title: Dist. 1, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 18 -->

### Articulus II. *De incarnatione Verbi quantum ad congruitatem.*

Consequenter quaeritur de secundo principali, videlicet de incarnatione Verbi quantum ad congruitatem[^1]. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor.

Primo quaeritur, utrum in opere incarnationis servetur debita congruentia. — Secundo, quae sit incarnationis ratio praecipua. — Tertio, quae sit personarum trium ad incarnationem magis idonea. — Quarto quaeritur, quae hora temporis magis fuerit congrua.

<!-- page 19 -->

### Quaestio I. *Utrum in opere incarnationis servetur debita congruentia ex parte Dei.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum in opere incarnationis servetur debita congruentia ex parte Dei. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Infinita potentia, sapientia et bonitas debet se perfecte manifestare; sed non potest se perfecte manifestare nisi per effectum aliquo modo infinitum; nihil autem est infinitum actu nisi solus Deus: ergo ad hoc, quod divinae potentiae, sapientiae et bonitatis infinitas manifestetur, congruum fuit, aliquem effectum fieri, cui attribueretur esse Deum[^2], quod est bonum infinitum. Sed hoc fuit, cum Deus unitus est carni: ergo etc.

2. Item, perfectissimum agens debet perducere actionem suam ad statum et complementum; sed status et complementum rerum est coniunctio primi cum ultimo; principium autem, *per quod facta sunt omnia,* est Verbum sive Deus[^3]; ultimum autem in operibus est homo: ergo ad hoc, quod perfecta esset operatio procedens a perfecta potentia, congruebat, quod divina natura uniretur cum humana.

3. Item, contingit pluralitatem naturarum reperire in una persona[^4]; sed quod una natura reperiatur in pluribus personis nullo modo multiplicata, hoc spectat ad dignitatem divinae naturae: ergo pari ratione, quod una persona in tribus naturis vel substantiis nullo modo subsistat composita, hoc spectat ad dignitatem personae. Sed omnis proprietas dignitatis praecipue congruit divinae personae: ergo valde congruum est, quod persona divina in se habeat tres naturas. Hoc autem fit per sacramentum incarnationis: ergo videtur, quod in incarnatione servetur debita congruentia[^5].

4. Item, decet largissimum remuneratorem diligentes se remunerare perfecte; sed homo, qui est amator Dei, non beatificatur perfecte nisi in ipso Deo, qui est tota merces, nec beatificatur perfecte, nisi totaliter beatificetur et ex parte corporis et ex parte animae, et ex parte sensus exterioris et ex parte sensus interioris; sensus autem exterior non potest beatificari nisi in re corporali: ergo cum deceret Deum perfecte hominem beatificare, et Deus beatificat hominem in se ipso, dando se in praemium; decebat eum habere naturam non solum spiritualem, sed etiam corporalem. Et hoc est ex incarnatione[^6]: ergo etc.

5. Item, decebat Deum hominem, qui infirmitate peccavit, sibi reconciliare; sed ubi est conveniens reconciliatio, ibi convenit esse reconciliatorem et mediatorem; mediator autem debet cum utroque extremorum communicare; hoc autem non est nisi per unionem divinae naturae et humanae in unitate personae: ergo videtur, quod opus incarnationis maxime congruum fuit pietati divinae[^7].

**Sed contra:**

<!-- page 20 -->

1. Nihil, quod spectat ad contemptibilitatem[^8] et abiectionem, decet summam Maiestatem: sed carnem assumere, quae est de limo formata, dicit contemptibilitatem: ergo videtur, quod hoc nullo modo deceat Dei maiestatem.

2. Item, sicut vituperabilis est nimia elatio, ita vituperabilis est nimia deiectio; sed tanta est deiectio, cum Deus fit homo, quanta est elatio, cum homo appetit esse Deus: ergo ita vituperabilis est una, sicut et altera. Si ergo nihil, quod est vituperabile, decet Deum, patet etc.

3. Item, nullo modo decet sapientissimum Conditorem facere, aliquam rem excedere terminos, quos sibi statuerat per naturam: ergo cum omnis creatura, quantum est de natura creationis, semper sit infra Deum et intra terminos creaturae; videtur, quod nullo modo congruat, quod Deus faciat, creaturam Deum esse: ergo non videtur opus incarnationis sibi congruere, per quod dicitur, hominem Deum esse.

4. Item, *nomen, quod est super omne nomen*[^9], debet uni soli naturae convenire: ergo non videtur, quod congruat Deo tale nomen creaturae communicare: ergo non videtur, quod congruat sibi hominem in unitatem personae assumere.

5. Item, quicumque adorat Deum in sculpta imagine, facit Deo iniuriam: ergo pari ratione, qui credit, Deum habere humanam effigiem, iniuriatur divinae naturae: videtur ergo, quod non congruat divinae naturae incarnari sive humanari. — Per hunc modum consuevit argui ab infidelibus[^10].

### Conclusio

> Congruum fuit Deumque decuit incarnari.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio congruum fuit et Deum decuit incarnari; et hoc propter suae potentiae, sapientiae et bonitatis eminentem manifestationem, quae quidem facta est in humani generis assumtione. — Congruum etiam fuit propter divinorum operum excellentem consummationem, quae quidem facta est, cum ultimum coniunctum est primo. Ibi enim est perfectionis consummatio, sicut apparet in circulo, qui est perfectissima figurarum, qui etiam ad idem punctum terminatur, a quo incepit[^11]. — Decebat etiam propter superabundantem pretii solutionem ad liberationem hominis captivi, quia sola persona divina erat, quae praeponderabat toti humano generi[^12]. — Postremo decebat propter supereffluentem hominis glorificationem, ut non tantummodo inveniret homo in Deo pascua interius, immo etiam pascua exterius[^13].

Et sic patet, quod opus incarnationis multum quidem per omnem modum Deum congruebat et quantum ad eius infinitatem et quantum ad eius perfectionem et quantum ad pietatem et quantum ad liberalitatem: ad infinitatem in se ipso, ad perfectionem in operando, ad pietatem in liberando et quantum ad liberalitatem in remunerando. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ostendentes, sacramentum incarnationis Deo congruere.

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod non decet divinam maiestatem humiliari; dicendum, quod *Deum humiliari* potest intelligi[^14] dupliciter: aut *in se,* aut *ratione sibi uniti.* In se quidem, cum sit omnino invariabilis, nec potest humiliari nec potest exaltari. Ratione autem sibi uniti potest humiliari ad maiorem manifestationem suae altitudinis, sicut potest infirmari ad maiorem manifestationem suae fortitudinis. In hoc enim, quod Deus carnem humilem et infirmam assumsit, superbissimum diabolum deiecit et hominem humilem exaltavit; fortissimum adversarium confregit, hominem infirmum stabilivit. Et in hoc eminenter facta est manifestatio potentiae et sapientiae. Si enim *quod infirmum est Dei potentius est omnibus hominibus, et quod stultum est Dei sapientius est omnibus hominibus*[^15] et etiam daemonibus; planum est, quod eius potentia et sapientia superexcellunt omnia in infinitum.

<!-- page 21 -->

Et ideo, etsi incarnationis opus in se non videatur facere ad divinae manifestationis[^16] honorem, si tamen consideratur ad id ad quod est, facit elegantissime. Et ideo haereticis et infidelibus caecis velatum est sacramentum incarnationis, dicentibus, opus incarnationis facere ad divinae maiestatis ignominiam, cum ex opposito faciat ad excellentissimam gloriam.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nimia fuit ibi humiliatio; responderi potest, ut dictum est, quod divina natura non fuit humiliata aliqua deiectione; sed cum creatura appetiit esse Deum, inflata fuit aliqua elatione; et ideo nimietas ex parte ista non sonat in vitium, sicut ex parte illa. — Praeterea, in alio[^17] deficit similitudo, quia exinanitio, quae facta est in assumtione humanae naturae, fuit ex excessu caritatis et amoris; sed elevatio, qua homo voluit Deo assimilari, fuit ex excessu praesumtionis[^18]. Et quia nimietas praesumtionis et elationis vituperabilis est, et nimietas dilectionis in summo Deo laudabilis est; hinc est, quod exinanitio Christi non fuit vituperabilis, sed laudabilis, sicut vituperabilis fuit elatio primi parentis; procedebat enim ex nimia caritate, de qua supra habitum est in auctoritate[^19]: *Deus propter nimiam caritatem, qua dilexit nos* etc.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non debet creaturam trahere extra terminos suos; dicendum, quod creatura in Christo remanet intra terminos creaturae, ratione tamen personae, in qua substantificatur, habet communicationem idiomatum et participat nomen divinum, pro eo quod illa unio facit communicationem idiomatum, salvis proprietatibus assumentis et assumti.

*Ad 4.* Et per hoc patet responsio ad sequens, quod obiicitur de communicatione nominis excellentissimi; quia Deus nec nomen nec gloriam suam communicat alii. Unus enim et idem, qui est Christus, est homo et Deus; unde cum nomen divinitatis attribuitur homini, hoc est ratione divinae hypostasis. Similiter intelligendum est de honore latriae, sicut inferius[^20] apparebit.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deo facit iniuriam qui credit, ipsum habere effigiem[^21]; dicendum, quod verum est, quando credit, ipsum habere effigiem in propria natura; quia talis credit, ipsum esse quid corporeum, cum ipse sit spiritus nobilissimus. Incarnatio autem non facit, eum habere in se effigiem, sed uniri ei qui[^22] habet effigiem, salva nihilominus Dei spiritualitate et nobilitate. Qui igitur sic ponit Deum incarnari, cum nihil detrahatur eius nobilitati et perfectioni, et multum addatur exaltationis[^23] et dignitatis generi humano, non tantum Deo non derogat, sed etiam Dei bonitatem multum commendat; et econtra Dei bonitatem, quantum in se est, diminuit qui hoc negat.

english:
### Article II. *On the incarnation of the Word as regards fittingness.*

Next there is inquiry concerning the second principal matter, namely concerning the incarnation of the Word as regards fittingness[^1]. And about this four things are asked.

First it is asked, whether in the work of the incarnation due fittingness is preserved. — Second, what was the principal reason for the incarnation. — Third, which of the three persons was more suited to the incarnation. — Fourth it is asked, what hour of time was more fitting.

### Question I. *Whether in the work of the incarnation due fittingness is preserved on God's part.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus and it is asked, whether in the work of the incarnation due fittingness is preserved on God's part. And that it is so, seems to follow.

1. Infinite power, wisdom, and goodness ought to manifest themselves perfectly; but they cannot manifest themselves perfectly except through an effect in some way infinite; but nothing is infinite in act except God alone: therefore, in order that the infinity of the divine power, wisdom, and goodness be manifested, it was fitting that some effect be made, to which it would be attributed to be God[^2], which is the infinite good. But this came to pass when God was united to flesh: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, the most perfect agent ought to bring its action to a settled state and completion; but the settled state and completion of things is the joining of the first with the last; but the principle, *through which all things were made,* is the Word, that is, God[^3]; but the last among works is man: therefore, in order that the operation proceeding from a perfect power should be perfect, it was fitting that the divine nature be united with the human.

3. Likewise, it happens that a plurality of natures is found in one person[^4]; but that one nature should be found in several persons in no way multiplied, this pertains to the dignity of the divine nature: therefore by parity of reasoning, that one person should in no way subsist composed in three natures or substances, this pertains to the dignity of the person. But every property of dignity belongs preeminently to the divine person: therefore it is very fitting that the divine person should have in itself three natures. But this comes to pass through the sacrament of the incarnation: therefore it seems that in the incarnation due fittingness is preserved[^5].

4. Likewise, it is fitting that the most bountiful rewarder reward those who love him perfectly; but man, who is a lover of God, is not perfectly beatified except in God himself, who is the whole reward, nor is he perfectly beatified unless he is beatified totally, both on the part of the body and on the part of the soul, and on the part of the exterior sense and on the part of the interior sense; but the exterior sense cannot be beatified except in a corporeal thing: therefore, since it befitted God to beatify man perfectly, and God beatifies man in himself, by giving himself as a reward; it befitted [man] to have a nature not only spiritual, but also corporeal. And this is from the incarnation[^6]: therefore, etc.

5. Likewise, it befitted [God] to reconcile to himself man, who had sinned through weakness; but where there is a fitting reconciliation, there it is fitting that there be a reconciler and mediator; but a mediator ought to have communication with each of the extremes; but this is only through the union of the divine and human nature in the unity of the person: therefore it seems that the work of the incarnation was most fitting to the divine mercy[^7].

**Sed contra:**

1. Nothing that pertains to contemptibility[^8] and abjection befits the supreme Majesty: but to assume flesh, which is formed from the slime, bespeaks contemptibility: therefore it seems that this in no way befits the majesty of God.

2. Likewise, just as excessive exaltation is blameworthy, so excessive abasement is blameworthy; but the abasement is as great, when God becomes man, as the exaltation is, when man desires to be God: therefore the one is as blameworthy as the other. If therefore nothing that is blameworthy befits God, it is clear, etc.

3. Likewise, it in no way befits the most wise Creator to make any thing exceed the limits which he had set for it by nature: therefore, since every creature, as far as concerns the nature of creation, is always below God and within the limits of the creature; it seems that it is in no way fitting that God should make a creature to be God: therefore the work of the incarnation does not seem to befit him, by which man is said to be God.

4. Likewise, *the name which is above every name*[^9] ought to belong to one nature alone: therefore it does not seem fitting that such a name of God be communicated to a creature: therefore it does not seem fitting that he should assume man into the unity of the person.

5. Likewise, whoever adores God in a carved image does God an injury: therefore by parity of reasoning, he who believes that God has a human form does injury to the divine nature: therefore it seems that it is not fitting for the divine nature to be incarnated or made man. — In this manner the unbelievers are accustomed to argue[^10].

### Conclusio

> It was fitting and it befitted God to be incarnated.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that without doubt it was fitting and it befitted God to be incarnated; and this on account of the eminent manifestation of his power, wisdom, and goodness, which indeed came to pass in the assumption of the human race. — It was also fitting on account of the excellent consummation of the divine works, which indeed came to pass when the last was joined to the first. For there is the consummation of perfection, as appears in a circle, which is the most perfect of figures, which also terminates at the same point from which it began[^11]. — It was also fitting on account of the superabundant payment of the price for the liberation of captive man, since it was the divine person alone that outweighed the whole human race[^12]. — Lastly it was fitting on account of the superoverflowing glorification of man, that man should find in God not only pasture within, but even pasture without[^13].

And thus it is clear that the work of the incarnation befitted God greatly in every way, both as regards his infinity and as regards his perfection and as regards his mercy and as regards his liberality: as regards infinity in himself, as regards perfection in operating, as regards mercy in liberating, and as regards liberality in rewarding. — The arguments showing that the sacrament of the incarnation befits God are therefore to be conceded.

*Ad 1.* To that, then, which is objected on the contrary, that it does not befit the divine majesty to be humbled; it must be said that *God being humbled* can be understood[^14] in two ways: either *in himself,* or *by reason of that which is united to him.* In himself indeed, since he is altogether invariable, he can neither be humbled nor be exalted. But by reason of that which is united to him he can be humbled unto the greater manifestation of his loftiness, just as he can be made weak unto the greater manifestation of his strength. For in this, that God assumed humble and weak flesh, he cast down the most proud devil and exalted humble man; he shattered the mightiest adversary, he established weak man. And in this the manifestation of power and wisdom was eminently made. For if *the weakness of God is more powerful than all men, and the foolishness of God is wiser than all men*[^15] and even than the demons; it is plain that his power and wisdom infinitely surpass all things.

And therefore, even though the work of the incarnation does not in itself seem to make for the honor of the divine manifestation[^16], yet if it is considered in relation to that for which it is, it does so most elegantly. And therefore the sacrament of the incarnation is veiled from heretics and blind unbelievers, who say that the work of the incarnation makes for the ignominy of the divine majesty, when on the contrary it makes for the most excellent glory.

*Ad 2.* To that which is objected, that the humiliation there was excessive; it can be answered, as has been said, that the divine nature was not humbled by any abasement; but when the creature desired to be God, it was puffed up by a certain exaltation; and therefore the excess on this side does not sound as a vice, as it does on that side. — Moreover, in another respect[^17] the likeness fails, because the self-emptying which came to pass in the assumption of human nature was from an excess of charity and love; but the elevation by which man wished to liken himself to God was from an excess of presumption[^18]. And because the excess of presumption and exaltation is blameworthy, and the excess of love in the supreme God is praiseworthy; hence it is that the self-emptying of Christ was not blameworthy, but praiseworthy, just as the exaltation of the first parent was blameworthy; for it proceeded from the exceeding charity, of which it was treated above in the authority[^19]: *God, on account of the exceeding charity with which he loved us,* etc.

*Ad 3.* To that which is objected, that he ought not to draw a creature beyond its limits; it must be said that the creature in Christ remains within the limits of the creature, yet by reason of the person, in which it is substantified, it has a communication of idioms and participates in the divine name, for the reason that that union effects a communication of idioms, with the properties of the assuming and the assumed preserved.

*Ad 4.* And through this the reply to what follows is clear, which is objected concerning the communication of the most excellent name; for God communicates neither his name nor his glory to another. For one and the same, who is Christ, is man and God; whence, when the name of the divinity is attributed to the man, this is by reason of the divine hypostasis. Likewise it is to be understood concerning the honor of latria, as will appear below[^20].

*Ad 5.* To that which is objected, that he does an injury to God who believes that he has a [bodily] form[^21]; it must be said that this is true when one believes that he has a form in his own nature; because such a one believes that he is something corporeal, when he is the most noble spirit. But the incarnation does not effect that he has a form in himself, but that he is united to one who[^22] has a form, the spirituality and nobility of God being nonetheless preserved. Whoever therefore so holds God to be incarnated, since nothing is detracted from his nobility and perfection, and much of exaltation[^23] and dignity is added to the human race, not only does not derogate from God, but even greatly commends the goodness of God; and on the contrary, he who denies this diminishes the goodness of God, as far as in him lies.

la: Plurimi codd. et edd. 1, 2 *dignitatem,* sed supra in principio dist. recte habent *congruitatem.* [p.18, footer 8 — inherited from the a1-q4 boundary.]

en: Very many codices and editions 1, 2 read *dignitatem,* but above at the beginning of the distinction they rightly have *congruitatem.*

la: Cod. U *divinum,* edit. 1, 2 *idem.* Mox post *quod est* Vat. repetit *esse.*

en: Codex U reads *divinum,* editions 1, 2 the same. Soon after *quod est* the Vatican edition repeats *esse.*

la: Ioan. 1, 3. Cfr. Coloss. 1, 16. seqq. Iren., IV. contra Haereses, c. 20. (alias 37.) n. 4. ait: *Est autem hic Verbum eius, Dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui novissimis temporibus homo in hominibus factus est, ut finem coniungeret principio,* i. e. *hominem Deo.* — In maiori multi codd. nec non edd. 1, 2 pro *perducere* exhibent *producere*; in minori cod. A pro *principium* substituit *primum.*

en: John 1:3. Cf. Colossians 1:16ff. Irenaeus, *Against Heresies* IV, c. 20 (otherwise 37), n. 4, says: *But this Word of his is our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the last times was made man among men, that he might join the end to the beginning,* that is, *man to God.* — In the major premise many codices and also editions 1, 2 give *producere* for *perducere*; in the minor codex A substitutes *primum* for *principium.*

la: Scil. in homine. In cod. K a secunda manu adiectum est *et contingit reperire unam naturam in pluribus personis.* Simile additamentum habetur in Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 2. m. 13, ubi idem arg. proponitur.

en: That is, in man. In codex K by a second hand is added *and it happens that one nature is found in several persons.* A similar addition is found in Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III, q. 2, m. 13, where the same argument is proposed.

la: Bernard., V. de Consid. c. 9. n. 20. ait: *Dico, in Christo Verbum, animam et carnem sine confusione essentiarum unam esse personam... Nec negaverim, hanc ad illud quoque genus unitatis pertinere, qua anima et caro unus est homo. Decuit quippe familiarius similiusque cum hominis convenire constitutione, quod pro homine constitutum est sacramentum. Decuit et cum summa, quae in Deo est et Deus est, unitate congruere, ut quomodo ibi tres personae una essentia, ita hic convenientissima quadam contrarietate tres essentiae sint una persona. Videsne, pulcre inter utramque unitatem [Trinitatis et puri hominis] hanc collocari* etc.? Et in Serm. 3. in Vigilia Nativ. Domini, n. 8. ait: *Et attende, quia sicut in illa singulari Divinitate trinitas est in personis, unitas in substantia; sic in ista speciali commixtione trinitas est in substantiis, in persona unitas* etc. — Pro *in tribus naturis* et *tres naturas* Vat. substituit *in duabus naturis* et *duas naturas.* Post *ad dignitatem personae* cod. K subiicit *divinae.*

en: Bernard, *On Consideration* V, c. 9, n. 20, says: *I say that in Christ the Word, the soul, and the flesh are one person without confusion of essences... Nor would I deny that this pertains also to that kind of unity by which soul and flesh are one man. For it was fitting that the sacrament which was instituted for man should accord more familiarly and similarly with the constitution of man. And it was fitting that it accord with the supreme unity, which is in God and is God, so that just as there three persons are one essence, so here by a most fitting contrariety three essences are one person. Do you see how beautifully this is placed between either unity [that of the Trinity and that of mere man]* etc.? And in *Sermon* 3 on the Vigil of the Lord's Nativity, n. 8, he says: *And note that just as in that singular Godhead there is trinity in persons, unity in substance; so in this special commingling there is trinity in substances, unity in person* etc. — For *in three natures* and *three natures* the Vatican edition substitutes *in two natures* and *two natures.* After *to the dignity of the person* codex K adds *divine.*

la: Cfr. Itiner. mentis in Deum, Prolog. et c. 1. Item, de hoc in libro de Spiritu et anima (inter opera August.), c. 9. haec leguntur: *Duo siquidem in homine sensus sunt, unus interior et unus exterior, et uterque bonum suum habet, in quo reficitur. Sensus interior reficitur in contemplatione divinitatis, sensus exterior in contemplatione humanitatis. Propterea enim Deus homo factus est, ut totum hominem in se beatificaret, et tota conversio hominis esset ad ipsum, et tota dilectio hominis esset in ipso, cum a sensu carnis videretur per carnem et a sensu mentis videretur per divinitatis contemplationem. Hoc autem erat totum bonum hominis, ut sive ingrederetur, sive egrederetur, pascua in Factore suo inveniret* (Ioan. 10, 9.), *pascua foris in carne Salvatoris et pascua intus in divinitate Creatoris.* Similis sententia habetur in Manuali (inter opera August.), c. 26. nec non in Hugone a S. Vict., I. Miscell. tit. 87. Cfr. etiam August., III. de Lib. Arb. c. 10. n. 30; I. de Doctr. christ. c. 11. n. 11. seqq., Enarrat. in Ps. 90. serm. 2. n. 13. et I. de Trin. c. 13. n. 28. seqq. — Circa finem arg. codd. H P Q U pro *dando se* exhibent *dando se ipsum.*

en: Cf. *Itinerarium mentis in Deum,* Prologue and c. 1. Likewise, on this in the book *On the Spirit and the Soul* (among the works of Augustine), c. 9, these things are read: *There are indeed two senses in man, one interior and one exterior, and each has its own good, in which it is refreshed. The interior sense is refreshed in the contemplation of the divinity, the exterior sense in the contemplation of the humanity. For God was made man for this reason, that he might beatify the whole man in himself, and the whole conversion of man should be to him, and the whole love of man should be in him, since by the sense of the flesh he would be seen through the flesh and by the sense of the mind he would be seen through the contemplation of the divinity. And this was the whole good of man, that whether he went in or went out, he should find pasture in his Maker* (John 10:9), *pasture without in the flesh of the Savior and pasture within in the divinity of the Creator.* A similar opinion is found in the *Manuale* (among the works of Augustine), c. 26, and also in Hugh of St. Victor, *Miscellanea* I, title 87. Cf. also Augustine, *On Free Choice* III, c. 10, n. 30; *On Christian Doctrine* I, c. 11, n. 11ff., *Enarration on Psalm 90,* sermon 2, n. 13, and *On the Trinity* I, c. 13, n. 28ff. — Near the end of the argument codices H P Q U give *dando se ipsum* for *dando se.*

la: Epist. 1. Tim. 2, 5: *Unus enim Deus, unus et mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus.* — Cfr. de hoc arg. August., X. Confess. c. 13. n. 68; I. de Consensu Evang. c. 35. n. 53; IX. de Civ. Dei, c. 15. et 17; XIII. de Trin. c. 17. n. 22; Leo M., Serm. 1 de Nativ. Domini, c. 2. et Epist. 28. (alias 24.) c. 3. — De medio dicit Aristot., IV. Polit. c. 9. (c. 7.): *In eo enim utrumque extremorum apparet.* — De maiori, in qua pro *infirmitate* codd. H L T W V aa cc substituunt *infirmitatibus,* edd. *seductus,* cfr. II. Sent. d. 21. a. 3. q. 2.

en: 1 Timothy 2:5: *For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.* — Cf. on this argument Augustine, *Confessions* X, c. 13, n. 68; *On the Harmony of the Evangelists* I, c. 35, n. 53; *City of God* IX, c. 15 and 17; *On the Trinity* XIII, c. 17, n. 22; Leo the Great, *Sermon* 1 on the Lord's Nativity, c. 2, and *Letter* 28 (otherwise 24), c. 3. — On the mean Aristotle says, *Politics* IV, c. 9 (c. 7): *For in it each of the extremes appears.* — On the major premise, in which codices H L T W V aa cc substitute *infirmitatibus* for *infirmitate,* the editions *seductus,* cf. II Sent., d. 21, a. 3, q. 2.

la: Edd. hic et paulo post *contemptionem.* Pro *summam Maiestatem* cod. G *supremam Maiestatem.* — Cfr. 1. Cor. 1, 23, ubi Apostolus de Christo dicit, quod sit «*Iudaeis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stultitia*».

en: The editions here and a little later read *contemptionem.* For *summam Maiestatem* codex G has *supremam Maiestatem.* — Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:23, where the Apostle says of Christ that he is "*to the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, but to the Gentiles foolishness.*"

la: Phil. 2, 9. Cfr. Eph. 1, 21. — Aristot., V. Topic. c. 3. (c. 5.): *Nam quod est secundum superabundantiam uni soli inest.* Vide tom. 1. pag. 5-12, nota 2. — Paulo inferius pro *sibi* in cod. F legitur *Deo.*

en: Philippians 2:9. Cf. Ephesians 1:21. — Aristotle, *Topics* V, c. 3 (c. 5): *For that which is according to superabundance belongs to one alone.* See tome 1, p. 5-12, note 2. — A little later codex F reads *Deo* for *sibi.*

la: De his obiectionibus earumque solutionibus vide Iustin., Apolog. 1. pro Christian. n. 13; Dialog. cum Tryph. n. 65; Tertull., de Carne Christi, c. 4. seqq.; Lactant., IV. Div. Institut. c. 22. seqq.; Anselm., 1. Cur Deus homo, c. 3. seqq. — Pro *Per hunc modum* cod. O substituit *ergo videtur concedendum, quod.*

en: On these objections and their solutions see Justin, *First Apology for the Christians,* n. 13; *Dialogue with Trypho,* n. 65; Tertullian, *On the Flesh of Christ,* c. 4ff.; Lactantius, *Divine Institutes* IV, c. 22ff.; Anselm, *Cur Deus homo* I, c. 3ff. — For *In this manner* codex O substitutes *therefore it seems to be conceded, that.*

la: Circulum perfectissimam figurarum esse, etiam August. docet in libro de Quantit. animae, c. 11. n. 17. seqq. — Cfr. etiam quae 1. Sent. d. 37. p. 1. a. 3. q. 2. in corp. de triplici modo dicuntur, quo effectus ad Deum comparantur. Comparantur enim, ut ibi docetur, per modum exeuntis, redeuntis et pervenientis (unionis), et primus modus assimilatur lineae rectae, secundus lineae reflexae, tertius circulo etc.

en: That the circle is the most perfect of figures Augustine too teaches in the book *On the Quantity of the Soul,* c. 11, n. 17ff. — Cf. also what is said in 1 Sent., d. 37, p. 1, a. 3, q. 2, in the body, concerning the threefold mode by which effects are compared to God. For they are compared, as is taught there, by the mode of the one going out, the one returning, and the one arriving (of union), and the first mode is likened to a straight line, the second to a reflected line, the third to a circle, etc.

la: Anselm., Meditation. medit. 11: *Subvenit bonitas Dei et eam [humanam naturam] in suam personam assumsit Filius Dei, ut in ea persona esset homo Deus, qui haberet quod superaret non solum omnem essentiam, quae Deus non est, sed etiam omne debitum, quod peccatores solvere debent* etc. — Paulo ante pro *captivi* plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 *capti.*

en: Anselm, *Meditations,* meditation 11: *The goodness of God came to aid, and the Son of God assumed it [human nature] into his own person, that in that person man might be God, who would have wherewith to surpass not only every essence that is not God, but also every debt which sinners are bound to pay,* etc. — A little earlier, for *captivi* very many codices with editions 1, 2 read *capti.*

la: Ioan. 10, 9: *Ego sum ostium. Per me si quis introierit, salvabitur, et ingredietur et egredietur et pascua inveniet.*

en: John 10:9: *I am the door. By me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and he shall go in and go out, and shall find pastures.*

la: Cod. W *esse.*

en: Codex W reads *esse.*

la: Epist. 1. Cor. 1, 25: *Quod stultum est Dei sapientius est hominibus, et quod infirmum est Dei fortius est hominibus.* — Codd. N S bis omittunt *omnibus* ante *hominibus.* — Cfr. Anselm., Meditation. medit. 11. — Paulo inferius post *eius potentia* Vat. addit *et excellentia.*

en: 1 Corinthians 1:25: *The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.* — Codices N S twice omit *omnibus* before *hominibus.* — Cf. Anselm, *Meditations,* meditation 11. — A little later, after *his power* the Vatican edition adds *and excellence.*

la: Cod. F *bene maiestatis.* Paulo superius pro *Et ideo etsi* multi codd. et edd. 1, 2 *Et ideo, si.* Paulo inferius pro *consideratur ad id* Vat. *consideratur illud.* Post pauca pro *dicentibus bene* multi codd., ut A E F G H L N T U V, cum edd. 1, 2 *dicentes.* In fine solut. cod. Z voci *gloriam* praefigit *eius.*

en: Codex F reads *bene maiestatis.* A little above, for *Et ideo etsi* many codices and editions 1, 2 read *Et ideo, si.* A little below, for *consideratur ad id* the Vatican edition reads *consideratur illud.* After a few words, for *dicentibus bene* many codices, such as A E F G H L N T U V, with editions 1, 2 read *dicentes.* At the end of the solution codex Z prefixes *eius* to the word *gloriam.*

la: Pro *in alio* edd. *in illa ratione.*

en: For *in alio* the editions read *in illa ratione.*

la: Codd. F M adiiciunt *et elationis.* Pro *ex excessu* cod. E habet *in excessu.*

en: Codices F M add *et elationis.* For *ex excessu* codex E has *in excessu.*

la: Ephes. 2, 4; cfr. supra Prooemium.

en: Ephesians 2:4; cf. above, the Prologue.

la: Dist. 9. per totam. — Immediate ante codd. L V voculae *sicut* praemittunt *hic.* Paulo superius pro *Unus enim et idem, qui est Christus, est homo,* codd. F H K P Q bb *Unus enim utrumque* [cod. F *et idem*] *est Christus* etc.; codd. G L N T U V aa *Unus enim idem, qui est Christus.*

en: Distinction 9, throughout. — Immediately before the little word *sicut* codices L V prefix *hic.* A little above, for *For one and the same, who is Christ, is man,* codices F H K P Q bb read *For one is each* [codex F *and the same*] *is Christ* etc.; codices G L N T U V aa read *For one, the same, who is Christ.*

la: Edd. *humanam effigiem.* Mox pro *quando credit* cod. A *quando dicit.*

en: The editions read *humanam effigiem.* Soon after, for *quando credit* codex A reads *quando dicit.*

la: Cod. A *quod.*

en: Codex A reads *quod.*

la: Cod. F *eius exaltationis.*

en: Codex F reads *eius exaltationis.*

latin_scholion:
**I.** Variae rationes a theologis pro congruentia incarnationis afferuntur, quae ad quatuor rationes a Seraphico tactas reduci possunt, v. g. illae tres, quas S. Thomas in Comment. eruit «ex plenitudine divinae misericordiae et ex immobilitate iustitiae ipsius et ex decenti ordine sapientiae eius». — De hac quaestione tractant: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. in tota q. 2. passim. — Scot. tangit rem in utroque Scripto, d. 20. q. unica. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2; S. III. q. 1. a. 1; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 53-55. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Various reasons are brought forward by the theologians for the fittingness of the incarnation, which can be reduced to the four reasons touched on by the Seraphic Doctor, e.g. those three which St. Thomas in his Commentary drew out "from the fullness of the divine mercy and from the immutability of his justice and from the becoming order of his wisdom." — On this question treat: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III, throughout q. 2. — Scotus touches the matter in both *Scripta,* d. 20, q. unica. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2; *Summa* III, q. 1, a. 1; *Summa contra Gentiles* IV, c. 53-55. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 2, a. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p0{18,19,20,21}-{L,R}-*.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`, lines ~1911–2114) as base for clean prose and footnote-marker spacing, per the Vol II/III PDF-priority override in CLAUDE.md. English is a fresh literal translation paragraph-for-paragraph.

**ARTICULUS II opener folded in.** Per the locked Vol II/III chunking convention, the short ARTICULUS II opener (subtitle *De incarnatione Verbi quantum ad congruitatem*; `Consequenter quaeritur de secundo principali … Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor` + the four-question list) is folded into this chunk (a2-q1) rather than given its own divisio chunk. Raw ~1911 (`ARTICULUS II.`)→~1922 (q-list)→1944 (QUAESTIO I).

**Page-split map.** Chunk spans printed **pp.18(bottom L-col)–19–20–21**. The briefing's `printed_pages: [18,19,20]` UNDERCOUNTED (the q1/q3/q4 precedent): q1's replies 3–5 + its Scholion + the QUAESTIO II heading all print on **p.21**. Corrected to `[18,19,20,21]` / pdf `[40,41,42,43]`. Running heads verified: p.18 R-col foot region (ART. I/II body); p.19 `DIST. I. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 19`; p.20 `20 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.21 `DIST. I. ART. II. QUAEST. II. 21` (the p.21 running head reflects q2, which dominates the page, but q1's tail + scholion print first in the L-col and upper R-col).

**Apparatus — 23 entries, per-page restart, continuous unique slugs:**
- `[^1]` = **p.18 footer 8** (INHERITED from the a1-q4 boundary; anchors ART. II opener `congruitatem⁸`).
- `[^2]`–`[^7]` = **p.19 footers 1–6** (fund-1 `esse Deum¹`, fund-2 `Verbum sive Deus²`, fund-3 `in una persona³`, fund-3/4 `debita congruentia⁴` Bernard, fund-4 `ex incarnatione⁵`, fund-5 `pietati divinae⁶`).
- `[^8]`–`[^15]` = **p.20 footers 1–8** (Sed contra obj-1 `contemptibilitatem¹`, obj-4 `super omne nomen²`, obj-5 `ab infidelibus³`; Respondeo `circulo⁴`, `toti humano generi⁵` Anselm, `pascua exterius⁶`, `intelligi⁷` Cod.W, `omnibus hominibus⁸` 1 Cor 1,25; footer 4 wraps L→R foot).
- `[^16]`–`[^23]` = **p.21 footers 1–8** (reply-1 `divinae manifestationis¹`, reply-2 `in alio²`/`praesumtionis³`/`in auctoritate⁴`, reply-4 `inferius⁵`, reply-5 `effigiem⁶`/`qui⁷`/`exaltationis⁸`).

**Forward hand-off to d1-a2-q2:** **p.21 footers 9–10 are FORWARDED to a2-q2** (`Vers. 4. 5: At ubi venit plenitudo etc.` = q2 fund-1 `Galatas quarto⁹`; `Vers. 14. Cod. K etiam verba dat … Glossa, quae est ordinaria, habetur apud Strabum et Lyranum.` = q2 `ad Hebraeos secundo¹⁰`). They are OMITTED here (not rendered anchorless). QUAESTIO II (`Secundo quaeritur, quae fuerit incarnationis ratio praecipua. Et quod humani generis redemptio, ostenditur:`; subtitle *Quae fuerit incarnationis ratio praecipua*) begins raw **~2116** at the bottom of p.21 L-col / top of R-col, immediately after q1's Scholion I tail (`…Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.`). a2-q2's apparatus BEGINS with p.21 footers 9–10 (its `[^1]`–`[^2]`), then fresh p.22+ sequences. q2 is a LONG quaestio (~481 raw lines, raw 2116–~2595, printed p.21+).

**Scholion disposition (PDF eyes-on).** a2-q1 HAS its own Scholion, printing on p.21 (L-col bottom into R-col) after reply 5. It is a SINGLE section **I.** only — it reduces the theologians' reasons to the Seraphic Doctor's four and lists the parallel treatments (Alex. Hal., Scotus, Aquinas, Albert, etc.). It treats *this* (q1) question and does **NOT** say `pro quaest. seq.` / forward coverage to q2/q3/q4. Therefore `has_scholion: true` here, and a2-q2/q3/q4 each carry (or lack) their own scholion independently — do NOT assume this scholion covers them.

**Alignment result: PASS.** q1 opener `…utrum in opere incarnationis servetur debita congruentia ex parte Dei` = ARTICULUS II's TRACTATIO first question (`Primo quaeritur, utrum in opere incarnationis servetur debita congruentia`). No q-swap.

**Boundary integrity.** Incoming: a1-q4 ended grammatically complete at `…illa ratio non concludit⁷.` and consumed p.18 footers 1–7; a2-q1 picks up p.18 footer 8 (`[^1]`). Outgoing: q1's Scholion I ends grammatically complete at `…Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.`; QUAESTIO II opener continues cleanly. No cascade-merge splice detected.

**[?] flags:** none.