum eundemque Deum et hominem Dei Filium esse confitear. Denique si hominem separaveris a Deo, illi nunquam credo nec servio, velut si quis purpuram vel diadema regale iacens inveniat, nunquid ea conabitur adorare? Cum vero ea[^7] rex fuerit indutus, periculum mortis incurrit, si ea cum rege adorare quis contempserit. Ita etiam in Christo Domino humanitatem non solam vel nudam, sed divinitati unitam, scilicet unum Filium, Deum verum et hominem verum, si quis adorare contempserit, aeternaliter morietur». — Idem super Psalmum nonagesimum octavum[^8], ubi dicitur: *Adorate scabellum pedum eius, quoniam sanctum est*: «Sciendum est, quia in Christo terra est, id est caro, quae sine impietate adoratur. Suscepit enim de terra terram, quia caro de terra est, et de carne Mariae carnem accepit. Haec sine impietate a Verbo Dei assumta adoratur a nobis, quia carnem eius nemo manducat, nisi prius adoret; sed qui adorat non terram intuetur, illum potius, cuius scabellum est, propter quem adorat». — His auctoritatibus praemissae investigationis absolutio explicatur.

---

english:
### DISTINCTION IX.

### Single Chapter. *On the adoration to be shown to the humanity of Christ.*

Furthermore it must be investigated whether the flesh of Christ and his soul ought to be adored, together and as one with the Word, with that adoration, namely, which is called *latria*. For if to the soul or flesh of Christ[^1] *latria* be shown — which is understood as the service or worship owed to the Creator alone — since the soul of Christ or his flesh is creature only, there is shown to a creature what is owed to the Creator alone; which is reckoned to the doer as idolatry. *(Opinion 1.)* — Therefore it seems to some that the flesh of Christ or his soul is to be adored not with that adoration which is *latria*, but with that which is *dulia*, of which they say there are two species or modes. For there is *dulia* of a certain mode, which can be shown to any creature whatever; and there is a certain [*dulia*] to be shown to the humanity of Christ[^2] alone, and to no other creature; because the humanity of Christ is to be venerated and loved above every creature, yet not so far that the worship owed to the divinity be shown to it, *(Doubt 1.)* which worship consists in love and in the offering of sacrifice and in reverence, which in Latin is called *pietas*, but in Greek *theosebia*, that is, the worship of God, or *eusebia*, that is, good worship.

*(Opinion 2, and the true one.)* But to others it is pleasing that the humanity of Christ is to be adored with one adoration together with the Word, not on its own account, but on account of him whose footstool it is, to whom it is united. Nor is the humanity itself, *alone* or bare, but together with the Word, to whom it is united; nor on its own account, but on account of him[^3], is it to be adored. Nor can he who does this be judged guilty of idolatry, because he serves neither the creature alone nor on account of it, but the Creator together with the humanity and in his humanity.

*(Damascene.)* Concerning this John Damascene[^4] thus says: «There are two natures of Christ, differing in account and mode, but united according to hypostasis. One Christ therefore is perfect God and perfect man, *(Doubt 2.)* whom we adore together with the Father and the Spirit with one adoration, together with his undefiled flesh, not declaring his flesh unadorable — for it is adored in the one hypostasis of the Word, which hypostasis was begotten — not offering veneration to a creature. For we do not adore the flesh as *bare*, but as *united* to the deity, the two natures being reduced into the one hypostasis of God the Word. I fear to touch the coal on account of the fire joined to the wood. I adore both natures[^5] of Christ, my God, together, on account of the deity united to the flesh. For I do not set up a fourth person in the Trinity, but I confess one person of the Word and of his flesh». *(It is confirmed by Augustine.)* — By these words it seems to be intimated that the humanity of Christ is to be adored with one adoration together with the Word. — Concerning this also Augustine[^6], from the discourse of the Lord, where he says: *Let not your heart be troubled*, thus says: «The heretics say that the Son is God not by nature, but created. To whom it must be answered, that, if the Son is not God by nature, but a creature, he is in no way to be worshipped, nor to be adored as God, the Apostle saying: *They worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator*. *(They reply.)* — But they will reply to this and say: How is it that you adore his flesh, which you do not deny to be a creature, together with the divinity, and serve it no less than the divinity? *(Doubt 3.)* — I adore the Lord's flesh, nay rather the perfect humanity in Christ, for this reason, that it has been assumed by the divinity and united to the deity; so that I may confess not one and another, but one and the same God and man, the Son of God. Finally, if you separate the man from God, I never believe in him nor serve him, just as, if someone should find purple or a royal diadem lying about, will he try to adore it? But when the king[^7] has been clothed with it, he incurs the peril of death who scorns to adore it together with the king. So also in Christ the Lord, if anyone scorns to adore the humanity — not alone or bare, but united to the divinity, namely one Son, true God and true man — he will die eternally». — The same, on the ninety-eighth Psalm[^8], where it is said: *Adore the footstool of his feet, for it is holy*: «It must be known that in Christ there is earth, that is, flesh, which is adored without impiety. For he took up earth from earth, because the flesh is from earth, and from the flesh of Mary he received flesh. This, assumed by the Word of God, is adored by us without impiety, because no one eats his flesh unless he first adore it; but he who adores does not look upon the earth, but rather upon him whose footstool it is, on account of whom he adores». — By these authorities the resolution of the foregoing investigation is set forth.

---

la: Cod. E cum plerisque edd. omittit *Christi*. — De his quae sequuntur cfr. Petr. Lomb. super Ps. 98, 0.

en: Codex E with most editions omits *Christi*. — On what follows cf. Peter Lombard on Ps. 98, 0.

la: Codd. et edd. 1, 8 omittunt *Christi*.

en: The codices and editions 1 and 8 omit *Christi*.

la: Edd. pleraeque addunt *cui est unita*, refragantibus codd. et edd. 1, 8; quod additamentum videtur esse glossa ideo adiuncta, quia pronomen *illum* grammatice quidem non convenit cum voce *Verbum*, sed tamen secundum sensum.

en: Most editions add *to whom it is united*, against the codices and editions 1 and 8; which addition seems to be a gloss appended for this reason, that the pronoun *him* does not indeed grammatically agree with the word *Word*, but yet does according to the sense.

la: Libr. III. *de Fide orthod.* c. 8.

en: Book III *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 8.

la: Codd. A B D E *utraque* pro *utramque naturam*.

en: Codices A B D E read *both* in place of *both natures*.

la: Serm. 246. n. 5. (in appendice, alias 58. de verbis Dom.). Scripturae loci sunt Ioan. 14, 1; Rom. 1, 25.

en: Sermon 246, n. 5 (in the appendix, otherwise 58, *On the Words of the Lord*). The Scripture passages are John 14:1; Rom. 1:25.

la: Vat. *sola eis*, quae mutatio non requiritur, cum *indutus* etiam cum accusativo rei Graeco more construatur.

en: The Vatican edition reads *sola eis* [for itself with them], which change is not required, since *clothed* is also construed with the accusative of the thing in the Greek manner.

la: Vers. 5.; August. *Enarrat.* tr. n. 9., ubi edd., post *intuetur* iterum ponunt *sed*, refragantibus codd. et ed. 1.

en: Verse 5; Augustine, *Enarration*, treatise n. 9, where the editions, after *looks upon*, again place *but*, against the codices and edition 1. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed p.198 (PDF 220), read Left column top→bottom then Right column, per the Vol II/III PDF-priority inversion (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p198-{L,R}-*.png`); cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 14147–14206). The littera is `Cap. Unicum` — a **single chapter**, rubric *De adoratione exhibenda humanitati Christi*.

**Page span.** Printed **p.198 ONLY** (PDF 220). The littera body runs from `Praeterea investigari oportet…` (raw 14149) to `…praemissae investigationis absolutio explicatur.` (raw 14206), which ends at the foot of p.198-R. **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IX opens fresh at the top of p.199** (raw 14207) — that belongs to the `d9-divisio` chunk, NOT here. Single page → **no per-page suffix** on markers.

**Apparatus / page-split map.** All **8** footer notes are the single Quaracchi per-page sequence printed at the foot of p.198, keyed continuously `[^1]`–`[^8]`: notes 1–4 sit under the p.198-L footer band (markers *carni Christi¹*, *humanitati Christi²*, *propter illum³*, *Ioannes Damascenus⁴*); notes 5–8 under the p.198-R footer band (markers *utramque naturam⁵*, *Augustinus⁶*, *cum vero ea⁷*, *super Psalmum nonagesimum octavum⁸*). The Bonaventure COMMENTARIUS on p.199 opens its own fresh `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` block; none of these 8 belong to it.

**Footer hand-off.** **RECEIVED from d8-dubia: NONE** — d8-dubia exhausted p.197 notes 2–7; DIST. IX opens its own fresh footer block on p.198 (CONFIRMED eyes-on: p.198 top is the fresh `Cap. Unicum` rubric + littera body, no leaked footer). **FORWARDED to d9-divisio: NONE** — the littera's notes 1–8 are all consumed on p.198; the COMMENTARIUS on p.199 starts its own NOTAE block. d9-divisio opens cleanly on p.199.

**Structure (re-verified from raw, matches scaffold = 13 chunks).** `Cap. Unicum` littera raw 14147 (`Cap. Unicum.` at 14149) → `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IX` raw 14207 + `DIVISIO TEXTUS` raw 14211 + `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` raw 14225 [= d9-divisio] → **ARTICULUS I** raw 14237, **six questions**: QUAEST. I raw 14241, II raw 14452, III raw 14640, IV raw 14741, V raw 14898, VI raw 15034 → **ARTICULUS II** raw 15157, **four questions**: QUAEST. I raw 15167, II raw 15288, III raw 15382, IV raw 15586 → `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` raw 15736 (OCR-garbled `DUBIA CIRCA UTTERAM`) → boundary `DISTINCTIO X` raw 15841. So d.9 = littera + divisio + a1-q1..q6 + a2-q1..q4 + dubia = **13 chunks**.

**Marginal labels** rendered inline in parentheses: *Opinio 1, Opinio 2 et vera, Dubium 1, Dubium 2, Dubium 3, Damascenus, Confirmatur per Augustinum, Replicant illi*.

**`[?]` flags:** none. OCR garbles silently corrected against the PDF (e.g. `exkibenda`→*exhibenda*, `ulrnm`→*utrum*, `lalria`→*latria*, `camem`→*carnem*, `Tinieo`→*Timeo*, `aclorat`→*adorat*).


title: Dist. 9, Divisio Textus

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

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

source_text:
<!-- page 199 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IX.

*Utrum humana natura in Christo sit adoranda adoratione latriae.*

*Praeterea investigari oportet* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de comparatione divinae naturae ad proprietatem humanae naturae; hic vero agit de comparatione humanae naturae ad proprietatem divinae, inquirens, utrum humana natura in Christo sit adoranda adoratione latriae. Dividitur autem pars ista in partes duas. In quarum prima prosequitur istam quaestionem secundum opinionem communem. In secunda vero prosequitur eam secundum opinionem aliorum et Sanctorum auctoritates, ibi: *Aliis placet Christi humanitatem* etc.

Prima pars dividitur in duas partes. In prima parte opponit. In secunda determinat, ibi: *Ideo quibusdam videtur* etc. Secunda pars in duas dividitur. In quarum prima subiungit aliorum opinionem. In secunda vero inducit illius opinionis confirmationem per multiplicem Sanctorum attestationem, ibi: *De hoc Ioannes ita ait: Duae sunt naturae Christi.* Illa secunda pars posset adhuc subdividi in duas. In prima confirmat auctoritate Graeci[^1]. In secunda auctoritate Latini, videlicet Augustini, ibi: *De hoc Augustinus ex sermone Domini*, ubi dicit etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam ergo huius partis incidit hic quaestio de adoratione Christi, circa quam quaeruntur principaliter duo.

Primo quaeritur de ipsa adoratione per comparationem ad eum[^2] cui est exhibenda.

Secundo vero quaeritur in comparatione ad virtutem, per quam exhibetur.

Circa primum quaeruntur sex.

Primo quaeritur, utrum cultus, qui est latria debitus deitati, sit exhibendus Christi humanitati.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum sit exhibendus eius imagini.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum sit exhibendus eius Matri.

Quarto, utrum sit exhibendus eius cruci.

Quinto, utrum sit exhibendus eius membro[^3].

Sexto et ultimo, utrum sine peccato exhiberi possit eius adversario.

---

english:
<!-- page 199 -->

## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION IX.

*Whether the human nature in Christ is to be adored with the adoration of latria.*

*Furthermore it must be investigated* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the comparison of the divine nature to a property of the human nature; but here he treats of the comparison of the human nature to a property of the divine, inquiring whether the human nature in Christ is to be adored with the adoration of latria. Now this part is divided into two parts, in the first of which he pursues this question according to the common opinion. But in the second he pursues it according to the opinion of others and the authorities of the Saints, there: *To others it seems pleasing that Christ's humanity* etc.

The first part is divided into two parts. In the first part he objects. In the second he determines [it], there: *Therefore to certain ones it seems* etc. The second part is divided into two. In the first of these he adds the opinion of others. But in the second he brings in the confirmation of that opinion through the manifold attestation of the Saints, there: *Concerning this John speaks thus: There are two natures of Christ.* That second part could be subdivided still further into two. In the first he confirms [it] by the authority of a Greek[^1]. In the second by the authority of a Latin, namely of Augustine, there: *Concerning this Augustine, from a sermon on the Lord* [i.e. on the Lord's discourse], where he says etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Therefore for the understanding of this part a question falls here concerning the adoration of Christ, about which two things are principally asked.

First it is asked concerning the adoration itself by comparison to him[^2] to whom it is to be shown.

But secondly it is asked in comparison to the power through which it is shown.

Concerning the first, six things are asked.

First it is asked whether the cult, which is the latria owed to the deity, is to be shown to the humanity of Christ.

Secondly it is asked whether it is to be shown to his image.

Thirdly it is asked whether it is to be shown to his Mother.

Fourthly, whether it is to be shown to his cross.

Fifthly, whether it is to be shown to his member[^3].

Sixthly and lastly, whether it can be shown without sin to his adversary.

---

la: Edd. addunt *scilicet Damasceni*.

en: The editions add *namely, of Damascene*.

la: Ita edd., codd. minus apte *Deum*.

en: So the editions; the codices, less aptly, [read] *Deum* [God].

la: Vat. hic, et codd. infra in ipsa quaest. *membris*.

en: The Vatican edition here, and the codices below within the question itself, [read] *membris* [members]. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed p. 199 (PDF 221; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw `bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 14207–14236; the OCR is heavily garbled here — e.g. `Magisler`, `hnmanae`, `lalriae`, `Graeci *` for `Graeci¹`, `membro3`, `Stfxto` — so the PDF column bands are authoritative per the Vol III PDF-priority inversion). This is the COMMENTARIUS divisio chunk for Distinction IX: it holds the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IX` opener (with the rubric *Utrum humana natura in Christo sit adoranda adoratione latriae* and the catchword-lemma *Praeterea investigari oportet* etc. that links to the littera), the `DIVISIO TEXTUS`, and the `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` (the question-list). Distinction IX has **no pars division**. No scholion — this is a commentary divisio (`has_scholion: false`).

**Structure.** TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM gives a top-level split into **two** principal questions: (1) the adoration itself by comparison to the one to whom it is shown, (2) by comparison to the power through which it is shown. The first principal question subdivides into **six** sub-questions (→ ARTICULUS I, six quaestiones): (1) whether the latria owed to the deity is to be shown to Christ's humanity; (2) to his image; (3) to his Mother; (4) to his cross; (5) to his member; (6) whether it can be shown without sin to his adversary. (The second principal question → ARTICULUS II, four quaestiones, per the scaffold.) `ARTICULUS I. De ipsa adoratione per comparationem ad eum cui est exhibenda. QUAESTIO I. Utrum cultus latriae sit exhibendus humanitati sive carni Christi.* opens immediately after the TRACTATIO, at the foot of p.199, and belongs to the next chunk (`d9-a1-q1`).

**Page-split map.**
- **p.199** (two columns; running head `DIST. IX. ART. I. QUAEST. I.`, recto `199`): the COMMENTARIUS divisio begins fresh at the TOP of p.199 (no littera tail above it — the littera ended on p.198). COMMENTARIUS header + rubric + lemma + DIVISIO TEXTUS header + the first DIVISIO paragraph (*Supra egit Magister…*) in the left column, continuing into the right column (*…parte opponit. In secunda determinat… In prima confirmat auctoritate Graeci¹…*). The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM follows: its preamble + top-level two-question split (*Primo… de ipsa adoratione per comparationem ad eum² cui est exhibenda. Secundo vero… in comparatione ad virtutem… Circa primum quaeruntur sex*) in the left column, and the six sub-questions (*Primo… cultus latria debitus deitati… Secundo… eius imagini. Tertio… eius Matri. Quarto… eius cruci. Quinto… eius membro³. Sexto et ultimo… eius adversario*) split across left/right columns. `ARTICULUS I. De ipsa adoratione per comparationem ad eum cui est exhibenda. QUAESTIO I. Utrum cultus latriae sit exhibendus humanitati sive carni Christi.* opens immediately after, at the foot of both columns, and belongs to `d9-a1-q1`.
- Footer `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` on p.199: note 1 = `[^1]` (*Graeci¹* — *Edd. addunt scilicet Damasceni*), note 2 = `[^2]` (*eum²* — *Ita edd., codd. minus apte Deum*), and note 3 = `[^3]` (*membro³* — *Vat. hic, et codd. infra in ipsa quaest. membris*) are the divisio's. Note 4 (*Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 8. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri.*), note 5 (*Psalm. 98, 5. — In Glossa, ex August. in hunc Ps. n. 9…*) and note 6 (*Argumentum hoc est secundum Damasc. III. de Fide orthod. c. 8…*) belong to `d9-a1-q1` (they key the QUAESTIO I body markers *Damasceni⁴*, *Psalmi⁵*, *divinitati⁶*).

**Footer hand-off.**
- *Received:* NONE. Per the `d9-littera` hand-off, the littera's notes 1–8 (under its own `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` block on p.198) were fully consumed, and the COMMENTARIUS opens its own fresh `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` footer sequence on p.199.
- *Forwarded to `d9-a1-q1`:* p.199 footer notes **4** onward (*Libr. III. de Fide orthod.* etc.) — these key the QUAESTIO I body, NOT the divisio. The divisio owns only p.199 notes **1–3** (`[^1]`–`[^3]`). `d9-a1-q1` opens `ARTICULUS I. De ipsa adoratione per comparationem ad eum cui est exhibenda. QUAESTIO I. Utrum cultus latriae sit exhibendus humanitati sive carni Christi. Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum cultus latriae sit exhibendus humanitati sive carni Christi. Et quod sic, videtur: 1. Primo auctoritate Damasceni⁴: «Christus est perfectus Deus et perfectus homo, quem adoramus una adoratione cum Patre et Spiritu et incontaminata carne eius»…* at the foot of p.199, continuing onto p.200.

**Apparatus count:** 3 marker entries: p.199 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM notes 1–3 = `[^1]`–`[^3]`. All three are textual-variant notes (editions/codices/Vatican readings) on the divisio markers *Graeci¹*, *eum²*, *membro³*. The divisio occupies only one printed page, so no per-page suffix is needed.

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


title: Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 199 -->

### Articulus I. *De ipsa adoratione per comparationem ad eum cui est exhibenda.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum cultus latriae sit exhibendus humanitati sive carni Christi.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum cultus latriae sit exhibendus humanitati sive carni Christi. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *(Fundamenta.)* Primo auctoritate Damasceni[^1]: «Christus est perfectus Deus et perfectus homo, quem adoramus una adoratione cum Patre et Spiritu et incontaminata carne eius»: ergo si persona Christi adoranda est latria, videtur, quod similiter caro eius.

2. Item, super illud Psalmi[^2]: *Adorate scabellum pedum eius, quoniam sanctum est*; Glossa Augustini: «In Christo terra, id est caro, sine impietate adoratur a nobis, quia nemo carnem eius spiritualiter manducat, nisi prius adoret».

3. Item, eodem timore timetur ignis et ferrum ignitum igne: ergo si magis unita est divinitas carni quam ignis ferro; videtur, quod eadem reverentia sit exhibenda eius humanitati, quae exhibetur divinitati[^3].

<!-- page 200 -->

4. Item, eadem adoratione adoratur caro animae unita, qua adoratur ipsa anima: ergo si non minus intime unitur Verbum ipsi carni quam anima, eadem ratione, qua adoratur Verbum, adoratur caro assumta. Sed Verbum adoratur latria: ergo etc.

**Sed contra:** *(Ad oppositum.)*
1. Lucae quarto[^4]: *Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies*; Glossa exponit de servitute cultus latriae: ergo soli Deo est exhibenda, non ergo carni Christi.

2. Item, Augustinus decimo *de Civitate Dei*[^5] loquens de Christo: «Cum in forma Dei sacrificium cum Patre sumat, cum quo et unus est Deus; tamen in forma servi maluit sacrificium esse quam sumere». Et ibidem: «Quis sacrificandum censuit nisi ei quem Deum aut scivit, aut putavit, aut finxit»? Igitur humanitati illi non est sacrificandum sive carni Christi: ergo nec ille cultus est ei offerendus, qui offertur Deo.

3. Item, Glossa super illud Psalmi: *Adorate scabellum pedum eius*: «Caro Christi non est adoranda illa adoratione latriae, quae soli Deo debetur, sed illa dulia, quae dignior est»: ergo etc.

4. Item, humana natura in Christo quantumcumque sit sublimata, non exit terminos creaturae: ergo nec reverentia exhibenda ei debet exire terminos creaturae: si igitur latria est cultus, qui excedit omnes fines creaturae; videtur, quod qui exhibet latriam carni Christi committit idololatriam[^6].

5. Item, minori minor reverentia est exhibenda et maiori maior secundum rectum ordinem; sed Christus, secundum quod homo, minor est Patre[^7], et humanitas minor deitate, quantumcumque sit unita: ergo minor reverentia est ei exhibenda. Si ergo latria est reverentia summa, videtur, quod humanitati Christi non sit exhibenda.

6. Item, nullius est adorari adoratione latriae, cuius est adorare; sed humanitatis est adorare ipsam summam Trinitatem: ergo non debet adorari adoratione latriae. Maior probatur per hoc, quod nulli debetur latria, cuius est servire alteri. Minor probatur per hoc, quia eius est adorare, cuius est orare; Christus autem oravit, sicut legitur in diversis Evangeliis[^8]: ergo etc.

> ### Conclusio.
> Humana natura Christi, quatenus semper est Verbo unita, semper adoranda est latria.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod caro Christi *(Caro Christi tripliciter consideratur.)* multipliciter consideratur. Uno modo caro Christi dicitur totus ille homo, iuxta illud quod dicitur Ioannis primo: *Verbum caro factum est*; et hoc modo, quia ille homo Deus est ratione unius personae, adorandus est adoratione latriae *(Conclusio 1).* — Alio modo caro consideratur, prout nominat ipsam partem humanitatis per se, non ut unitam; et hoc modo carni sic consideratae non debetur adoratio latriae, sed duliae *(Conclusio 2).* — Tertio modo consideratur caro quasi medio modo, prout nominat ipsam naturam creatam, prout divinitati unitam; et hoc modo dixerunt quidam, quod est adoranda dulia digniori, quae quidem est hyperdulia *(Opinio 1).* Et ratio huius est, quia solius Dei est adorari latria; et natura non communicat alteri naturae sua idiomata[^9]. Unde sicut non est dicendum, humanam naturam esse in Christo aeternam, quia est unita aeternae; sic hoc modo dixerunt, quod natura humana non est adoranda *latria*, quamvis sit unita maiestati summae.

<!-- page 201 -->

Alii vero dixerunt aliter, quod si consideretur caro et anima, prout unita illi personae, adoranda est adoratione *latriae*, pro eo quod secus est de *exhibitione honoris* et *proprietatibus aliis* *(Opinio 2).* Honor enim non respicit hanc *partem* vel illam, sed respicit ipsam *personam*. Unde quamvis purpura et vestimentum non participet proprietates regis absolutas, communicat tamen in honore et reverentia, sicut dicit Augustinus, et Magister recitat in littera[^10]. Et ideo, quia est una persona in Christo, cui debetur reverentia summa, una adoratione adoranda est, scilicet *latria*, quantum ad utramque naturam, scilicet Deitatem et humanitatem, sicut eadem adoratione adoratur in uno homine caput et pes *(Conclusio 3).*

Concedendum est ergo, quod non solum *Christus homo* adorandus est latria, sed etiam *humanitas eius*, in quantum est Verbo unita, quamvis, prout per se consideratur, nunquam ei debeatur nisi dulia *(Conclusio 4).* Et quoniam caro Christi nunquam est separata a Verbo, ideo semper consideranda est ut coniuncta et semper adoranda est *latria*, licet humanitati ut per se consideratae non debeatur nisi dulia. Et ideo secunda opinio melior est quam prima, et auctoritatibus Sanctorum est magis consona[^11]. — Et ideo concedendae sunt rationes, quae sunt ad partem istam.

*(Solutio oppositorum.)*
1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod latria est cultus soli Deo debitus; dicendum, quod propter hoc non excluditur humanitas Christi. Sicut enim, cum dicitur: solus Petrus est hic intus, non excluditur manus vel pes eius; sic, cum dicitur: solus Deus est adorandus latria, non excluditur humanitas, quia humana natura et divina in unam concurrunt personam. Unde et haec adoratio non ponit in numerum cum illa.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod carni Christi non est sacrificandum; dicendum, quod verum est *per se*, sed non, prout est divinitati coniuncta, quia toti Christo sacrificandum est. Et quod dicit Augustinus[^12], quod «noluit Christus sacrificium sumere, sed offerre»; dicendum, quod hoc non dicit, quod non deberet in carne adorari et ei sacrificari, sed quia voluit vitare occasionem erroris, ne alicui creaturae exhiberetur *per se* honor divini numinis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Glossa, quod caro non est adoranda latria; dicendum, quod verbum illud intelligitur de carne Verbi, prout in se nuda consideratione consideratur. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus[^13]: «Si hominem separaveris a Deo, illi nunquam credo nec servio»; hoc autem non obviat, quin, secundum quod unita est, adoranda sit latria. Unde Damascenus: «Non ut nudam carnem adoramus, sed ut unitam Deitati in unam hypostasim Dei Verbi».

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod creatura non exit terminos creaturae; dicendum, quod verum est ratione *sui*; et ideo honor ratione sui terminos creaturae non exit; sed quia unitur in una hypostasi Dei Verbi[^14], cui debetur unicus honor, in quacumque sit natura; hinc est, quod debetur ei *latria*.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod minori minor debetur reverentia; dicendum, quod verum est, quando minor et maior sic se habent, quod sunt diversorum honorum susceptibiles; hoc autem est, *(Notandum.)* quando sunt diversae personae gradu dignitatis distantes; hoc autem in proposito non est reperire, cum una in Christo sit personalitas, et illa attendatur secundum naturam supremam, unica et summa debetur ei reverentia, qualiscumque sit natura; sicut honor unus debetur regi, in qualicumque sit indumento. Honor enim naturam respicit digniorem, et *per consequens* illud quod adest annexum ei; sicut caro viri sancti honorari debet secundum dignitatem animae, non secundum ignobilitatem propriae naturae.

6. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod Christi est adorare; dicendum, quod secundum quod «oratio est ascensus intellectus in Deum», sic proprie *(Notandum.)* ad Christum non pertinet, pro eo quod *omnia quaecumque voluit, fecit*[^15]; etiam Verbum semper praesens habet, per omnia faciens, quaecumque vult anima eius; exemplum tamen orandi et adorandi edit secundum naturam inferiorem in sua oratione; et ideo non sequitur, quod non debeat adorari. Sicut enim ipse baptizat interius, et tamen baptizatus fuit, ut alios informaret; sic oravit et adoravit, ut alios erudiret; quia, sicut vult Damascenus[^16], in Christo humana natura non tenet naturam ancillae.

<!-- page 202 -->

Ait enim sic: «Serva est caro, si non est unita Dei Verbo; semel tamen unita secundum hypostasim, qualiter erit ancilla? Unum enim ens Christus non potest esse servus sui ipsius et dominus; cuius ergo erit servus? Patris non, quia quaecumque habet Pater, sunt Filii. Et ita, qui dicunt, ipsum esse servum, distare faciunt unum Christum in duo per modum Nestorii». Et ita ad Christum non pertinet adorare, sed adorari, quia magis competit ei ratio dominii quam servitutis. — *(Alia solutio.)* Aliter etiam posset dici, quod quamvis esset ipsius adorare, non tamen sequeretur, quod non deberet adhuc adorari adoratione latriae; quia nos, qui debemus adorare, non debemus aspicere ad eius humanitatem, sed ad personae dignitatem. — Et in hoc ultimo consistit summa quaestionis praedictae.

english:
### Article I. *On adoration itself by comparison to the one to whom it is to be shown.*
### Question I. *Whether the cult of latria is to be shown to the humanity or flesh of Christ.*

On the first point one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether the cult of latria is to be shown to the humanity or flesh of Christ. And that it is, it seems:

1. *(Foundations.)* First, on the authority of Damascene[^1]: «Christ is perfect God and perfect man, whom we adore with one adoration together with the Father and the Spirit and his uncontaminated flesh»: therefore if the person of Christ is to be adored with latria, it seems that likewise his flesh is.

2. Likewise, on that text of the Psalm[^2]: *Adore the footstool of his feet, for it is holy*; the Gloss of Augustine: «In Christ the earth, that is, the flesh, is adored by us without impiety, for no one eats his flesh spiritually unless he first adores it».

3. Likewise, with the same fear is feared fire and iron made glowing by fire: therefore if the divinity is more united to the flesh than fire to iron, it seems that the same reverence is to be shown to his humanity which is shown to the divinity[^3].

4. Likewise, with the same adoration is adored flesh united to a soul with which the soul itself is adored: therefore if the Word is united to the flesh no less intimately than the soul, by the same reason by which the Word is adored, the assumed flesh is adored. But the Word is adored with latria: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** *(To the opposite.)*
1. Luke four[^4]: *The Lord thy God thou shalt adore, and him only shalt thou serve*; the Gloss expounds this of the servitude of the cult of latria: therefore it is to be shown to God alone, and therefore not to the flesh of Christ.

2. Likewise, Augustine in the tenth book *On the City of God*[^5], speaking of Christ: «Since in the form of God he receives sacrifice together with the Father, with whom he is also one God; yet in the form of a servant he preferred to be the sacrifice rather than to receive it». And in the same place: «Who has judged that sacrifice should be made except to him whom one has known, or supposed, or imagined to be God»? Therefore to that humanity, that is, to the flesh of Christ, sacrifice is not to be made: therefore neither is that cult to be offered to it which is offered to God.

3. Likewise, the Gloss on that text of the Psalm: *Adore the footstool of his feet*: «The flesh of Christ is not to be adored with that adoration of latria which is owed to God alone, but with that dulia which is more worthy»: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, however much the human nature in Christ may be exalted, it does not go beyond the bounds of a creature: therefore neither ought the reverence shown to it to go beyond the bounds of a creature: if therefore latria is a cult which exceeds all the limits of a creature, it seems that whoever shows latria to the flesh of Christ commits idolatry[^6].

5. Likewise, to the lesser a lesser reverence is to be shown, and to the greater a greater, according to right order; but Christ, according as he is man, is less than the Father[^7], and the humanity is less than the deity, however much it is united: therefore a lesser reverence is to be shown to it. If therefore latria is the highest reverence, it seems that it is not to be shown to the humanity of Christ.

6. Likewise, it belongs to none to be adored with the adoration of latria whose part it is to adore; but it is the humanity's part to adore the most high Trinity itself: therefore it ought not to be adored with the adoration of latria. The major is proved by this, that latria is owed to none whose part it is to serve another. The minor is proved by this, that it is his part to adore whose part it is to pray; but Christ prayed, as is read in the various Gospels[^8]: therefore etc.

> ### Conclusion.
> The human nature of Christ, inasmuch as it is always united to the Word, is always to be adored with latria.

**I respond:** It must be said that the flesh of Christ *(The flesh of Christ is considered in three ways.)* is considered in many ways. In one way the flesh of Christ is called that whole man, according to that which is said in John one: *The Word was made flesh*; and in this way, because that man is God by reason of one person, he is to be adored with the adoration of latria *(Conclusion 1).* — In another way the flesh is considered as it names the part of the humanity itself in itself, not as united; and in this way to the flesh so considered is owed not the adoration of latria, but of dulia *(Conclusion 2).* — In a third way the flesh is considered as it were in a middle way, as it names the created nature itself, as united to the divinity; and in this way certain men said that it is to be adored with a more worthy dulia, which indeed is hyperdulia *(Opinion 1).* And the reason for this is that it belongs to God alone to be adored with latria, and a nature does not communicate to another nature its own idioms[^9]. Hence, just as it is not to be said that the human nature in Christ is eternal because it is united to the eternal, so in this way they said that the human nature is not to be adored with *latria*, although it is united to the most high majesty.

But others said otherwise, that if the flesh and soul be considered as united to that person, it is to be adored with the adoration of *latria*, since it is otherwise concerning the *showing of honor* and the *other properties* *(Opinion 2).* For honor does not regard this *part* or that, but regards the *person* itself. Hence, although the purple and the garment do not share the absolute properties of the king, nevertheless it shares in honor and reverence, as Augustine says and the Master recounts in the letter[^10]. And therefore, because there is one person in Christ, to whom the highest reverence is owed, it is to be adored with one adoration, namely *latria*, as regards each nature, namely the Deity and the humanity, just as with the same adoration in one man the head and the foot are adored *(Conclusion 3).*

It must therefore be conceded that not only is *Christ as man* to be adored with latria, but also *his humanity*, inasmuch as it is united to the Word, although, as it is considered in itself, nothing but dulia is ever owed to it *(Conclusion 4).* And since the flesh of Christ is never separated from the Word, therefore it is always to be considered as conjoined and is always to be adored with *latria*, although to the humanity as considered in itself nothing but dulia is owed. And therefore the second opinion is better than the first, and is more consonant with the authorities of the Saints[^11]. — And therefore the reasons which are for this side are to be conceded.

*(Solution of the opposing arguments.)*
1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that latria is a cult owed to God alone; it must be said that on this account the humanity of Christ is not excluded. For just as, when it is said: only Peter is in here, his hand or foot is not excluded; so, when it is said: God alone is to be adored with latria, the humanity is not excluded, because the human nature and the divine concur in one person. Hence this adoration too does not count as a number alongside the other.

2. To that which is objected, that to the flesh of Christ sacrifice is not to be made; it must be said that this is true *of itself*, but not as it is conjoined to the divinity, because to the whole Christ sacrifice is to be made. And as to what Augustine says[^12], that «Christ willed not to receive sacrifice, but to offer it»; it must be said that he does not say this to mean that he ought not to be adored and have sacrifice made to him in the flesh, but because he willed to avoid the occasion of error, lest to any creature should be shown *of itself* the honor of the divine majesty.

3. To that which is objected concerning the Gloss, that the flesh is not to be adored with latria; it must be said that that statement is understood of the flesh of the Word as it is considered in itself in a bare consideration. And this is what Augustine says[^13]: «If you separate the man from God, I never believe in him nor serve him»; but this does not stand against the fact that, according as it is united, it is to be adored with latria. Hence Damascene: «We adore it not as bare flesh, but as united to the Deity in one hypostasis of God the Word».

4. To that which is objected, that a creature does not go beyond the bounds of a creature; it must be said that this is true by reason of *itself*; and therefore honor by reason of itself does not go beyond the bounds of a creature; but because it is united in one hypostasis of God the Word[^14], to whom a unique honor is owed, in whatever nature it be; hence it is that *latria* is owed to it.

5. To that which is objected, that to the lesser a lesser reverence is owed; it must be said that this is true when the lesser and the greater are so related that they are susceptible of diverse honors; but this is so *(Note.)* when they are diverse persons standing apart in grade of dignity; but this is not to be found in the matter at hand, since in Christ there is one personality, and since that is regarded according to the supreme nature, a unique and supreme reverence is owed to it, of whatever nature it be; just as one honor is owed to a king, in whatever garment he be. For honor regards the more worthy nature, and *consequently* that which is attached to it; just as the flesh of a holy man ought to be honored according to the dignity of the soul, not according to the ignobility of its own nature.

6. To that, however, which is objected, that it is Christ's part to adore; it must be said that according as «prayer is the ascent of the intellect into God», so properly *(Note.)* it does not pertain to Christ, since *whatsoever he willed, he did*[^15]; and the Word always has present, accomplishing through all things whatsoever his soul wills; yet he gives an example of praying and adoring according to the lower nature in his prayer; and therefore it does not follow that he ought not to be adored. For just as he himself baptizes inwardly, and yet was baptized, to instruct others; so he prayed and adored, to teach others; because, as Damascene holds[^16], in Christ the human nature does not hold the nature of a handmaid.

For he speaks thus: «The flesh is a servant if it is not united to God the Word; but once united according to hypostasis, how will it be a handmaid? For Christ, being one being, cannot be the servant and lord of his very self; whose servant then will he be? Not the Father's, because whatever the Father has belongs to the Son. And so those who say that he is a servant make of one Christ a division into two in the manner of Nestorius». And so it does not pertain to Christ to adore, but to be adored, because the character of lordship befits him more than that of servitude. — *(Another solution.)* It might also be said otherwise that, although it were his part to adore, nevertheless it would not follow that he ought not still to be adored with the adoration of latria; because we who ought to adore ought not to look to his humanity, but to the dignity of the person. — And in this last point consists the summit of the aforesaid question.

la: Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 8. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri.

en: Book III, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 8. Cf. here the letter of the Master.

la: Psalm. 98, 5. — In Glossa, ex August. in hunc Ps. n. 9, delibata, et a Strabo Lyranoque ceu ordinaria allata, Vat. pro *spiritualiter* substituit *digne*, sed iniuria, siquidem Augustinus loc. cit. (exponit ibi illud verbum Domini apud Ioan. 6, 64: *Spiritus est qui vivificat*) ait: *Verba, quae locutus sum vobis, spiritus est et vita. Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum; non hoc corpus, quod videtis, manducaturi estis... Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos* etc.

en: Psalm 98:5. — In the Gloss, drawn from Augustine on this Psalm n. 9, and adduced by Strabo and Lyranus as the ordinary [gloss], the Vatican edition substitutes *digne* (worthily) for *spiritualiter*, but wrongly, since Augustine in the cited place (expounding there that word of the Lord in John 6:64: *It is the Spirit that gives life*) says: *The words that I have spoken to you, that is spirit and life. Understand spiritually what I have spoken; it is not this body that you see that you are going to eat... I have commended to you a certain sacrament; understood spiritually it will give you life,* etc.

la: Argumentum hoc est secundum Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 8, cuius verba videsis hic in lit. Magistri et d. IV. c. 3.

en: This argument is according to Damascene, Book III *On the Orthodox Faith* c. 8, whose words you may see here in the letter of the Master and at d. IV, c. 3.

la: Vers. 8. — Glossa, quae hic memoratur, est ordinaria et sumta ex Beda, in hunc loc. nec non in Matth. 4. 10, ubi venerabilis ille commentator sic eloquitur: *Latria autem vocatur servitus illa, quae soli Divinitatis cultui debita neque ulli est participanda creaturae... Iubemur uni Deo servire, quod est Graece λατρεύειν. Unde dicitur: Et illi soli servies, quod est Graece λατρεύσεις.* Cfr. August., l. de Trin. c. 6. n. 13; X. de Civ. Dei, c. 1. n. 2. seq.; contra Serm. Arianor. c. 20. n. 9. et 29. n. 27.; Epist. 170. (alias 66.).

en: Verse 8. — The Gloss here mentioned is the ordinary [gloss], taken from Bede, on this place and also on Matthew 4:10, where that venerable commentator speaks thus: *Latria is the name for that service which is owed to the cult of the Divinity alone and is to be shared with no creature... We are commanded to serve one God, which in Greek is λατρεύειν. Hence it is said: And him only shalt thou serve, which in Greek is λατρεύσεις.* Cf. Augustine, book *On the Trinity* c. 6, n. 13; *On the City of God* X, c. 1, n. 2 ff.; *Contra Sermonem Arianorum* c. 20, n. 9 and c. 29, n. 27; Epist. 170 (alias 66).

la: Cap. 20. — Seq. testimonium invenitur ibid. c. 4. — Cod. A hoc argument. sic terminat: *est ei exhibendus, qui exhibetur Deo.*

en: Chapter 20. — The following testimony is found in the same book, c. 4. — Codex A ends this argument thus: *is to be shown to it which is shown to God.*

la: August., l. de Trin. c. 6. n. 13: *Unde idololatrae dicuntur qui simulacris eam servitutem exhibent, quae debetur Deo* [i. e. latria].

en: Augustine, book *On the Trinity* c. 6, n. 13: *Hence those are called idolaters who show to images that service which is owed to God* [that is, latria].

la: Symb. Athanas.: *Minor Patre secundum humanitatem.* August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 23. n. 13: *Honoratur enim homo Christus, sed non sicut Pater Deus. Quare? Quia secundum hoc dixit: Pater maior me est* (Ioan. 14, 28.).

en: Athanasian Creed: *Less than the Father according to the humanity.* Augustine, *Tractates on the Gospel of John* tr. 23, n. 13: *For Christ as man is honored, but not as God the Father. Why? Because according to this he said: The Father is greater than I* (John 14:28).

la: Matth., 14, 23; 26, 36. seqq.; Marc. 1, 35; 6, 46; Luc. 5, 16. — Probatio maioris innititur definitione latriae, hic nota 2. allata.

en: Matthew 14:23; 26:36 ff.; Mark 1:35; 6:46; Luke 5:16. — The proof of the major rests on the definition of latria adduced here in note 2.

la: Cfr. supra d. 6. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6. — Paulo superius pro *est hyperdulia* codd. A P Q Z bb *dicitur hyperdulia*, et deinde post *et natura* codd. F N (K bb a secunda manu) subiiciunt *divina*. Post pauca codd. E G H L (K N primitus) T U V aa verbis *sic hoc modo* praemittunt *et*.

en: Cf. above, d. 6, a. 1, q. 1, ad 6. — A little above, for *est hyperdulia* codices A P Q Z bb read *dicitur hyperdulia*, and then after *et natura* codices F N (K bb by a second hand) add *divina*. After a few words codices E G H L (K N originally) T U V aa prefix *et* to the words *sic hoc modo*.

la: Hic, circa finem. Idem dicunt Epiph., Ancor. c. 51. et Damasc., IV. de Fide orthod. c. 3. — Codd. K U *participent... communicant.* Pro *absolutas* edd. *absolute.*

en: Here, near the end. The same is said by Epiphanius, *Ancoratus* c. 51, and Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* IV, c. 3. — Codices K U read *participent... communicant.* For *absolutas* the editions read *absolute.*

la: Cfr. Athanas., Epist. ad Adelphium episc. n. 3. seqq.; Cyrill., Schol. de incarn. Unigeniti, c. 18; Ambros., III. de Spir. S. c. 11. n. 79.

en: Cf. Athanasius, Letter to Bishop Adelphius n. 3 ff.; Cyril, *Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten* c. 18; Ambrose, *On the Holy Spirit* III, c. 11, n. 79.

la: Edd. reddunt dictum Augustini secundum textum originalem, ut et supra in ipsa obiectione exhibetur: *quia maluit Christus sacrificium esse quam sumere.*

en: The editions render Augustine's saying according to the original text, as it is also presented above in the objection itself: *because Christ preferred to be the sacrifice rather than to receive it.*

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, ubi et sententia Damasceni habetur, quae mox sequitur.

en: See here the letter of the Master, where the saying of Damascene is also found, which follows shortly.

la: Edd. *Verbo.*

en: The editions read *of the Word* (*Verbo*).

la: Psalm. 113, 3. — Definitio orationis, in qua pro *intellectus* (νοῦ) edd. substituerunt *mentis*, sumta est ex Damasc., de Fide orthod. c. 24, ubi etiam de oratione Christi fere idem dicitur atque hic et infra d. 17. a. 2. q. 1. — Subinde pro *etiam Verbum* codd. F U *et etiam Verbum*, Vat. cum plurimis codd. *et Verbum.*

en: Psalm 113:3. — The definition of prayer, in which the editions have substituted *mentis* (of the mind) for *intellectus* (νοῦ), is taken from Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* c. 24, where almost the same is said of the prayer of Christ as here and below at d. 17, a. 2, q. 1. — Then for *etiam Verbum* codices F U read *et etiam Verbum*, the Vatican edition with most codices *et Verbum.*

la: Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 21. In testimonio allegato post *et Dominus* tum post *sunt Filii* plura addita habet. Circa initium testimonii cod. K cum textu origin. pro *si non est* exhibet *si non esset*. — Cum ratione a S. Bonav. hic prolata, quare Christus baptizari voluerit, convenit quod August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 4. n. 13, dicit: *Et opus erat Domino baptizari? Et ego interrogans cito respondeo: opus erat Domino nasci? opus erat Domino crucifigi?... Et quid profuit, quia suscepit baptismum servi? Ut tu non dedignareris suscipere baptismum Domini* etc.

en: Book III, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 21. In the testimony adduced it has several additions, both after *and the Lord* and after *they are the Son's*. Near the beginning of the testimony codex K, with the original text, reads *si non esset* for *si non est*. — With the reason here brought forward by St. Bonaventure as to why Christ willed to be baptized agrees what Augustine says in *Tractates on the Gospel of John* tr. 4, n. 13: *And was it needful for the Lord to be baptized? And I, questioning, quickly answer: was it needful for the Lord to be born? was it needful for the Lord to be crucified?... And what did it profit, that he received the baptism of a servant? That you might not disdain to receive the baptism of the Lord,* etc. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Christum, quatenus est hic homo et Verbo in unitate personae unitus, esse adorandum una adoratione latriae, fide constat tum anathematismo 8. S. Cyrilli, a Concilio Ephesino approbato, tum Synodi oecumenicae V. can. 9: «Si quis adorari in duabus naturis dicit Christum, ex quo duae adorationes introducuntur, semotim Deo Verbo et semotim homini; aut si quis ad peremptum (ἀναιρέσει) carnis, aut in confusionem Deitatis et humanitatis unam naturam sive essentiam convenientium portentuose dicens, sic adorat Christum, sed non una adoratione Deum Verbum incarnatum cum eius carne adorat, iuxta quod sanctae Dei Ecclesiae ab initio traditum est, talis a. s.» Accedunt tres theses Synodi Pistoriensis (scilicet 61–63), a Pio VI. per constitutionem *Auctorem fidei* an. 1794 condemnatae, quibus ista Synodus tum adorationem humanitatis Christi, tum cultum Ss. Cordis Iesu captiose insectabatur asserendo (thesis 61.), *adorare directe humanitatem Christi, magis vero aliquam eius partem, fore semper honorem divinum datum creaturae*. Quorum verborum censura ita sonat: «Quatenus per hoc verbum *directe* intendat reprobare adorationis cultum, quem fideles dirigunt ad humanitatem Christi, proinde ac si talis adoratio, qua humanitas ipsaque caro vivifica Christi adoratur, non quidem *propter se* et tanquam nuda caro, sed prout unita divinitati, foret honor divinus impertitus creaturae, et non potius una eademque adoratio, qua Verbum incarnatum cum propria ipsius carne adoratur; ex Concil. C. P. V. Gen. can. 9. falsa, captiosa, pio ac debito cultui humanitati Christi a fidelibus praestito ac praestando detrahens et iniuriosa». — His definitionibus non tantum *conclusiones* quaestionis confirmantur, sed etiam *distinctiones* insinuantur, quae ad intelligendas conclusiones requiruntur. Distinguuntur enim communiter *materia* (obiectum), circa quam versatur adoratio, et *ratio adorandi*, atque asseritur, humanitatem Christi esse quidem adorandam *in se*, sed non *propter se et per se* (cfr. ultima verba quaestionis). Item distinguuntur id quod *primo et per se* adoratur (ipsum Verbum incarnatum), atque id quod ut obiectum *partiale coadoratur*. — Quod autem *humanitati per se consideratae*, et praescindendo ab unione hypostatica, non conveniat *latria*, manifestum est; item quod eidem sic consideratae ob excellentiam gratiae et sanctitatis creatae competat *dulia*, vel potius, ut Matri Christi, *hyperdulia*, communiter docetur. Sed auctor noster bene addit, hoc non valere nisi *theoretice*, uti dicunt, non *pro praxi* (saltem pro cultu publico Ecclesiae), «quoniam caro Christi *nunquam* est separata a Verbo, ideo *semper* consideranda est ut coniuncta et *semper adoranda est latria*, licet humanitati ut per se consideratae non debeatur nisi dulia» (in corp.). — In modo explicandi conclusiones posteriores aliquatenus dissentiunt; v. g. Durand. vult, latriam humanae naturae Christi competere non nisi *per accidens*, quae locutio aliis merito displicet. Alii pauci cum Suarez distinguunt duplicem latriam, scilicet praeter superiorem etiam inferiorem, quae competat humanitati Christi. — De ratione *latriae* et *duliae* cfr. infra a. 2. per totum.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 30. m. 2. — Scot., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; S. III. q. 25. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 9. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** That Christ, inasmuch as he is this man and is united to the Word in unity of person, is to be adored with one adoration of latria, is held by faith both from the 8th anathematism of St. Cyril, approved by the Council of Ephesus, and from canon 9 of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod: «If anyone says that Christ is adored in two natures, from which two adorations are introduced, separately to God the Word and separately to the man; or if anyone, speaking monstrously of a removal (ἀναιρέσει) of the flesh, or of a confusion of the Deity and humanity coming together into one nature or essence, thus adores Christ, but does not with one adoration adore God the Word incarnate together with his flesh, as has been handed down to the holy Church of God from the beginning, let such a one be anathema». There are added the three theses of the Synod of Pistoia (namely 61–63), condemned by Pius VI through the constitution *Auctorem fidei* in the year 1794, by which that Synod captiously assailed both the adoration of the humanity of Christ and the cult of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, asserting (thesis 61) that *to adore the humanity of Christ directly, and still more some part of it, would always be a divine honor given to a creature*. The censure of these words runs thus: «Inasmuch as by this word *directly* it intends to reprobate the cult of adoration which the faithful direct to the humanity of Christ, as if such adoration, by which the humanity and the very life-giving flesh of Christ is adored, not indeed *for itself* and as bare flesh, but as united to the divinity, would be a divine honor bestowed on a creature, and not rather one and the same adoration by which the incarnate Word is adored together with his own flesh; from the Fifth General Council of Constantinople, canon 9: false, captious, detracting from and injurious to the pious and due cult shown and to be shown by the faithful to the humanity of Christ». — By these definitions not only are the *conclusions* of the question confirmed, but also the *distinctions* are intimated which are required for understanding the conclusions. For there are commonly distinguished the *matter* (object) about which adoration is concerned, and the *ground of adoring*, and it is asserted that the humanity of Christ is indeed to be adored *in itself*, but not *for itself and through itself* (cf. the last words of the question). Likewise there are distinguished that which is adored *first and through itself* (the incarnate Word itself), and that which *is co-adored* as a partial object. — That to the *humanity considered in itself*, and prescinding from the hypostatic union, *latria* does not belong, is manifest; likewise that to it so considered, on account of the excellence of its created grace and sanctity, *dulia* belongs, or rather, as to the Mother of Christ, *hyperdulia*, is commonly taught. But our author well adds that this holds only *theoretically*, as they say, not *in practice* (at least for the public cult of the Church), «because the flesh of Christ is *never* separated from the Word, therefore it is *always* to be considered as conjoined and is *always to be adored with latria*, although to the humanity as considered in itself nothing but dulia is owed» (in the body). — In the manner of explaining the conclusions the later authors dissent somewhat; e.g. Durand holds that latria belongs to the human nature of Christ only *per accidens*, which manner of speaking rightly displeases others. A few others, with Suarez, distinguish a twofold latria, namely, besides the higher, also a lower, which belongs to the humanity of Christ. — On the ground of *latria* and *dulia* cf. below, a. 2, throughout.

**II.** Alex. of Hales, Summa p. III, q. 30, m. 2. — Scotus, on this and the following questions, here a single question. — St. Thomas, here a. 2, quaestiuncula 1; Summa III, q. 25, a. 1–2. — B. Albert, here a. 9. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2, quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 2, a. 1. — Durand, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following questions, here a single question. — Biel, on this and the following questions, here a single question.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (printed pp. 199–202 = PDF 221–224, offset pdf = printed + 22) read Left→Right per page, cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 14241–14451). The OCR of this stretch is moderately garbled (`Lcld.`=Edd., `Fondamenea`=Fundamenta, `loon.`=Ioan., `SCHOLIOK`=SCHOLION; the Greek λατρεύειν / λατρεύσεις / ἀναιρέσει and the Damascene quotations shattered) — PDF authoritative in the Respondeo, Solutio, scholion, and footer bands; OCR used as base for the clean running prose of the *Fundamenta* and *Sed contra* arguments. English freshly translated, literal.

**Page-split map.**
- **p. 199** (foot, below the divisio's TRACTATIO): Art. I header + rubric + Quaest. I header + title + opener + *Fundamenta* args 1–3 (`[^1]`–`[^3]`). Footer notes 4–6 = `[^1]`–`[^3]`.
- **p. 200**: *Fundamenta* arg. 4 + *Sed contra* args 1–6 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo open (threefold consideration of *caro*; Opinio 1). Body markers map to `[^4]`–`[^9]`; p. 200's footer notes 7, 8, 9 are source-detail sub-notes folded into `[^8]`/`[^9]`/the relevant entry.
- **p. 201**: Respondeo tail (Opinio 2, Conclusio 3/4) + *Solutio oppositorum* Ad 1–6. Body markers map to `[^10]`–`[^16]` (n. 1 *sunt* variant absorbed; the Ad-6 Damascene footer = de Fide orthod. c. 21 = `[^16]`, which continues onto the p. 201-R footer band).
- **p. 202** (top): Ad 6 tail + SCHOLION §I–II, then QUAEST. II opens. **p. 202's own footer notes (1 August. *contra Maximin.*/Basilius, 2 *de Fide orthod.* c. 16, 3 Gen. 18:2) belong to QUAESTIO II** (the image question), NOT to q1. q1's scholion carries no numbered footer of its own on p. 202 (the OCR `dominii quam servitutis *` asterisk is a stray glyph, no apparatus entry).

**Apparatus marker mapping.** Continuous `[^1]`–`[^16]`, no per-page suffix needed (body markers do not collide). `[^1]`–`[^3]` = p. 199 footer notes 4–6 (received hand-off); `[^4]`–`[^9]` = p. 199 R-tail/p. 200 footer notes keying SC args 1–6 + Respondeo *idiomata*; `[^10]`–`[^16]` = p. 201 footer notes keying the Solutio replies. Sub-notes (textual variants, the Frassen note, the Augustine baptism parallel) are folded into the parent entry rather than split out.

**Footer hand-off.**
- **RECEIVED from d9-divisio:** p. 199 footer notes 4, 5, 6 — keying q1's arg. 1 (*Damasceni⁴* = de Fide orthod. III c. 8 = `[^1]`), arg. 2 (*Psalmi⁵* = Psalm 98 Glossa = `[^2]`), arg. 3 (*divinitati⁶* = Damasc. = `[^3]`). The divisio owned only p. 199 notes 1–3 (*Graeci/eum/membris*). CONFIRMED eyes-on p. 199-L/R-2 footer band.
- **FORWARDED to d9-a1-q2:** **p. 202 footer notes 1, 2, 3** — they key QUAESTIO II's body (n. 1 August. *contra Maximin.* Arian. c. 9 + Basilius on the Spirit/image arg; n. 2 *de Fide orthod.* c. 16 = Damascene "honor of the image"; n. 3 Gen. 18:2 = Abraham's three men/Trinity). q1's footers are fully exhausted on pp. 199–201; q2 opens its own footer sequence on p. 202.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: TRUE`. Article-level SCHOLION §I (dogmatic confirmation: Cyril anathematism 8 / Ephesus / Constantinople II can. 9 / Pistoia theses 61–63 condemned by *Auctorem fidei*; then the *materia*/*ratio adorandi* and *per se*/*coadoratur* distinctions, Durand and Suarez dissents) and §II (commentator list: Alex. Hal., Scotus, S. Thomas, B. Albert, Petr. a Tar., Richard a Med., Aegid. R., Durand, Dionys. Carth., Biel). **Forward-coverage:** §I closes *De ratione latriae et duliae cfr. infra a. 2. per totum* (forwards latria/dulia to Art. II); §II lists commentators for *this and the following questions* (Scotus, Dionys. Carth., Biel each note "de hac et seqq. qq. … q. unica"), so **q2–q6 of Art. I are likely `has_scholion: FALSE`, forward-covered by this q1 scholion** — to confirm per chunk.

**[?] flags.** None.