title: Dist. 12, Art. 3, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 270 -->

### Articulus III. *De conditione naturae quantum ad sexum.*

Consequenter quaeritur de conditione naturae assumtae quantum ad sexum. Et circa hoc duo quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum Deum decuerit assumere sexum muliebrem[^p270-1].

Secundo, utrum decuerit carnem assumere de sola muliere.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum decuerit Deum assumere sexum muliebrem.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum decuerit Deum assumere muliebrem sexum ad reparandum genus humanum. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia ordo reparationis per oppositum debet respondere lapsui[^p270-2]; sed nostra ruina fuit per mulierem: ergo relevatio. Sed relevatio facta est per naturam assumtam: ergo etc.

2. Item, ideo assumsit Deus naturam fragilem, ut, dum sua fragilitate vinceret fortem, mirabilis in hoc Dei potentia reluceret: si ergo fragilior est sexus muliebris, videtur, quod magis fuisset eius potentia manifestata, si in sexu muliebri diabolum superasset: ergo magis congruum fuit, mulierem quam virum assumi a Verbo Dei[^p270-3].

3. Item, spiritus rationalis ita unibilis est indifferenter sexui muliebri, ut virili: ergo pari ratione et spiritus increatus: ergo indifferenter se habent sexus utrique[^p270-4] ad unionem, quantum est ex parte naturae. Si ergo sexus muliebris magis depressus erat in miseriam quam virilis; cum Dei Filius incarnatus fuerit ad nostram miseriam relevandam, videtur, quod magis debuerit assumere sexum femineum quam virilem.

4. Item, proles assimilari debet suo principio; sed Christus natus fuit ex sola Virgine matre: ergo si ex femina traxit carnem, magis debuit assimilari matri quam alii: ergo si non degeneravit, potius debuit ex ea trahere sexum, quem habebat Virgo, quam alium.

**Sed contra:** 1. Philosophus in libro de Animalibus[^p270-5] dicit, quod « femina est vir occasionatus », hoc est imperfectus: ergo si homo assumtus debuit esse perfectissimus, non ergo debuit mulier esse, sed tantum masculus.

2. Item, quod maius est, Apostolus primae ad Corinthios undecimo[^p270-6] dicit, quod *caput mulieris est vir*, non e converso; sed homo assumtus est caput totius Ecclesiae: ergo non debuit esse sexus feminei, alioquin fieret perversio ordinis; quod quidem non debuit Deus in sua incarnatione facere, quin potius destructum ordinem debuit reparare.

3. Item, principium totius generationis est sexus virilis, nam *ex uno viro omnes*[^p270-7]; sed homo assumtus debuit esse principium totius generationis spiritualis: non ergo sexus muliebris, sed virilis.

4. Item, si assumsisset sexum muliebrem, ergo cum fiat communicatio idiomatum, deberet dici *dea* et deberet dici *filia*: si ergo non decet esse nisi Deum et Filium in illa summa Trinitate, non deam aut filiam[^p270-8]; nullo modo decuit Deum assumere feminam.

### Conclusio.

> Absque dubio non ita decuit Deum assumere sexum femineum, sicut virilem, in unitatem personae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio non ita decuit Deum assumere sexum femineum, sicut virilem, in unitatem personae. — Et ratio huius est, quia muliebris sexus non est tantae dignitatis, sicut
<!-- page 271 -->
virilis. Excellit enim sexus virilis muliebrem et quantum ad *dignitatem in principiando*, et quantum ad *virtutem in agendo*, et quantum ad *auctoritatem in praesidendo*. Quantum ad *dignitatem in principiando*, quia omnes tam viri quam mulieres ex uno viro fuerunt, in quo est expressa repraesentatio egressus rerum ab illo unico principio primo et summo[^p271-1]. — Quantum ad *virtutem in agendo* similiter praecellit, quoniam viri est agere, et mulieris est pati. Unde plus habet sexus virilis de virtute activa, propter quod et robustior est et re et nominatione. — Quantum ad *auctoritatem in praesidendo* etiam praeexcellit. Nam secundum rectum ordinem non mulier viro, sed vir praeficitur mulieri tanquam caput corpori, sicut dicit Apostolus[^p271-2]. — Quoniam ergo in Verbo assumente naturam humanam est praecipua *dignitas in principiando* et *virtus in agendo* et *dominium in praesidendo*; hinc est, quod magis decuit, sexum virilem quam muliebrem assumi a Verbo increato, quia illi naturae assumtae debuerunt haec tria communicari excellenter. — Et ideo concedendae sunt rationes ad hanc partem.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod ruina fuerit per mulierem; dicendum, quod quamvis in sexu muliebri ruina nostra fuit inchoata, in sexu tamen virili est consummata. Et quoniam nostra reparatio in natura assumta habuit consummari, hinc est, quod secundum rectam correspondentiam magis decuit, virum quam mulierem assumi.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de fragilitate, dicendum, quod sic congruum fuit, Christum vincere per fragilitatem in patiendo, ut postmodum vinceret per virtutem in resurgendo; et ideo sexum talem debuit assumere, qui etiam[^p271-3] fragilis esset ad tempus propter passibilitatis qualitatem, et nihilominus ad virtutem ordinabilis secundum qualitatem naturae; et talis fuit virilis sexus magis quam muliebris.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de unione spiritus rationalis ad utrumque sexum, dicendum, quod non est simile: *primum*, quia spiritus unitur corpori, ita quod ex his fit unum, et non est communicatio idiomatum; non sic autem[^p271-4] de Verbo aeterno, quod manet in sua proprietate, communicans homini assumto suas proprietates, ad quas communicandas magis sexus virilis quam muliebris competens erat. — *Praeterea*, non est simile, quia spiritus increatus est nobilissimus, et unio, qua unit sibi nostram naturam in persona, est nobilissima; et ideo nobiliorem sexum debet assumere. Non sic autem est de spiritu rationali.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod proles debet assimilari suo principio; dicendum, quod illud est verum, quando producit prolem omnino secundum propriam virtutem naturae suae; non sic autem est in proposito. Nam Virgo concepit mota et adiuta Spiritu sancto[^p271-5]; et ideo magis proles habuit sexum, quem Spiritus sanctus elegit, quam sexum, quem in matre invenit. Nec in tali generatione est degeneratio, sed magis nobilitatio; quia non est contra naturam mulieris concipere sexum virilem, immo magis cupit naturaliter mulier habere filium masculum quam feminam.

english:
### Article III. *On the condition of the nature with respect to sex.*

Next it is asked concerning the condition of the assumed nature with respect to sex. And concerning this two questions are raised.

First it is asked whether it was fitting for God to assume the female sex[^p270-1].

Second, whether it was fitting to assume flesh from a woman alone.

### Question I. *Whether it was fitting for God to assume the female sex.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether it was fitting for God to assume the female sex for the repairing of the human race. And that it was so seems to be the case:

1. Because the order of reparation ought to correspond by way of opposite to the fall[^p270-2]; but our ruin came about through a woman: therefore [also] the relieving [of it]. But the relieving was effected through the assumed nature: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, God assumed a fragile nature for this reason, that, while by His fragility He might conquer the strong one, the power of God might shine forth in this the more wondrously: if therefore the female sex is more fragile, it seems that His power would have been the more manifested, had He overcome the devil in the female sex: therefore it was more fitting that a woman rather than a man should be assumed by the Word of God[^p270-3].

3. Likewise, a rational spirit is just as indifferently unitable to the female sex as to the male: therefore by parity of reasoning the uncreated Spirit also: therefore both sexes are related indifferently[^p270-4] to the union, so far as it is on the part of the nature. If therefore the female sex was more deeply sunk into misery than the male; since the Son of God was incarnate to relieve our misery, it seems that He ought rather to have assumed the female sex than the male.

4. Likewise, offspring ought to be made like to its principle; but Christ was born from the Virgin mother alone: therefore if He drew flesh from a woman, He ought rather to be made like to His mother than to another: therefore if He did not degenerate, He ought rather to have drawn from her the sex which the Virgin had, than another.

**On the contrary:** 1. The Philosopher in the book *On Animals*[^p270-5] says that « woman is a man manqué », that is, imperfect: therefore if the assumed man ought to be most perfect, then the woman ought not to have been [assumed], but only the male.

2. Likewise, what is greater, the Apostle in the first to the Corinthians, the eleventh [chapter][^p270-6], says that *the head of the woman is the man*, and not the reverse; but the assumed man is the head of the whole Church: therefore there ought not to have been the female sex, otherwise a perversion of order would arise; which indeed God ought not to do in His incarnation, but rather He ought to repair the destroyed order.

3. Likewise, the principle of all generation is the male sex, for *from one man are all*[^p270-7]; but the assumed man ought to be the principle of all spiritual generation: therefore not the female sex, but the male.

4. Likewise, if He had assumed the female sex, then, since the communication of idioms takes place, He would have to be called *goddess* and would have to be called *daughter*: if therefore it is fitting that there be only God and Son in that highest Trinity, and not goddess or daughter[^p270-8]; in no way was it fitting for God to assume a woman.

### Conclusion.

> Without doubt it was not as fitting for God to assume the female sex as the male, into the unity of person.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt it was not as fitting for God to assume the female sex as the male, into the unity of person. — And the reason for this is that the female sex is not of as great a dignity as
the male. For the male sex excels the female both as to *dignity in originating*, and as to *power in acting*, and as to *authority in presiding*. As to *dignity in originating*, because all, both men and women, came from one man, in whom there is an express representation of the going-forth of things from that one first and highest principle[^p271-1]. — As to *power in acting* likewise it surpasses, since it belongs to the man to act, and to the woman to undergo. Hence the male sex has more of active power, on account of which it is both stronger in fact and in name. — As to *authority in presiding* also it pre-excels. For according to right order it is not the woman who is set over the man, but the man who is set over the woman as the head over the body, as the Apostle says[^p271-2]. — Since therefore in the Word assuming human nature there is preeminent *dignity in originating* and *power in acting* and *dominion in presiding*; hence it is that it was more fitting that the male sex rather than the female be assumed by the uncreated Word, because to that assumed nature these three things had to be communicated in an excellent way. — And therefore the reasons for this position are to be conceded.

1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that the ruin came about through a woman; it must be said that although in the female sex our ruin was begun, yet in the male sex it was consummated. And since our reparation had to be consummated in the assumed nature, hence it is that according to right correspondence it was more fitting that a man rather than a woman be assumed.

2. To that which is objected concerning fragility, it must be said that it was thus fitting that Christ conquer through fragility in suffering, that afterward He might conquer through power in rising again; and therefore He ought to assume such a sex as would also[^p271-3] be fragile for a time on account of the quality of passibility, and nonetheless be capable of being ordered toward power according to the quality of [its] nature; and such was the male sex rather than the female.

3. To that which is objected concerning the union of the rational spirit to either sex, it must be said that it is not similar: *first*, because the spirit is united to the body in such a way that from these there comes about one [thing], and there is no communication of idioms; but it is not so[^p271-4] with the eternal Word, which remains in its own property, communicating to the assumed man its [own] properties, for the communicating of which the male sex was more fitting than the female. — *Moreover*, it is not similar, because the uncreated Spirit is most noble, and the union by which it unites our nature to itself in person is most noble; and therefore it ought to assume a more noble sex. But it is not so with the rational spirit.

4. To that which is objected, that the offspring ought to be made like to its principle; it must be said that this is true when [the principle] produces the offspring wholly according to the proper power of its nature; but it is not so in the case at hand. For the Virgin conceived being moved and aided by the Holy Spirit[^p271-5]; and therefore the offspring rather had the sex which the Holy Spirit chose, than the sex which it found in the mother. Nor in such a generation is there degeneration, but rather an ennobling; because it is not against the nature of a woman to conceive the male sex, nay rather a woman naturally desires the more to have a male child than a female.

la: Pro *sexum muliebrem* non pauci codd. *mulierem*, qui tamen infra in ipsa quaestione nostrae lectioni assentiuntur.

en: For *sexum muliebrem* (the female sex) not a few codices read *mulierem* (a woman), which however below, in the question itself, agree with our reading.

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 517, nota 8. — Edd. conclusionem valde truncarunt, exhibentes sola verba: *ergo et relevatio etc.*

en: Cf. vol. II, p. 517, note 8. — The editions greatly truncated the conclusion, exhibiting only the words: *therefore also the relieving, etc.*

la: Chrysost., *Homil. in S. Dorsidem M.* n. 3: Quanto infirmius est vas, tanto maior est gratia, tanto illustrius trophaeum, tanto micantior et insignior victoria. — Pro *manifestata* codd. H I L aa *manifesta*.

en: Chrysostom, *Homily on St. Drosis the Martyr* n. 3: The weaker the vessel, the greater the grace, the more glorious the trophy, the more dazzling and distinguished the victory. — For *manifestata* (manifested) codices H I L aa read *manifesta* (manifest).

la: Edd. *se habet sexus uterque*. In fine arg. pro *femineum* cod. K *muliebrem*.

en: The editions read *each sex is related* [in the singular]. At the end of the argument, for *femineum* (feminine) codex K reads *muliebrem* (womanly).

la: Libr. XVI. sive, secundum recentiorem operum Aristot. divisionem, II. *de Generat. animal.* c. 3. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 485, nota 5.

en: Book XVI, or, according to the more recent division of Aristotle's works, II *On the Generation of Animals* c. 3. Cf. vol. II, p. 485, note 5.

la: Vers. 3. — De minori vide infra d. 13. a. 2. q. I. seqq.

en: Verse 3. — On the minor [premise] see below d. 13 a. 2 q. I and following.

la: Hebr. 2, 11. August., XII. *de Civ. Dei*, c. 27. n. 1: Quem [primum parentem] propterea Deus creare voluit unum, de quo multitudo propagaretur, ut hac admonitione etiam in multis concors unitas servaretur. Cfr. II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XVIII. c. 1, et Comment. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. nec non dub. 1.

en: Heb. 2, 11. Augustine, XII *On the City of God*, c. 27 n. 1: [The first parent,] whom God therefore willed to create as one, from whom the multitude would be propagated, so that by this admonition a concordant unity might be preserved even among the many. Cf. II Sent., Master's text, d. XVIII c. 1, and Commentary a. 1 q. 1 in the body, and also dub. 1.

la: Anselm., *Monolog.* c. 42, ad ostendendum, quod in significandis personis Ss. Trinitatis nomina patris et filii, et non matris et filiae adhibenda sint, optime hanc rationem affert: quia « prima et principalis causa prolis semper est in patre. Nam si maternam causam quolibet modo semper paterna praecedit, nimis est incongruum, ut illi parenti adaptetur nomen matris, cui ad gignendam prolem nulla alia causa aut sociatur aut praecedit... Quodsi filius semper similior est patri quam filia [quae disparis est sexus]; nihil autem similius est alteri, quam summo Patri proles sua: verissimum est, hanc prolem non esse filiam, sed filium. — In fine arg. pro *assumere feminam* codd. M O *assumere sexum femineum*, quibus verbis adhuc addunt *sicut virilem in unitatem personae*.

en: Anselm, *Monologion* c. 42, in order to show that in signifying the persons of the Most Holy Trinity the names of father and son, and not of mother and daughter, are to be used, gives this reason most aptly: because « the first and principal cause of the offspring is always in the father. For if the paternal cause in any way always precedes the maternal, it is too unfitting that the name of mother be applied to that parent to whom, for the begetting of the offspring, no other cause is either joined or prior... But if the son is always more like the father than the daughter [who is of a disparate sex]; and nothing is more like another than its own offspring is like the highest Father: it is most true that this offspring is not a daughter, but a son. — At the end of the argument, for *assumere feminam* (to assume a woman) codices M O read *assumere sexum femineum* (to assume the feminine sex), to which words they further add *sicut virilem in unitatem personae* (as the male, into the unity of person).

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 18. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. et dub. 1. De ratione seq. cfr. hoc idem dub. 1, nec non supra pag. 111, nota 1.

en: Cf. II Sent. d. 18 a. 1 q. 1 in the body and dub. 1. On the following reason cf. this same dub. 1, and also above p. 111, note 1.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 11, 3, et Eph. 5, 23. — Paulo superius pro *praeexcellit* codd. A I L T Z aa *praecellit*.

en: First Epistle to the Cor. 11, 3, and Eph. 5, 23. — A little above, for *praeexcellit* (pre-excels) codices A I L T Z aa read *praecellit* (excels).

la: Codd. A H K L aa bb *et*.

en: Codices A H K L aa bb read *et* (and).

la: Codd. K aa bb adiiciunt *est*. In fine solut. pro *debet* edd. cum aliquot codd. *debuit*.

en: Codices K aa bb add *est* (is). At the end of the solution, for *debet* (ought) the editions, with several codices, read *debuit* (ought-[have]).

la: Cfr. supra d. 4. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — Ultima solut. verba *quam feminam* desunt in codd. I L aa; pro *feminam*, quod habent edd. cum codd. A Z bb, alii codd. substituerunt *femineum*.

en: Cf. above d. 4 a. 3 q. 1 and following. — The last words of the solution, *quam feminam* (than a female), are wanting in codices I L aa; for *feminam* (female), which the editions have with codices A Z bb, other codices substituted *femineum* (feminine).

latin_scholion:
**I.** Hanc quaestionem Magister (hic c. 3.) incipit his verbis: « Solet etiam quaeri, quamvis curiose, a nonnullis, si Deus humanam naturam potuit assumere » etc., eamque paucis verbis expedit. Nihilominus Gualterus a S. Victore ob hanc quaestionem acerrime insectatur Magistrum tanquam blasphemum, sed immerito (cfr. D'Argentré, *Collectio iudicior.* t. I. pag. 117). — Argumenta congruentiae pro hac et seq. quaestione sunt manifesta, et a diversis diversa addita sunt. De hac quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1. — B. Albert., a. 10. — Petr. a Tar. hic a. 4. quaestiunc. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1.

**II.** De seq. (2.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 2. m. II. 12. — S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 2; S. III. q. 28. a. 1, q. 32. a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The Master begins this question (here, c. 3) with these words: « It is also wont to be asked, though curiously, by some, whether God could have assumed human nature » etc., and he settles it in a few words. Nevertheless Walter of St. Victor, on account of this question, most fiercely assails the Master as a blasphemer, but undeservedly (cf. D'Argentré, *Collection of Judgments* vol. I, p. 117). — The arguments of congruity for this and the following question are manifest, and various things have been added by various [authors]. On this question: St. Thomas, here q. 3 a. 1. — Bl. Albert, a. 10. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 4 little-question 1, 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3 q. 1.

**II.** On the following (2nd) question: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. III q. 2 m. II. 12. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. a. 2; Summa III q. 28 a. 1, q. 32 a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p270-{L,R}-*`, `vol3-p271-{L,R}-*`) cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 19059–19164 (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`). PDF authoritative for cascade-fragmented Respondeo/Solutio + all footers; OCR base for clean prose + marker spacing. Offset `pdf = printed + 22` (p.270 = PDF 292, p.271 = PDF 293).

**Page-split map.**
- ART. III opener (`De conditione naturae quantum ad sexum`, raw 19059) folds into this q1 per the Vol II/III chunking convention; no standalone divisio chunk.
- p.270 (raw 19063–19117): ART. III opener + q1 *videtur* args 1–4, *Sed contra* 1–4, Conclusio, Respondeo opening. Running head confirmed `270 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III` (450 dpi). Footer block ftns **1–8** all belong to q1.
- p.271 (raw 19120–19153): Respondeo continuation + replies *Ad 1–4* + SCHOLION I–II. Running head confirmed `DIST. XII. ART. III. QUAEST. II. 271` (450 dpi). p.271 footer block runs ftns **1–7**; **ftns 1–5 anchor in this q1's p.271 body** (`summo 1`, `Apostolus 2`, `etiam 3`, `autem 4`, `sancto 5`) and are taken here; **ftns 6–7 anchor in QUAESTIO II's opening** and are forwarded to q2.

**Apparatus count: 13** (p.270 ftns 1–8 = `[^p270-1..8]`; p.271 ftns 1–5 = `[^p271-1..5]`).

**Scholion coverage.** `has_scholion: true`. SCHOLION I–II held here (raw 19155–19162). Scholion I treats this q1; **Scholion II opens `De seq. (2.) quaestione` (on the following question) and forward-covers q2** — so the sibling `d12-a3-q2` carries `has_scholion: false`.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* none migrated forward from a2-q2 — printed p.270 opens a fresh footer sequence (confirmed: a2-q2 body finished on p.269; p.270 is entirely ART. III).
- *Forwarded to d12-a3-q2:* QUAESTIO II (`Utrum magis debuerit carnem assumere de viro simul et muliere quam sola muliere`) opens at raw line **19165**, printed **p.271** (PDF 293), continuing onto p.272+. q2's first body footers are **p.271 ftns 6–7** (`Vers. 17` / `Vide supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 2...`); set `has_scholion: false` (Scholion II here covers it).

**[?] flags:** none. OCR confirmed line-by-line against 450 dpi crops for both pages; all garbles resolved against the PDF (`procedituretquaeritur`→`procedidur et quaeritur`, `polentia`→`potentia`, `unilatem`→`unitatem`, `tnagis`→`magis`, etc.).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 12, Art. 3, Q. 2

title_alt: Utrum magis debuerit carnem assumere de viro simul et muliere quam de sola muliere

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 271 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum magis debuerit carnem assumere de viro simul et muliere quam sola muliere.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum magis debuerit carnem assumere de viro simul et muliere quam de muliere tantum. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Ad Hebraeos secundo[^p271-6]: *Debuit per omnia fratribus assimilari*; sed similitudo fraterna[^p271-7] maxime consistit in generatione: ergo videtur, quod sicut alii generantur ex patre et matre, quod et similiter Christus.

2. Item, Christus humanam assumsit naturam, ut nos curaret a morbo originalis peccati: si ergo originale peccatum traducitur per viam generationis de masculo et femina; videtur, quod sic debuit
<!-- page 272 -->
nasci, ut sicut sua morte nos a morte damnationis liberavit, sic sua origine nostrae originis vitiositatem sanaret.

3. Item, Christus aequaliter venit ad sanandum utrumque sexum, ergo videtur, quod debuit utrumque sexum assumere, vel ex utroque; sed non utrumque, quia vel in una persona, quia tunc esset hermaphroditus[^p272-1], quod est abominabile; vel in duabus, et tunc esset superfluitas: ergo debuit humanam naturam ex utroque sexu suscipere.

4. Item, nobilius principium generationis est vir quam mulier[^p272-2]: si ergo alii generantur ex viro et muliere, et Christus ex sola muliere; nobiliori modo sunt alii homines generati quam Christus. Si ergo non decet, ut aliquis ipsum in nobilitate generationis excedat, videtur etc.

**Sed contra:** 1. Geniti secundum naturalem propagationem ex viro et muliere contrahunt morbum originalem; sed Christus ab illo morbo debuit esse omnino immunis: ergo non decuit ipsum assumere carnem ex utroque sexu.

2. Item, dignitas praecipue est in Virgine Maria, ut sit mater et virgo: si ergo Christus non debuit Matri dignitatem adimere, sed augere; videtur, quod non debuit ex ipsa nasci per commixtionem[^p272-3].

3. Item, Christus venit nos regenerare nova regeneratione et spirituali, ergo novo modo et spirituali nasci debuit; sed modus nascendi de viro et muliere est carnalis et consuetus: ergo etc.

4. Item, si Christus sic esset genitus, ergo haberet patrem in terris et patrem in caelis: si ergo non decet, unum filium habere duos patres, restat, quod non decuit Christum hoc modo assumere carnem[^p272-4].

### Conclusio.

> Non fuisset ita congruum, sicut nunc, Christum accipere carnem vel de viro et muliere, vel etiam de viro tantum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Christus absque dubio potuit carnem assumere, si voluisset, de viro et muliere[^p272-5], vel etiam de viro tantum, sicut assumsit de muliere tantum. Sicut enim purificavit operatione Spiritus sancti uterum virginalem, sic et purificare et sanctificare potuit, si voluisset, vim generativam in viro pariter et muliere, ut ex eis sanctus et immaculatus nasceretur absque aliqua foeditate. Potuit itaque sine incongruentia, si voluisset, carnem assumere secundum legem naturae institutae de viro et muliere.

Sed tamen non fuisset ita congruum, sicut nunc; et hoc multiplici ratione congruentiae, ob quam magis decebat, ut carnem sumeret de sola muliere[^p272-6]. *Prima* est ad servandam *dignitatem Matris*, quae ob conceptionem Filii Dei non amisit privilegium virginitatis. — *Secunda* est propter servandam *honorificentiam Patris*; Christus enim secundum generationem aeternam habebat patrem; et cum ille[^p272-7] plene sibi sufficeret in caelis, non venit in terris patrem quaerere, sed solum matrem, ne duobus patribus filius existens neutrius esset filius plene, et sic iniuria primo patri quodam modo fieret. — *Tertia* est propter complendam *perfectionem universitatis* in modis educendi hominem in esse: quia, cum esset quadruplex modus educendi hominem in esse, scilicet de viro et muliere, nec de viro nec de muliere, de viro sine muliere, et de muliere sine viro; tres primi praecesserant; et ideo non restabat, nisi ut Deus quartum modum adderet; quod non fecisset, si alio modo conceptus esset[^p272-8]. — *Quarta* ratio propter *correspondentiam congruitatis lapsus et reparationis*, ut, sicut lapsus est factus in utroque sexu, sed primo in muliere est inchoatus et in viro consummatus; sic esset in reparatione, ut mulier credendo et concipiendo inciperet diabolum superare in abscondito, et post eius filius in manifesto eum vinceret in duello, scilicet in crucis patibulo[^p272-9]. — Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae adducuntur ad partem istam.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod decuit ipsum per omnia fratribus assimilari; dicendum, quod verum est de his quae ad nostram salutem et eruditionem sunt ordinata; sed talis modus nascendi nec nostrae saluti nec nostrae eruditioni adeo competeret, sicut ille quem Christus elegit; et ideo quantum ad nascendi modum non debuit similari. — *Praeterea*, alia ratio est: quia nos per modum talem nascendi contrahimus morbum: et Christus ut bonus medicus im-
<!-- page 273 -->
munis a morbo debuit esse: hinc est, quod in tali modo nascendi non debuit nobis assimilari nec nobiscum convenire[^p273-1].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod debuit sic nasci, ut nos curaret; dicendum, quod Deus sic venit curare et sic disposuit, ut curaret personam, non ut curaret ipsam naturam. Unde medicina Christi non habet in nobis efficaciam in actu generationis, sed in actu regenerationis, quae, inquam, regeneratio non est ex carne et sanguine, sed ex aqua et Spiritu sancto[^p273-2]. Et ideo non oportuit nec decuit eum sic nasci, sicut nos nascimur, cum illum modum nascendi non disposuerit immutare per suum adventum, ut fides haberet meritum; alioquin deprehenderetur fides per humanum experimentum, sicut alias et in quarto et in secundo[^p273-3] fuit ostensum.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aequaliter venerat salvare utrumque sexum; dicendum, quod verum est; attamen virilem sexum tanquam digniorem quodam modo magis debuit pensare, et sexum virilem assumsit, quia magis competens fuit[^p273-4]. Sed quia mulier ab eius redemptionis sufficientia nequaquam erat excludenda; ideo assumsit carnem de muliere. — Ideo dicendum, quod illa divisio non est sufficiens, qua dicit: aut debuit assumere utrumque sexum, aut de utroque sexu. Est enim medium: aut unum de altero, sicut virilem de muliebri; et tunc tantum valet, quantum si de utroque, et amplius concordat rationi rectae.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod pater est nobilius principium; dicendum, quod Christus Dominus non est absque patre, immo patrem habet Deum aeternum, cuius excellentia et dignitas inaestimabiliter excedit omnem patrem creatum; et ideo, quod alii habent patrem creatum, Christus vero minime, hoc non est propter maiorem dignitatem aliorum respectu Christi. Habet enim Christus aliquem loco patris creati, qui adeo est nobilis, ut ex ipso nominetur omnis paternitas in caelo et in terris[^p273-5].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether He ought rather to have assumed flesh from man and woman together than from a woman alone.*

Secondly it is asked whether He ought rather to have assumed flesh from man and woman together than from a woman alone. And that it was so seems to be the case.

1. To the Hebrews, second [chapter][^p271-6]: *He ought in all things to be made like to His brethren*; but fraternal likeness[^p271-7] consists chiefly in generation: therefore it seems that, just as others are generated from father and mother, so too in like manner [should] Christ [be].

2. Likewise, Christ assumed human nature in order to cure us from the disease of original sin: if therefore original sin is transmitted by way of generation from male and female; it seems that He ought so to be
born, that, as by His death He freed us from the death of damnation, so by His origin He might heal the corruption of our origin.

3. Likewise, Christ came equally to heal both sexes, therefore it seems that He ought to have assumed both sexes, or [to be] from both; but not both, because [it would be] either in one person, for then He would be a hermaphrodite[^p272-1], which is abominable; or in two, and then there would be superfluity: therefore He ought to have taken up human nature from both sexes.

4. Likewise, a nobler principle of generation is the man than the woman[^p272-2]: if therefore others are generated from man and woman, and Christ from a woman alone; in a nobler manner are other men generated than Christ. If therefore it is not fitting that anyone should excel Him in the nobility of generation, it seems, etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Those begotten according to natural propagation from man and woman contract the original disease; but Christ ought to have been wholly immune from that disease: therefore it was not fitting for Him to assume flesh from both sexes.

2. Likewise, dignity is especially in the Virgin Mary, that she be mother and virgin: if therefore Christ ought not to take away dignity from His Mother, but to increase it; it seems that He ought not to be born from her by commixture[^p272-3].

3. Likewise, Christ came to regenerate us by a new and spiritual regeneration, therefore He ought to be born in a new and spiritual manner; but the manner of being born from man and woman is carnal and customary: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, if Christ were thus begotten, then He would have a father on earth and a father in heaven: if therefore it is not fitting that one son should have two fathers, it remains that it was not fitting for Christ to assume flesh in this manner[^p272-4].

### Conclusion.

> It would not have been so fitting as it now is, for Christ to take flesh either from man and woman, or even from man alone.

**I respond:** It must be said that Christ without doubt could have assumed flesh, had He willed, from man and woman[^p272-5], or even from man alone, just as He assumed it from a woman alone. For as He purified by the operation of the Holy Spirit the virginal womb, so also could He have purified and sanctified, had He willed, the generative power in man and woman alike, so that from them a holy and immaculate one might be born without any foulness. He could therefore, without incongruity, had He willed, have assumed flesh according to the law of nature instituted, from man and woman.

But nevertheless it would not have been so fitting as it now is; and this for a manifold reason of fittingness, on account of which it was more becoming that He should take flesh from a woman alone[^p272-6]. The *first* is for preserving the *dignity of the Mother*, who, on account of the conception of the Son of God, did not lose the privilege of virginity. — The *second* is on account of preserving the *honor of the Father*; for Christ according to His eternal generation had a Father; and since He[^p272-7] sufficed fully for Himself in heaven, He did not come on earth to seek a father, but only a mother, lest, the Son existing with two fathers, He should be fully the son of neither, and thus an injury be in a certain manner done to the first Father. — The *third* is on account of completing the *perfection of the universality* in the modes of bringing man into being: because, since there were a fourfold mode of bringing man into being, namely, from man and woman, neither from man nor from woman, from man without woman, and from woman without man; the first three had gone before; and therefore there remained nothing, except that God should add the fourth mode; which He would not have done, had He been conceived in another manner[^p272-8]. — The *fourth* reason [is] on account of the *correspondence of the congruity of the fall and the reparation*, that, as the fall was made in both sexes, but first in the woman was it begun and in the man consummated; so it might be in the reparation, that the woman by believing and conceiving might begin to overcome the devil in hiding, and afterward her Son in the open might conquer him in single combat, namely on the gibbet of the cross[^p272-9]. — And the reasons which are adduced for this side are to be conceded.

1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that it was fitting for Him to be made like to His brethren in all things; it must be said that this is true of those things which are ordained to our salvation and instruction; but such a manner of being born would not so befit either our salvation or our instruction, as that one which Christ chose; and therefore as to the manner of being born He ought not to be made like. — *Moreover*, there is another reason: that we by such a manner of being born contract the disease: and Christ as a good physician ought to be im-
mune from the disease: hence it is that in such a manner of being born He ought not to be made like to us nor to agree with us[^p273-1].

2. To that which is objected, that He ought so to be born, that He might cure us; it must be said that God so came to cure and so disposed, that He might cure the person, not that He might cure the nature itself. Hence the medicine of Christ has no efficacy in us in the act of generation, but in the act of regeneration, which regeneration, I say, is not from flesh and blood, but from water and the Holy Spirit[^p273-2]. And therefore it was neither necessary nor fitting that He be born as we are born, since He did not dispose to change that manner of being born by His coming, in order that faith might have merit; otherwise faith would be apprehended by human experiment, as has elsewhere been shown both in the fourth and in the second[^p273-3].

3. To that which is objected, that He had come equally to save both sexes; it must be said that this is true; nevertheless He ought in a certain way to esteem the male sex the more, as being the worthier, and He assumed the male sex, because it was the more befitting[^p273-4]. But since the woman was by no means to be excluded from the sufficiency of His redemption; therefore He assumed flesh from a woman. — Therefore it must be said that that division is not sufficient, by which one says: either He ought to assume both sexes, or [to be] from both sexes. For there is a middle: either the one from the other, as the male from the female; and then it is worth as much as if from both, and it accords more with right reason.

4. To that which is objected, that the father is the nobler principle; it must be said that Christ the Lord is not without a father, nay rather He has the eternal God for His Father, whose excellence and dignity inestimably exceeds every created father; and therefore that others have a created father, but Christ by no means [has one], is not on account of a greater dignity of others in respect of Christ. For Christ has someone in place of a created father, who is so noble, that from Him is named all paternity in heaven and on earth[^p273-5].

---

la: Vers. 17. — In minori edd. et multi codd. pro *similitudo fraterna* male exhibent *similitudo superna*.

en: Verse 17. — In the minor [premise] the editions and many codices for *similitudo fraterna* (fraternal likeness) wrongly exhibit *similitudo superna* (heavenly likeness).

en: See above d. 3 p. II a. 1 q. 2 and a. 2 q. 2; II Sent. d. 31 a. 1 q. 3, a. 2 q. 3, and dub. 2.

la: Cfr. August. XVI. *de Civ. Dei*, c. 8. n. 2, et XII. *de Trin.* c. 6. n. 8. — Paulo superius post *vel ex utroque* edd. subiiciunt *nasci* et deinde pro *quia tunc* cum aliquibus codd. habent *et tunc*.

en: Cf. Augustine, XVI *On the City of God*, c. 8 n. 2, and XII *On the Trinity* c. 6 n. 8. — A little above, after *vel ex utroque* (or from both) the editions add *nasci* (to be born), and then for *quia tunc* (because then) they have, with some codices, *et tunc* (and then).

la: Vide supra pag. 111, nota 1. — Paulo inferius post *quam Christus* codd. A G H supplent *fuerit*, et in fine arg. pro *excedat* cod. X substituit *excellat*.

en: See above p. 111, note 1. — A little below, after *quam Christus* (than Christ) codices A G H supply *fuerit* (were); and at the end of the argument, for *excedat* (exceed) codex X substitutes *excellat* (excel).

la: Leo M. *Serm.* 21 (II. in Nat. Domini) c. 2: *Venit enim Dominus Iesus Christus contagia nostra auferre... propter quod oportuit, ut novo nasceretur ordine... oportuit enim, ut primam Genitricis integritatem nascens incorruptio custodiret... ut virginitas, quae in aliis non poterat salva esse generando, fieret in aliis imitabilis et confitendo et renascendo.* — In *maiori* ante *Mater et Virgo* cod. K interserit *simul*.

en: Leo the Great, *Sermon* 21 (II on the Nativity of the Lord) c. 2: *For the Lord Jesus Christ came to take away our contagions... on which account it was necessary that He be born by a new order... for it was necessary that, as He was being born, incorruption should guard the prior integrity of His Genetrix... so that virginity, which in others could not be kept safe while generating, might become in others imitable both by confessing and by being reborn.* — In the *major* [premise], before *Mater et Virgo* (mother and virgin), codex K inserts *simul* (at once).

la: Vide supra pag. 111, nota 1.

en: See above p. 111, note 1.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 29, nota 9. Eadem sententia editur in libro *de Fide contra Manichaeos* (inter opera August., sed est Evodii), c. 24.

en: Cf. above p. 29, note 9. The same opinion is set forth in the book *On Faith against the Manichees* (among Augustine's works, but it is by Evodius), c. 24.

la: Vat. subiicit *simul*. Paulo inferius pro *potuit* edd. cum cod. cc *potuisset*.

en: The Vatican [edition] adds *simul* (at once). A little below, for *potuit* (could) the editions, with codex cc, read *potuisset* (would have been able).

la: Pro *muliere* cod. K *virgine*. Paulo superius edd. omittunt *ita* ante *congruum*.

en: For *muliere* (woman) codex K reads *virgine* (virgin). A little above, the editions omit *ita* (so) before *congruum* (fitting).

la: De hac August. sententia vide supra pag. 29, nota 9. — Proxime post pro *ne duobus* cod. A *ne in duobus*, cod. aa *ne de duobus*.

en: On this opinion of Augustine see above p. 29, note 9. — Immediately after, for *ne duobus* (lest, with two) codex A reads *ne in duobus* (lest, in two), codex aa *ne de duobus* (lest, from two).

la: Vide August., *Serm.* 370 (alias 20. de Tempore) c. 1. n. 1. et supra pag. 23, nota 4. — Paulo ante pro *adderet* cod. K *apponeret*.

en: See Augustine, *Sermon* 370 (otherwise 20, On the Season) c. 1 n. 1, and above p. 23, note 4. — A little before, for *adderet* (would add) codex K reads *apponeret* (would set beside).

la: Vide supra d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 2. ad 2. — In fine enuntiati praeced. pro *similari* codd. F U *assimilari*.

en: See above d. 3 p. II a. 3 q. 2 ad 2. — At the end of the preceding statement, for *similari* (to be made like) codices F U read *assimilari* (to be made like).

la: Ioan. 3, 5. — Subinde pro *oportuit* non pauci codd. vitiose *oportet*.

en: John 3, 5. — Thereupon for *oportuit* (it was necessary) not a few codices wrongly [read] *oportet* (it is necessary).

la: Libr. II. Sent. d. 32. a. 1. q. 2, ubi in originali peccato distinguitur corruptio personae et naturae, et docetur, quod gratia directe respiciat corruptionem personae, non naturae. Rationes huius divinae ordinationis vide IV. d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.

en: Book II Sent. d. 32 a. 1 q. 2, where in original sin a distinction is made between the corruption of the person and of the nature, and it is taught that grace directly regards the corruption of the person, not of the nature. For the reasons of this divine ordination see IV d. 4 p. I a. 1 q. 2.

la: Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. — Paulo inferius pro *qua dicit* Vat. *quae dicit*. Circa finem solut. post *utroque* cod. K supplet *esset*.

en: As was shown in the preceding question. Cf. here the Master's text, c. 3. — A little below, for *qua dicit* (by which one says) the Vatican [edition reads] *quae dicit* (which says). Toward the end of the solution, after *utroque* (both) codex K supplies *esset* (it were).

la: Eph. 3, 15, ubi Vat. et edd. 1, 2 cum Vulgata *in caelis* pro *in caelo*. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Eph. 3, 15, where the Vatican [edition] and editions 1, 2, with the Vulgate, [read] *in caelis* (in the heavens) for *in caelo* (in heaven). — See the scholion on the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p271-{L,R}-*`, `vol3-p272-{L,R}-*`, `vol3-p273-{L,R}-*`) cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 19165–19271 (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`). PDF authoritative for cascade-fragmented Respondeo/Solutio + all footers; OCR base for clean prose + marker spacing. Offset `pdf = printed + 22` (p.271 = PDF 293, p.272 = PDF 294, p.273 = PDF 295).

**Opener alignment.** PASS. Raw 19167 = `Secundo quaeritur, utrum magis debuerit carnem assumere de viro simul et muliere quam de muliere tantum` = ART. III **q2** (the *de viro simul et muliere vs de sola muliere* question), NOT q1 (*decuerit Deum assumere sexum muliebrem*). The ART. III opener (held in a3-q1) lists `Secundo, utrum decuerit carnem assumere de sola muliere` — this is that second question.

**Page-split map.**
- p.271 (raw 19165–19181): QUAESTIO II title + opener (`Secundo quaeritur…`) + *videtur* arg 1 + arg 2 opening. Running head confirmed via 450 dpi band (q2 opens lower on p.271; same page whose top is a3-q1's Scholion). q2's first body footers are **p.271 ftns 6–7** (`Vers. 17` / `Vide supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 2…`), picked up per the a3-q1 hand-off; p.271 ftns 1–5 belong to a3-q1.
- p.272 (raw 19182–19243): arg 2 continuation + args 3–4, *Sed contra* 1–4, Conclusio, Respondeo (the four *rationes congruentiae*) + reply *Ad 1* opening. Running head confirmed `272 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III` (450 dpi). Footer block ftns **1–9** all belong to q2.
- p.273 (raw 19245–19271): reply *Ad 1* continuation + *Ad 2–4*. Running head confirmed `DIST. XII. DUBIUM. 273` (450 dpi). p.273 footer block runs ftns **1–8**; **ftns 1–5 anchor in this q2's body** (`convenire 1`, `Spiritu sancto 2`, `in secundo 3`, `competens fuit 4`, `in caelo et in terris 5`) and are taken here; **ftns 6–8 anchor in the following d.12 *Dubium circa litteram Magistri* (DuB. Unicum)** and are forwarded to the (not-yet-scaffolded) `d12-dubia` chunk.

**Apparatus count: 16** (p.271 ftns 6–7 = `[^p271-6..7]`; p.272 ftns 1–9 = `[^p272-1..9]`; p.273 ftns 1–5 = `[^p273-1..5]`).

**Scholion coverage.** `has_scholion: false`. This question has no scholion of its own. Its scholastic-parallels coverage lives in **a3-q1's Scholion II** (`De seq. (2.) quaestione`: Alex. Hal. S. p. III q. 2 m. II 12; S. Thom. loc. cit. a. 2, S. III q. 28 a. 1, q. 32 a. 1; Petr. a Tar.; Richard. a Med. q. 2). p.273 ftn 5 also directs *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* **p.271 ftns 6–7** from a3-q1 (q2's first body footers — the `Vers. 17` Heb-2:17 note and the *similitudo fraterna* cross-reference note).
- *Forwarded to d12-dubia:* the **d.12 *Dubium circa litteram Magistri* (DuB. Unicum)** follows immediately after this q2 at raw line **19272** (`DUBIUM CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI`), on printed p.273 → continuing to the foot of p.273, just before `DISTINCTIO XIII.` at raw 19311. It carries **p.273 ftns 6–8** (`Eph. 3,15… Vide scholion…` is n.5/q2's; the dubium's are `Edd. omittunt…`, `In cdd., quae…`, `Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1…`). **There is NO `bon-sent-III-d12-dubia.md` skeleton in the repo** — the auto-chunker bundled the dubium into this q2's `line_end: 19310`; it must be scaffolded and translated as a fresh chunk. d.12 is **NOT** complete until that dubium ships.

**[?] flags:** none. OCR confirmed line-by-line against 450 dpi crops for all three pages; all garbles resolved against the PDF (`qnaeritur`→`quaeritur`, `Chrislus`→`Christus`, `generalionis`→`generationis`, `superfluitas`, `consummatus`, `regeneralionis`→`regenerationis`, `palrem`→`patrem`, `paternilas`→`paternitas`, etc.).

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. 12, Dubia

title_alt:
Dubium circa litteram Magistri
Doubt concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 273 -->

## DUBIUM CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. unicum.

In parte ista pauca circa litteram quaerenda sunt, pro eo quod satis patent, his visis quae praedicta sunt. Dubitari tamen potest de illa distinctione, quam facit ibi Magister: *Hic distinctione opus est, an de natura intelligatur* etc. Videtur enim, quod distinctio illa nulla sit, quia, ex quo natura illa fuit unita, non potuit non esse unita; sed natura illa unita[^1] peccare non potuit: ergo non videtur, quod aliquo modo peccare potuerit. — Item, anima illa beata est et non potest non esse beata: ergo si beata anima simpliciter et absolute non potest peccare, videtur similiter, quod nec anima Christi: ergo nulla videtur opus esse distinctione.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod secundum intellectum quaestionis, quem attendit quaestionem proponens, nullam oportet facere distinctionem, propter hoc quod quaestio est de anima Christi unita, utrum habuerit vertibilitatem arbitrii; verumtamen Magister ex abundanti distinguit ad removendum importunitatem sophistice opponentium; et rationabiliter satis. Cum quaeritur[^2], utrum ille homo peccare potuerit; cum verbum *possendi* sit praeteriti temporis, indeterminate potest extendere se ad omne praeteritum: ergo ad tempus *ante* unionem, vel ad tempus *post* unionem. Si ad tempus *ante* unionem, cum ante unionem possibile fuerit, illum hominem creari, et tamen Verbo non uniri; possibile fuit, quod haberet liberi arbitrii vertibilitatem, et ita quod peccare potuerit. Si autem pro tempore *post* unionem, peccare non potuit, quia non potuit non esse beatus, aut non esse Deus, quorum neutrum patitur, in Christo aliquod esse peccatum[^3]. Et sic patet totum.

english:
### Doubt (the only one).

In this part few things are to be inquired concerning the text, for the reason that they are sufficiently clear, these things having been seen which have been said before. Nevertheless it can be doubted concerning that distinction which the Master there makes: *Here there is need of a distinction, whether it be understood of the nature* etc. For it seems that that distinction is null, because, since that nature was united, it could not not be united; but that united nature[^1] could not sin: therefore it does not seem that it could in any way sin. — Likewise, that soul is blessed and cannot not be blessed: therefore if a blessed soul simply and absolutely cannot sin, it seems likewise that neither [can] the soul of Christ: therefore no distinction seems to be needed.

**I respond:** It must be said that, according to the understanding of the question which the one proposing the question has in view, no distinction need be made, on account of this, that the question is about the united soul of Christ, whether it had mutability of choice; nevertheless the Master, out of abundance, distinguishes in order to remove the importunity of those who object sophistically; and reasonably enough. When it is asked[^2] whether that man could sin; since the verb *to be able* is of past tense, it can extend itself indeterminately to all that is past: therefore to the time *before* the union, or to the time *after* the union. If to the time *before* the union, since before the union it was possible that that man be created and yet not united to the Word; it was possible that he should have the mutability of free choice, and so that he could sin. But if for the time *after* the union, he could not sin, because he could not not be blessed, or not be God, neither of which permits there to be any sin in Christ[^3]. And thus the whole [matter] is clear.

la: Edd. omittunt *non potuit non esse unita, sed natura illa unita.*

en: The editions omit *it could not not be united; but that united nature.*

la: In edd., quae, omissa vocula *Cum*, hanc proposit. cum praecedenti connectunt, legitur sic: *et satis rationabiliter quaeritur... potuerit; quia cum verbum* etc. Paulo inferius pro *vel ad* cod. aa *et ad.*

en: In the editions, which, the little word *When* being omitted, connect this proposition with the preceding one, it is read thus: *and it is reasonably enough asked... could; because since the verb* etc. A little below, for *or to* codex aa [reads] *and to.*

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. above, a. 1, q. 1; Blessed Albert, here a. 6; St. Thomas and Richard of Middleton, here near the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed p.273 (PDF p.295; raw OCR lines 19272–19310), reading the left column top→bottom (DUBIUM header + Dub. unicum opener, two arguments, and the *Respondeo* opening) then the right column (the *Respondeo* continuation through *…Et sic patet totum.*), body bands then footer bands (Vol III PDF-priority inversion per the Vol II/III Override). Fresh literal English. Offset pdf = printed + 22. Running head confirmed eyes-on at 450 dpi: `DIST. XII. DUBIUM. 273`.

**Scaffolded by hand.** This chunk had **no skeleton file** — the auto-chunker bundled the d.12 dubium into `bon-sent-III-d12-a3-q2`'s line range (`line_end: 19310`) and never created a dubia chunk. The file was created from scratch, mirroring the Tier-2 frontmatter and section structure of the other Vol III dubia chunks (e.g. `bon-sent-III-d11-dubia.md`).

**Structure.** `type: dubia`, `has_scholion: false` (dubia carry no scholion). A **single** dubium — the Quaracchi `DUB. UNICUM.` (OCR-garbled `DuB. CNICUM.`) — on Lombard's distinction *Hic distinctione opus est, an de natura intelligatur* etc., i.e. whether a distinction is needed at all in the question whether the united soul of Christ could sin (the *peccare potuerit* question of a.2 q.1). The objections argue the distinction is null (the united nature could not not be united, and a blessed soul cannot sin); the *Respondeo* concedes no distinction is needed on the questioner's own intended sense, but defends the Master's added distinction by reference to the past-tense verb *possendi* extending to the time before vs. after the union.

**Page-split map.** Single printed page **p.273** (PDF 295). The dubium occupies the lower-left column (below a3-q2's tail) + the lower-right column (below a3-q2's Ad 4, which closes with *…omnis paternitas in caelo et in terris*). All three of the dubium's footnote markers anchor on p.273; Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering per printed page, so this page's footer block runs nn.1–8 — **nn.1–5 belong to a3-q2** (its Ad 1–Ad 4, ending with the Eph. 3:15 note n.5), and **nn.6–8 belong to this dubium**, renumbered here sequentially as `[^1]`–`[^3]`:
- p.273 **n.6** (*Edd. omittunt non potuit non esse unita…*) → `[^1]`, anchored at the first objection's *sed natura illa unita⁶ peccare non potuit.*
- p.273 **n.7** (*In edd., quae, omissa vocula Cum…*) → `[^2]`, anchored at the *Respondeo*'s *Cum quaeritur⁷, utrum ille homo peccare potuerit.*
- p.273 **n.8** (*Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1; B. Albert. hic a. 6; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med. hic circa lit.*) → `[^3]`, anchored at the *Respondeo*'s closing *…aliquod esse peccatum⁸. Et sic patet totum.*

**Apparatus count.** 3 entries = p.273 nn.6–8 (per-page restart; nn.1–5 are a3-q2's). Every rendered `[^N]` def has a matching superscript anchor in both the Latin and English bodies.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Inbound (picked up):* from `bon-sent-III-d12-a3-q2` (commits 1800ef4 + b7c0c03) — printed **p.273 footer nn.6–8**, which belong to this dubium and were forwarded by a3-q2. All three consumed here as `[^1]`–`[^3]`. a3-q2 retained p.273 nn.1–5.
- *Forwarded:* NONE. This is the final unit of DISTINCTIO XII.

**d.13 boundary.** **LOCKED at DISTINCTIO XIII raw line 19311.** The dubium's *Respondeo* closes at the foot of p.273's right column (*…aliquod esse peccatum. Et sic patet totum.*, raw 19306); the p.273 footer block (nn.1–8) follows, then printed **p.274** opens with `DISTINCTIO XIII. Cap. Unicum. De sapientia et gratia Christi hominis, an in eis proficere potuerit` (raw 19311). Confirmed eyes-on at 450 dpi: p.274 begins a fresh distinction with its own fresh footer sequence (the *Dubium 1./2./…* marginal notes of d.13). **No footer leaks from this dubium into d.13.** This closes DISTINCTIO XII.

**[?] flags.** None. Body, all three rendered footers, and the *Respondeo* read cleanly at 450 dpi.


title: Dist. 13

title_alt: Littera Magistri — Distinctio XIII (Cap. Unicum)

title_alt: The Master's Text — Distinction XIII (Sole Chapter)

source_text:
<!-- page 274 -->

# DISTINCTIO XIII.

### Cap. Unicum. *De sapientia et gratia Christi hominis, an in eis proficere potuerit.*

Praeterea sciendum est, Christum secundum hominem ab ipsa conceptione gratiae plenitudinem recepisse. Cui *spiritus datus est non ad mensuram*, et in quo *plenitudo divinitatis habitat corporaliter*[^p274-1]; « ita vero habitat, ut ait Augustinus ad Dardanum, quod omni gratia plenus est; non ita habitat in Sanctis. Ut in nostro corpore inest sensus singulis membris, sed non quantum in capite; ibi enim et visus est et auditus et olfactus et gustus et tactus, in ceteris autem solus est tactus »: ita et in Christo habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis, quia ille est caput, in quo sunt omnes sensus. In Sanctis vero quasi solus tactus est, quibus spiritus datus est ad mensuram, cum de *illius plenitudine acceperunt*[^p274-2]. Acceperunt autem de illius plenitudine non secundum essentiam, sed secundum similitudinem, quia nunquam illam eandem essentialiter, sed similem acceperunt gratiam. *Puer* ergo ille *plenus sapientia et gratia* fuit ab ipsa conceptione. Unde Ieremias recte dicit: *Novum faciet Dominus super terram: mulier circumdabit virum*; quia in utero Virginis perfectus vir exstitit, non solum propter animam et carnem, sed etiam propter sapientiam et gratiam, qua plenus erat.

Huic autem sententiae videtur obviare quod in Evangelio Lucae[^p274-3] legitur: *Iesus proficiebat sapientia et aetate et gratia apud Deum et homines.* Si enim proficiebat sapientia et gratia, non videtur a conceptione habuisse plenitudinem gratiae sine mensura. — Ad quod sane dici potest, ipsum secundum hominem tantam a conceptione accepisse sapientiae et gratiae plenitudinem, ut Deus ei plenius conferre non potuerit; et tamen vere dicitur profecisse sapientia et gratia, non quidem in se, sed in aliis, qui de eius sapientia et gratia proficiebant, dum eis sapientiae et gratiae munera secundum processum aetatis magis ac magis patefaciebat. Unde Gregorius in quadam homilia[^p274-4] ait: « Iuxta hominis naturam proficiebat sapientia, non quod ipse sapientior ex tempore esset, qui a prima conceptionis hora spiritu sapientiae plenus permanebat; sed eandem qua plenus erat sapientiam ceteris ex tempore paulatim demonstrabat. Iuxta hominis naturam proficiebat aetate de infantia ad iuventutem. Iuxta hominis naturam proficiebat gratia, non ipse quod non habebat per accessum temporis accipiendo, sed pandendo donum gratiae, quod habebat. Apud Deum et homines[^p274-5], quia quantum, proficiente aetate, patefaciebat hominibus dona gratiae, quae sibi inerant, et sapientiae, tantum eos ad laudem Dei excitabat; et sic Deo Patri ad laudem et hominibus ad salutem proficiebat ». In aliis ergo, non in se, proficiebat sapientia et gratia. Unde in eodem Evangelio[^p274-6] *puer* ille *plenus sapientia et gratia* perhibetur. Sic ergo dicitur profecisse *sapientia et gratia*, ut aliquis rector ecclesiasticus dicitur proficere in cura sibi credita, cum per eius industriam alii proficiunt.

Alibi tamen scriptum reperitur, quod secundum sensum hominis profecerit, sicut *aetate* hominis profecit. Ait enim Ambrosius in libro de Incarnationis dominicae sacramento[^p274-7] sic: « Deus perfectionem naturae assumsit humanae. Suscepit sensum hominis, sed non sensu carnis fuit inflatus. Sensu hominis animam dixit esse conturbatam; sensu hominis esurivit et rogavit; sensu hominis profecit, sicut scriptum est: *Iesus proficiebat aetate et sapientia et gratia.* Quomodo proficiebat sapientia Dei? Profectus aetatis et profectus sapientiae non divinae, sed humanae est. Ideo aetatem commemoravit, ut secundum hominem crederes dictum. Aetas enim non divinitatis, sed corporis est. Ergo si proficiebat aetate hominis, proficiebat sapientia hominis. Sensus autem profecit, et quia sensus, ideo sapientia. Quis sensus proficiebat? Si humanus, ergo ipse susceptus est; si divinus, ergo mutabilis per profectum. Quod enim proficit mutatur in melius, sed quod divinum est non mutatur. Quod ergo mutatur non est divinum. Sensus igitur proficiebat humanus. Sensum ergo suscepit humanum ». « Non poterat confortari virtus Dei, nec crescere Deus, nec altitudo sapientiae Dei impleri. Quae igitur implebatur erat non Dei, sed nostra sapientia. Nam quomodo implebatur, qui, ut *omnia impleret*, descendit? Per quem autem sensum dixit Isaias[^p274-8], quod patrem puer nesciebat aut matrem? Scriptum est enim: *Priusquam sciat puer vocare patrem aut matrem, accipiet spolia Samariae.* Sapientiam enim Dei futura et occulta non fallunt. Expers autem agnitionis infantia, per humanam utique imprudentiam, quod adhuc non didicit ignorat. Sed verendum est, inquam, ne, si duos principales sensus, aut geminam sapientiam Christo tribuimus, Christum dividamus. Nunquid, cum et divinitatem eius et carnem adoramus, Christum dividimus? Nunquid, cum in eo imaginem Dei crucemque veneramur, dividimus eum? Apostolus[^p274-9] certe, qui de eo di-<!-- page 275 -->xit, quoniam, etsi crucifixus est ex infirmitate nostra, vivit tamen ex virtute Dei, ipse dixit, quia non divisus est Christus. Nunquid etiam, cum dicimus, quia animam rationalem et intellectus nostri suscepit capacem, dividimus eum? Non enim ipse Deus Verbum pro anima rationali et intellectus capaci in carne sua fuit; sed animam rationalem et intellectus capacem, et ipsam humanam et eiusdem substantiae, cuius nostrae sunt animae, et carnem nostrae similem eiusdemque cuius caro est nostra substantiae suscipiens, perfectus etiam homo fuit ».

Haec verba Ambrosii pia diligentia inspicienda sunt, quae ex parte hominis ignorantiam instruunt et illuminant, ex parte errandi fomitem male intellecta ministrant. His etenim evidenter traditur, duos in Christo esse principales sensus sive geminam sapientiam. Neque ideo unitas et singularitas personae dividitur, sed iuxta duas naturas duas habet sapientias: unam non creatam, sed genitam, quae ipse est; alteram non genitam, sed creatam et per gratiam ei collatam. Nam Isaias[^p275-1] de eo protestatur: *Requiescet super eum spiritus sapientiae et intellectus* etc. Spiritu ergo sapientiae et intellectus, id est sapientia et intelligentia, per Spiritum sanctum gratis data, Christus erat sapiens secundum animam. Secundum Deum vero sapiens erat sapientia genita[^p275-2], quae ipse est. Et sicut, in quantum Deus est, bonus est bonitate naturali, quae ipse est, et iustus iustitia naturali, quae ipse est; ita sapiens sapientia naturali, quae ipse est. Anima vero eius, sicut bona est et iusta bonitate vel iustitia gratis data, quae ipse vel ipsa non est; ita sapiens est sapientia gratis data, quae ipsa non est. Et licet gemina in Christo sit sapientia, una tamen eademque persona est, quae, in quantum Deus est, vel in quantum divina natura est, sapiens est sapientia aeterna[^p275-3], scilicet sapientia genita, id est se ipsa, et sapientia, quae non est genita, quae communis est tribus personis; non tamen gemina sapientia, quia non est alia et alia sapientia sapientia genita, quae tantum Filius est, et sapientia, quae communiter Pater est et Filius et Spiritus sanctus. In quantum vero eadem persona homo est, id est secundum hominem acceptum, vel in quantum est subsistens ex anima et carne, sapiens est sapientia gratuita. Sapiens igitur est humano sensu et divino.

Sed ex qua causa illius dicti intelligentia, scilicet Ambrosii « sensus proficiebat humanus », assumenda est? Aperte enim videtur Ambrosius innuere, quod Christus secundum humanum sensum profecerit, et quod infantia eius expers cognitionis fuerit et patrem et matrem ignoraverit; quod nec Ecclesia recipit, nec praemissae auctoritates patiuntur sic intelligi. — Sed ita sane potest accipi, ut quantum ad visum hominum et sui sensus ostensionem Christus profecisse dicatur. Proficiebat ergo humanus sensus in eo secundum ostensionem et aliorum hominum opinionem. Ita etiam patrem et matrem dicitur ignorasse in infantia, quia ita se habebat et gerebat, ac si agnitionis esset expers.

---

english:
# DISTINCTION XIII.

### Sole Chapter. *On the wisdom and grace of Christ as man, whether he could advance in them.*

Moreover it must be known that Christ, according to the man, received from the very conception the fullness of grace. To whom *the Spirit was given not by measure*, and in whom *the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily*[^p274-1]; "and it dwells in such wise, as Augustine says to Dardanus, that he is full of all grace; it does not so dwell in the Saints. As in our body sense is present in the several members, but not as much as in the head; for there both sight and hearing and smell and taste and touch are present, but in the rest there is touch alone": so also in Christ all the fullness of the Godhead dwells, because he is the head, in whom are all the senses. But in the Saints there is, as it were, touch alone, to whom the Spirit was given by measure, since *of his fullness they received*[^p274-2]. But they received of his fullness not according to essence, but according to likeness, because they never received that same grace essentially, but a like grace. That *boy*, therefore, was *full of wisdom and grace* from the very conception. Whence Jeremiah rightly says: *The Lord will create a new thing upon the earth: a woman shall compass a man*; because in the womb of the Virgin he existed as a perfect man, not only on account of soul and flesh, but also on account of the wisdom and grace wherewith he was full.

But to this opinion there seems to stand in the way what is read in the Gospel of Luke[^p274-3]: *Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace before God and men.* For if he advanced in wisdom and grace, he does not seem to have had from the conception the fullness of grace without measure. — To which it can soundly be said that he himself, according to the man, received from the conception so great a fullness of wisdom and grace that God could not confer it on him more fully; and yet he is truly said to have advanced in wisdom and grace, not indeed in himself, but in others, who advanced from his wisdom and grace, while he disclosed to them the gifts of wisdom and grace, according to the progress of age, more and more. Whence Gregory says in a certain homily[^p274-4]: "According to the nature of the man he advanced in wisdom, not that he himself was wiser with time, who from the first hour of his conception remained full of the spirit of wisdom; but the same wisdom wherewith he was full he gradually displayed to others with time. According to the nature of the man he advanced in age from infancy to youth. According to the nature of the man he advanced in grace, not by receiving through the access of time that which he did not have, but by opening forth the gift of grace which he had. *Before God and men*[^p274-5], because, as much as, with advancing age, he disclosed to men the gifts of grace which were within him, and of wisdom, so much did he stir them up to the praise of God; and thus he advanced unto the praise of God the Father and unto the salvation of men." In others, therefore, not in himself, he advanced in wisdom and grace. Whence in the same Gospel[^p274-6] that *boy* is declared *full of wisdom and grace*. So therefore he is said to have advanced *in wisdom and grace*, as some ecclesiastical ruler is said to advance in the care committed to him, when by his industry others advance.

Yet elsewhere it is found written that he advanced according to the sense of the man, just as he advanced in the *age* of the man. For Ambrose says in the book *On the Sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation*[^p274-7] thus: "God assumed the perfection of human nature. He took up the sense of a man, but he was not puffed up by the sense of the flesh. By the sense of a man he said his soul was troubled; by the sense of a man he hungered and prayed; by the sense of a man he advanced, as it is written: *Jesus advanced in age and wisdom and grace.* How did the wisdom of God advance? The advance of age and the advance of wisdom is not of the divine, but of the human. Therefore he made mention of age, so that you might believe it said according to the man. For age is not of the divinity, but of the body. Therefore if he advanced in the age of the man, he advanced in the wisdom of the man. But the sense advanced, and because the sense, therefore the wisdom. Which sense was advancing? If the human, then it was assumed; if the divine, then it is mutable through advance. For what advances is changed into something better, but what is divine is not changed. What therefore is changed is not divine. Therefore the human sense was advancing. Therefore he took up a human sense." "The power of God could not be strengthened, nor could God grow, nor could the height of the wisdom of God be filled. That, therefore, which was being filled was not the wisdom of God, but our wisdom. For how was he being filled who, that he might *fill all things*, descended? But by what sense did Isaiah[^p274-8] say that the boy knew not father or mother? For it is written: *Before the boy knows to call father or mother, he shall receive the spoils of Samaria.* For things future and hidden do not deceive the wisdom of God. But infancy, devoid of recognition, through human imprudence indeed, is ignorant of what it has not yet learned. But it is to be feared, I say, lest, if we attribute to Christ two principal senses, or a twofold wisdom, we divide Christ. Surely, when we adore both his divinity and his flesh, do we divide Christ? Surely, when in him we venerate the image of God and the cross, do we divide him? The Apostle[^p274-9] certainly, who said of him<!-- page 275 -->that, although he was crucified from our weakness, yet he lives by the power of God, himself said that Christ is not divided. Surely also, when we say that he took up a rational soul and one capable of our understanding, do we divide him? For God the Word himself was not in his flesh in place of a rational soul and one capable of understanding; but, taking up a rational soul and one capable of understanding, both itself human and of the same substance whereof are our souls, and a flesh like to ours and of the same substance whereof is our flesh, he was also a perfect man."

These words of Ambrose are to be examined with pious diligence; for on the one hand they instruct and illuminate concerning the ignorance of the man, on the other, when ill understood, they furnish kindling for error. For by these it is evidently handed down that there are in Christ two principal senses, or a twofold wisdom. Nor is the unity and singularity of the person thereby divided, but according to the two natures he has two wisdoms: one not created, but begotten, which he himself is; the other not begotten, but created and conferred upon him by grace. For Isaiah[^p275-1] testifies of him: *The spirit of wisdom and understanding shall rest upon him* etc. By the spirit therefore of wisdom and understanding, that is, by wisdom and intelligence, given freely through the Holy Spirit, Christ was wise according to the soul. But according to God he was wise with begotten wisdom[^p275-2], which he himself is. And just as, insofar as he is God, he is good by natural goodness, which he himself is, and just by natural justice, which he himself is; so he is wise by natural wisdom, which he himself is. But his soul, just as it is good and just by goodness or justice freely given, which he or it is not; so it is wise by wisdom freely given, which it is not. And although there is in Christ a twofold wisdom, yet it is one and the same person who, insofar as he is God, or insofar as he is the divine nature, is wise with eternal wisdom[^p275-3], namely begotten wisdom, that is, by himself, and the wisdom which is not begotten, which is common to the three persons; yet not a twofold wisdom, because the begotten wisdom, which is the Son alone, and the wisdom which the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are in common, are not one and another wisdom. But insofar as the same person is man, that is, according to the man assumed, or insofar as he is subsisting from soul and flesh, he is wise with gratuitous wisdom. He is wise, therefore, by a human sense and by a divine.

But for what cause is the understanding of that saying, namely of Ambrose's "the human sense was advancing," to be taken? For Ambrose seems openly to suggest that Christ advanced according to the human sense, and that his infancy was devoid of knowledge and that he was ignorant of father and mother; which neither the Church receives, nor do the foregoing authorities suffer to be so understood. — But it can soundly be taken thus, that as to the sight of men and the manifestation of his own sense Christ is said to have advanced. The human sense therefore was advancing in him according to the manifestation and the opinion of other men. So too he is said to have been ignorant of father and mother in infancy, because he so bore and conducted himself as if he were devoid of recognition.

---

la: Ioan. 3, 34, et Coloss. 2, 9. — Locus August. est Epist. 187. (alias 57.) c. 13. n. 40.

en: John 3:34, and Colossians 2:9. — The passage of Augustine is *Epistle* 187 (alias 57), c. 13, n. 40.

la: Ioan. 1, 16. — Infra respicitur Luc. 2, 40; denique locus Scripturae est Ier. 31, 22.

en: John 1:16. — Below, reference is made to Luke 2:40; finally the Scripture passage is Jeremiah 31:22.

en: Chapter 2, 52.

la: Glossa ad cit. locum attribuitur Gregorio, sed est potius apud Bedam, Hom. in Dominicam I. post Epiph.

en: The Gloss on the cited passage is attributed to Gregory, but is rather found in Bede, *Homily on the First Sunday after Epiphany*.

la: Edd., excepta I, addunt *proficiebat*, refragantibus codd., et similiter infra ante *et hominibus* non bene repetunt *Dei*.

en: The editions, except I, add *proficiebat*, against the codices, and likewise below, before *et hominibus*, they wrongly repeat *Dei*.

la: Luc. 2, 40. Vulgata: *plenus sapientia, et gratia Dei erat in illo.* — Pro *credita* edd., exceptis 1, 8, *tradita*.

en: Luke 2:40. The Vulgate: *full of wisdom, and the grace of God was in him.* — For *credita* ("committed"), the editions, except 1, 8, read *tradita* ("handed over").

la: Cap. 7. n. 71. 72, ubi respicitur Luc. 2, 52; seq. locus est ibid. usque ad n. 76. — In codd. et edd., exceptis 8 et Vat., citatur Ambrosii liber sic: *in libro III. de Spiritu S.*, sed sic antiquitus liber citabatur. Plura in utroque textu a Magistro sunt omissa et mutata, plura etiam verba in Vat. et pluribus edd. gratuito addita.

en: Chapter 7, nn. 71–72, where Luke 2:52 is referred to; the following passage is ibid. up to n. 76. — In the codices and editions, except 8 and the Vatican, the book of Ambrose is cited thus: *in the third book On the Holy Spirit*, but the book was anciently cited so. Much in both texts has been omitted and altered by the Master, and many words have been gratuitously added in the Vatican and in several editions.

la: Cap. 8, 1, in quo textu codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 4 cum originali omittunt *vocare*. Vulgata: *vocare patrem suum et matrem suam.* Paulo superius respicitur Eph. 4, 10.

en: Chapter 8, 1, in which text the codices and editions 1, 2, 3, 4, with the original, omit *vocare* ("to call"). The Vulgate: *to call his father and his mother.* A little above, reference is made to Ephesians 4:10.

la: Epist. II. ad Cor. 13, 4; deinde I. Cor. 1, 13, ubi Vulgata: *Divisus est Christus?*

en: Second Epistle to the Corinthians 13:4; then 1 Corinthians 1:13, where the Vulgate reads: *Is Christ divided?*

en: Chapter 11, 2.

la: Ita codd. A C D E; cod. B et edd. *aeterna*; pro *ipse est*, quod habent iidem codd. et edd. 1, 8, in aliis *Deus est*.

en: Thus codices A C D E; codex B and the editions read *aeterna* ("eternal"); for *ipse est* ("he himself is"), which the same codices and editions 1, 8 have, in the others *Deus est* ("it is God").

la: Sequimur hic bonam lectionem codd. A C D E (B plura omittit). Vat. et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 ita: *sapientia ingenita, scilicet sapientia aeterna, quae est Pater; et sapientia, quae non est ingenita*; a qua lectione etiam edd. 1, 8 non recedunt, nisi quod in principio legant: *sapientia aeterna, scilicet sapientia ingenita*... Deinde inferius prosequuntur: *sapientia, sapientia ingenita* (ed. 6 *genita*), *quae tantum Filius* (edd. 8 *Pater*), contradicentibus eisdem codd. Manifestum est, lectiones editionum non esse aptas.

en: Here we follow the good reading of codices A C D E (B omits much). The Vatican and editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 read thus: *uncreated wisdom, namely eternal wisdom, which is the Father; and wisdom which is not uncreated*; from which reading editions 1, 8 also do not depart, except that at the beginning they read: *eternal wisdom, namely uncreated wisdom*... Then below they continue: *wisdom, uncreated wisdom* (ed. 6 *begotten*), *which is the Son alone* (edd. 8 *the Father*), the same codices contradicting. It is manifest that the readings of the editions are not apt.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.274–275 (PDF 296–297; offset `pdf = printed + 22`; raw OCR lines 19311–19416 of `raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`), reading each page Left column top→bottom then Right column, body bands then footer bands. The IA djvu OCR served only as the base for clean running prose and for footnote-marker spacing; the column-band PDF read is authoritative for the Quaracchi italics, punctuation, and all footers (per the VOL II/III OVERRIDE in `CLAUDE.md`). Running heads confirmed via the low-dpi bands: `274 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` (p.274) and `DIST. XIII: DIVISIO TEXTUS. 275` (p.275) — printed pages **274–275** confirmed from running-head TEXT, not OCR'd digits.

This is the Lombard *littera* opening **DISTINCTIO XIII** (*Cap. Unicum*), on the wisdom and grace of Christ as man, and whether he could advance in them (*De sapientia et gratia Christi hominis, an in eis proficere potuerit*). The marginal labels in the printed text (`Augustinus`, `Dubium 1/2/3`, `Obiectio ex Evangelio`, `Solutio et dubium 4`, `Gregorius`, `Obiectio ex Ambrosio`, `Solutio`, `Dubium 5`, `Alia verba Ambrosii explicantur`) are Quaracchi editorial marginalia, not part of the Master's text, and are omitted from the body.

**Boundary.** `DISTINCTIO XIII.` opens at raw **19311** (printed p.274). The littera body runs raw 19311→**19416**, ending `…ac si agnitionis esset expers.` The Bonaventure commentary opener `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIII.` begins at raw **19419**, and `DIVISIO TEXTUS.` at raw **19423** — both belong to the **d13-divisio** chunk and are excluded here.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.274** (raw 19311–19383): littera body opening through `…Apostolus[^p274-9] certe, qui de eo di-`; footer block = NOTAE AD LIBRUM SENTENTIARUM **nn.1–9** → `[^p274-1]`–`[^p274-9]` (all littera; no NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM on p.274, since the COMMENTARIUS does not begin until p.275).
- **p.275** (raw 19385–19416): littera body `-xit, quoniam…` through `…ac si agnitionis esset expers.`; the littera's footers are NOTAE AD LIBRUM SENTENTIARUM **nn.1–3** → `[^p275-1]`–`[^p275-3]` (markers: `Isaias[^p275-1]` = *Requiescet super eum*; `sapientia genita[^p275-2]`; `sapientia aeterna[^p275-3]`).

**Apparatus count:** 12 entries (p.274 nn.1–9; p.275 nn.1–3). Marker pairing 12/12 clean in both Latin and English bodies.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* NONE from d.12 — the d.12 dubium closed cleanly at printed p.273 with no footer leak into d.13 (confirmed by the prior subagent, eyes-on p.274).
- *Forwarded to `bon-sent-III-d13-divisio`:* the p.275 **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM** footer block (`1 Codd. P R U bb contrariare.` and `2 Pro satis possunt trahi ex littera cod. U manifestae sunt in littera.`) belongs to the DIVISIO TEXTUS, not the littera — confirmed eyes-on at the bottom of the p.275 column band (the NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM heading sits below the NOTAE AD LIBRUM SENTENTIARUM block). These two footers are the divisio's, keyed to the divisio's `contraire[^1]` and `satis possunt trahi ex littera[^2]` markers. No additional p.275 littera footers remain unclaimed.

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


title: Dist. 13, Divisio Textus

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

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

source_text:
<!-- page 275 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIII.

*De humana Christi natura quoad plenitudinem gratiae et sapientiae simul tractatam.*

*Praeterea sciendum est, Christum secundum hominem etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de humana natura assumta a Christo quantum ad conditionem naturae. In hac vero parte agit de eadem quantum ad plenitudinem gratiae et sapientiae. Dividitur autem pars ista in duas. In quarum prima agit de plenitudine gratiae et sapientiae simul. In secunda vero specialiter de plenitudine scientiae, infra distinctione decima quarta: *Hic quaeri opus est, cum anima Christi* etc.

Prima pars in duas dividitur. In quarum prima determinat veritatem. In secunda removet dubitationem sive dissolvit obiectionem, quae videtur veritati determinatae contraire, ibi: *Huic autem videtur obviare* etc.

Prima pars indivisa potest remanere ob brevitatem; sed secunda pars potest dividi in tres partes. In quarum prima Magister dissolvit et explanat auctoritatem Evangelii, quae contraire[^p275-1] videtur praedeterminatae veritati. In secunda vero opponit contra suam solutionem et expositionem per auctoritatem Ambrosii, ibi: *Alibi tamen scriptum reperitur* etc. In tertia et ultima determinat, qualiter praedicta Ambrosii verba sane et pie possunt intelligi, ibi: *Haec verba Ambrosii pia diligentia* etc. Subdivisiones autem partium satis possunt trahi ex littera[^p275-2].

<!-- page 276 -->

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidit hic quaestio de gratia Christi, quoniam infra[^p276-1] quaeretur de scientia; et cum in praecedentibus habitum sit de gratia unionis, restant hic duo quaerenda.

Primum est de gratia Christi ut singularis personae.

Secundum est de gratia, secundum quam est caput Ecclesiae.

Circa primum tria principaliter sunt quaerenda.

Primum est, utrum gratia singularis personae in Christo sit creata.

Secundo, dato quod sit creata, utrum sit finita et mensurata.

Tertio, dato quod sit finita, quaeritur, utrum sit gratia plena.

english:
<!-- page 275 -->

## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XIII.

*On the human nature of Christ, with respect to the fullness of grace and wisdom treated together.*

*Furthermore it must be known that Christ, as man, etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the human nature assumed by Christ as to the condition of the nature. But in this part he treats of the same as to the fullness of grace and wisdom. Now this part is divided into two. In the first of these he treats of the fullness of grace and wisdom together. In the second, specifically of the fullness of knowledge, below in the fourteenth distinction: *Here it is necessary to inquire, since the soul of Christ* etc.

The first part is divided into two. In the first of these he determines the truth. In the second he removes a doubt, that is, he dissolves an objection which seems to run contrary to the truth that has been determined, there: *But to this there seems to be an obstacle* etc.

The first part can remain undivided on account of its brevity; but the second part can be divided into three parts. In the first of these the Master dissolves and explains an authority of the Gospel, which seems to run contrary[^p275-1] to the truth predetermined. In the second he raises an objection against his own solution and exposition by an authority of Ambrose, there: *Yet elsewhere it is found written* etc. In the third and last he determines in what way the aforesaid words of Ambrose can be soundly and piously understood, there: *These words of Ambrose, with pious diligence* etc. But the subdivisions of the parts can sufficiently be drawn from the text[^p275-2].

<!-- page 276 -->

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Now for the understanding of this part there falls in here a question concerning the grace of Christ, since below[^p276-1] there will be inquiry concerning his knowledge; and since in what precedes there has been treatment of the grace of union, there remain here two things to be inquired into.

The first is concerning the grace of Christ as a singular person.

The second is concerning the grace according to which he is the head of the Church.

Concerning the first, three things principally are to be inquired into.

The first is, whether the grace of a singular person in Christ is created.

Secondly, granted that it is created, whether it is finite and measured.

Thirdly, granted that it is finite, it is asked whether it is full grace.

la: Codd. P R U bb *contrariare*.

en: Codices P R U bb read *contrariare* ["to be contrary"].

la: Pro *satis possunt trahi ex littera* cod. U *manifestae sunt in littera*.

en: In place of *they can sufficiently be drawn from the text*, codex U reads *they are manifest in the text*.

la: Dist. 14.

en: Distinction 14.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed **pp.275–276** (PDF 297–298; offset pdf = printed + 22), read Left column top→bottom then Right column, body then footers (`tools/colcrop.py vol3 275` and `276`). Running heads confirmed eyes-on from the bands: p.275 `DIST. XIII. DIVISIO TEXTUS. 275`; p.276 `276 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` — never the OCR'd digits. The COMMENTARIUS opener + lemma + DIVISIO TEXTUS sit on **p.275**; TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM is on **p.276**. Raw span: COMMENTARIUS raw 19418, DIVISIO TEXTUS raw 19423, TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM raw 19452, last divisio line (`…sit gratia plena.`) raw 19463.

**Page-split map.**
- p.275 (PDF 297): COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIII heading + section title + re-cited lemma (*Praeterea sciendum est…*) + DIVISIO TEXTUS (full). Footers: NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM nn.1–2 → `[^p275-1]`, `[^p275-2]`.
- p.276 (PDF 298): TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (full). Footer: NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM n.1 (`Dist. 14.`) → `[^p276-1]`, marking the TRACTATIO's *infra* ("below … concerning his knowledge"). The remaining p.276 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM footers (nn.2–8) belong to QUAESTIO I's body, which begins on p.276 after ARTICULUS I — they are FORWARDED to `bon-sent-III-d13-a1-q1`.

**Apparatus = 3 entries** (per-page restart): p.275 nn.1–2 + p.276 n.1. Marker pairing 3/3 clean in both bodies.

**Verified TRACTATIO structure** (grep raw 19464–20400): the TRACTATIO enumerates two top-level *quaerenda* — (1) grace of Christ as singular person = **ARTICULUS I** (raw 19464), subdivided into three questions: q1 *utrum sit creata* (raw 19468), q2 *utrum sit finita et mensurata* (raw 19641), q3 *utrum sit gratia plena* (raw 19825); (2) grace as head of the Church = **ARTICULUS II** (raw 19959): q1 (raw 19969), q2 (raw 20154), q3 (raw 20305). The printed listing matches the actual d.13 structure exactly.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up* from `bon-sent-III-d13-littera`: the two p.275 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM footers (`Codd. P R U bb contrariare` → `[^p275-1]`; `Pro satis possunt trahi ex littera cod. U manifestae sunt in littera` → `[^p275-2]`). These are the divisio's, not the littera's (littera consumed p.274 nn.1–9 and p.275 NOTAE AD LIBR. SENT. nn.1–3). Confirmed eyes-on: the NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM heading sits below the NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM block on the p.275 R-col footer band.
- *Forwarded* to `bon-sent-III-d13-a1-q1`: (a) the **ARTICULUS I opener** + subtitle (*De gratia Christi ut singularis personae.*) (raw 19464–19466) folds into a1-q1 per the locked Vol II/III chunking convention (a short ARTICULUS opener is not a standalone chunk); (b) the p.276 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM footers **nn.2–8** (`Cfr. I. Sent. d.17…`, `Codd. Z aa placet`, `Cfr. II. Sent. d.27…`, `Dist. 17. a.1. q.1.`, `Nam, ut II. Sent. d.26…`, `Cfr. supra d.10…`, `De hoc arg. vide supra d.2…`) belong to QUAESTIO I's body, which begins on p.276.

**No `[?]` flags** — fully legible at 450 dpi. Editorial marginalia on the bands (`Solutio`, `Dubium 5.`, `Alia verba Ambrosii explicantur`, `Fundamenta.`) are Quaracchi labels and are omitted from the body.