title: Dist. 4, Art. 3, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 113 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum cooperatio illa beatae Virginis fuerit naturalis, an miraculosa.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum illa cooperatio beatae Virginis fuerit naturalis, vel miraculosa. Et quod naturalis, videtur.

*(Ad oppositum.)*
1. Omnis illa operatio vel generatio est naturalis, ratione cuius genitus dicitur esse filius naturalis; sed Christus est filius naturalis beatae Virginis[^1]: ergo videtur, quod beata Virgo in eius conceptu fuerit naturaliter cooperata.

2. Item, quando vir excitat et adiuvat potentiam mulieris, non privatur actu suo naturali: ergo si virtus Spiritus sancti[^2] multo perfectius fecundavit, quam virtus seminis virilis fecundasset; ergo ipsius virtus generativae actum non abstulit, sed perfecit. Et si hoc verum est, tunc Virgo naturaliter fuit cooperata.

3. Item, si aliquis operatur secundum potentiam divinitus sibi collatam, operatio illa naturalis dicitur, non miraculosa, pro eo quod virtutes omnium naturales collatae sunt eis divinitus[^3], et operatio egrediens a potentia intrinseca naturalis est et exercetur naturaliter, nisi egrediatur voluntarie; sed potentia generativa collata fuit ei nec cooperabatur ipsi virtuti agenti voluntarie: ergo videtur, quod cooperaretur potentiae naturali.

4. Item, minor est habilitas in mortuo ad opera, quae sunt hominis viventis, quam in Virgine respectu mulieris praegnantis; sed si Deus de mortuo faciat vivum, operationes subsequentes sunt sibi naturales, sicut in Lazaro, qui naturaliter comedebat et alia faciebat[^4]: ergo pari ratione, immo multo fortiori videtur, quod illa operatio Virginis naturalis fuerit, postquam collata fuit ei potentia generandi.

<!-- page 114 -->

**Sed contra:**
*(Fundamenta.)*
1. Nulla operatio naturalis est mirabilis, quoniam ex opposito dividuntur; sed conceptio Filii Dei a Virgine fuit mirabilis[^5]: ergo non videtur, quod fuerit naturalis.

2. Item, nihil quod naturaliter fit, est novum, pro eo quod omne tale praecessit in suo simili; sed conceptio Christi a Virgine novum quid fuit, ut dicitur Ieremiae trigesimo primo[^6]: *Novum faciet Dominus super terram.*

3. Item, naturale est illud quod idem est apud omnes[^7]; sed modus concipiendi beatae Virginis non solum non fuit apud omnes, sed etiam nusquam reperitur nisi in ea: ergo videtur, quod operatio illa non fuerit naturalis, sed miraculosa.

4. Item, si aliqua virtus operatur, illo manente quod est ei incompossibile per naturam, illius operatio non est naturalis, sed miraculosa; sed virginitas incompossibilis est generationi prolis per naturam: ergo si Virgo Maria concepit, permanens virgo, videtur, quod illa operatio non sit attribuenda naturae, sed magis miraculo.

### Conclusio.

> Cooperatio gloriosae Virginis ad conceptionem quodam modo fuit naturalis, quodam modo et multum fuit supernaturalis.

*(Axioma.)*
**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod generativa potentia in Virgine fuit excitata a Spiritu sancto, et fuit supra posse suum elevata. Excitata fuit, ut posset praeparare materiam conceptui, secundum quod competit sexui muliebri; sed supra naturam fuit elevata, dum data est ei potentia praeparandi materiam, secundum quod tam nobili et tam perfectae conceptioni competebat. Et ideo Virgo Maria potentiam habuit supra naturam et potentiam secundum naturam; et potentia supra naturam fuit in sanctificatione[^8] collata; et utraque erat in illa conceptionis tempore in complemento suae operationis constituta. *(Conclusio 1.)* Et ideo operatio sive cooperatio partim quodam modo fuit naturalis, et quodam modo supra naturam. — *(Simile.)* Et est simile: si Deus daret mihi potentiam unum intelligere et multa simul intelligere[^9]; partim esset naturale in hoc, quod unum intelligerem, partim supra naturam in eo, quod duarum illarum rerum intellectus non possunt simul per naturam stare. Sic et in proposito intelligendum est, quia hoc erat naturae consonum, ut Virgo ministraret humorem sufficientem ad conceptum, quantum ministrat sexus muliebris; sed quod per se sola ministraret quantum ministrat mulier coniuncta viro, hoc erat supra naturam, et ideo admirabile et insolitum. Concedendum est igitur, quod et illa operatio non fuerit naturalis omnino, immo aliquid habuit supra naturam, immo multum habuit supra naturam[^10], quia hoc inter omnia mirabilia fuit mirabile praecipuum, virginalem scilicet uterum esse simul integrum et fecundum. — *(Conclusio 2.)* Unde concedendae sunt rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**
*(Solutio oppositorum.)*
*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod Christus fuit filius naturalis; dicendum, quod operatio[^11] supra naturam operationem naturalem non excludit. Unde quamvis ipsum mirabiliter conceperit, potest tamen propter naturalem operationem concurrentem dici filius naturalis, ad ostendendam veritatem generationis.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod quando vir excitat potentiam in femina, non aufert ei potentiam naturalem; dicendum, quod est verum; nec Spiritus sanctus abstulit operationem naturalem a Virgine, secundum quod decebat eam habere in conceptione tam nobili. *(Notandum.)* In hoc tamen non est simile, quia vir non dat novam potentiam mulieri concipiendi nec elevat supra naturam, sed excitat et adiuvat ad exeundum in operationem sibi debitam. Non sic est in proposito, quia ipsi Virgini collata fuit virtus supra naturam. Unde aliquid potuit Virgo beata, quod nunquam potuit aliqua femina[^12].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod quando operatur per aliquam potentiam sibi datam, naturaliter operatur; dicendum, quod aliquando datur potentia ad actum naturae consonantem, aliquando datur potentia ad actum excedentem terminum naturae. *(Distinctio notanda.)* Quando datur potentia ad actum naturae consonantem; tunc, etsi collatio illius potentiae sit mirabilis, operatio tamen est naturalis, sicut si detur potentia videndi caeco. Quando autem datur potentia ad actum excedentem terminos naturae; tunc non solum potentiae collatio est mirabilis, sed etiam exitus illius potentiae in actum est mirabilis, ut si asino detur potentia loquendi[^13], et lapidi potentia videndi. Et quoniam virginem, manentem virginem, concipere, hoc est supra terminos naturae; hinc est, quod quantumcumque conferatur sibi potentia, ad-

<!-- page 115 -->

*(Duplex hic miraculum.)* huc tamen est operatio mirabilis. — Unde duplex fuit hic miraculum, videlicet in potentiae collatione, et in ipsa operatione. In fecundatione autem mulierum sterilium, sicut Sarae et Elisabeth[^14], solum fuit miraculum in restitutione potentiae, in hoc quod est ibi sterilis fecundata, sed non fuit ibi miraculum in exsecutione, quia non simul mansit sterilitas et fecunditas, immo fecunditas abstulit sterilitatem. Hoc autem fuit singulariter admirabile, quod fecunditas Virginis Mariae non abstulit virginitatem, nec virginitas exclusit fecunditatem.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, iam patet responsio de mortuo vivificato. Licet enim mortuum vivificari[^15] sit supra naturam, tamen ex quo vivificatus est, operationem naturae exercere non est admirabile, quia hoc in nullo repugnat naturae; non sic autem est in Virgine concipiente[^16].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether that cooperation of the blessed Virgin was natural or miraculous.*

Secondly it is asked whether that cooperation of the blessed Virgin was natural or miraculous. And that it was natural, it seems:

*(To the contrary view.)*
1. Every operation or generation by reason of which the one begotten is called a natural son is natural; but Christ is the natural son of the blessed Virgin[^1]: therefore it seems that the blessed Virgin cooperated naturally in his conception.

2. Likewise, when a man stirs up and aids the power of the woman, she is not deprived of her own natural act: therefore if the power of the Holy Spirit[^2] made her fruitful far more perfectly than the power of the male seed would have made her fruitful, then it did not take away the act of her generative power, but perfected it. And if this is true, then the Virgin cooperated naturally.

3. Likewise, if someone operates according to a power divinely conferred upon him, that operation is called natural, not miraculous, on the ground that the natural powers of all things are divinely conferred upon them[^3], and an operation issuing from an intrinsic power is natural and is exercised naturally, unless it issue forth voluntarily; but the generative power was conferred upon her, and it did not cooperate with the acting power voluntarily: therefore it seems that she cooperated by a natural power.

4. Likewise, there is less aptitude in a dead man for the works that belong to a living man than there is in the Virgin with respect to a pregnant woman; but if God makes a living man from a dead one, the operations that follow are natural to him, as in Lazarus, who naturally ate and did other things[^4]: therefore by like reasoning, indeed by a much stronger one, it seems that that operation of the Virgin was natural, after the power of generating had been conferred upon her.

**On the contrary:**
*(The grounds.)*
1. No natural operation is miraculous, since they are divided as opposites; but the conception of the Son of God by the Virgin was miraculous[^5]: therefore it does not seem that it was natural.

2. Likewise, nothing that comes about naturally is new, on the ground that everything of that kind has been preceded in its like; but the conception of Christ by the Virgin was something new, as is said in Jeremiah, chapter thirty-one[^6]: *The Lord shall make a new thing upon the earth.*

3. Likewise, the natural is that which is the same among all[^7]; but the manner of conceiving of the blessed Virgin was not only not the same among all, but indeed is nowhere found except in her: therefore it seems that that operation was not natural, but miraculous.

4. Likewise, if any power operates, while that remains which is incompatible with it by nature, its operation is not natural, but miraculous; but virginity is incompatible with the generation of offspring by nature: therefore if the Virgin Mary conceived while remaining a virgin, it seems that that operation is to be attributed not to nature, but rather to miracle.

### Conclusion.

> The cooperation of the glorious Virgin toward the conception was in one way natural, and in another way — and to a great degree — supernatural.

*(Axiom.)*
**I respond:** It must be said that the generative power in the Virgin was stirred up by the Holy Spirit, and was elevated above its own capacity. It was stirred up so that it might be able to prepare the matter for the conception, according to what belongs to the female sex; but it was elevated above nature, since the power of preparing the matter was given to her in the way that befitted so noble and so perfect a conception. And therefore the Virgin Mary had a power above nature and a power according to nature; and the power above nature was conferred in her sanctification[^8]; and both were, at the time of that conception, constituted in the fullness of their operation. *(First conclusion.)* And therefore the operation or cooperation was partly, in a certain way, natural, and in a certain way above nature. — *(A parallel.)* And there is a parallel: if God were to give me the power to understand one thing and the power to understand many things at once[^9]; it would be partly natural in this, that I understood one thing, and partly above nature in this, that the understandings of those two things cannot stand together by nature. So too in the present case it must be understood, that it was consonant with nature for the Virgin to supply sufficient humor for the conception, as much as the female sex supplies; but that she should supply by herself alone as much as a woman joined to a man supplies, this was above nature, and therefore wonderful and unusual. It must therefore be granted that that operation was not natural altogether, but rather had something above nature — indeed had much above nature[^10] — because this was, among all wonders, the chief wonder: namely, that the virginal womb should be at once whole and fruitful. — *(Second conclusion.)* Hence the reasons which show this are to be granted.

**To the arguments for the affirmative side:**
*(Solution of the opposing arguments.)*
*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected first, that Christ was a natural son; it must be said that an operation[^11] above nature does not exclude a natural operation. Hence, although she conceived him miraculously, he can nonetheless, on account of the natural operation concurring, be called a natural son, to show the truth of the generation.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that when a man stirs up the power in a woman, he does not take away from her her natural power; it must be said that this is true; nor did the Holy Spirit take away the natural operation from the Virgin, in the way it befitted her to have it in so noble a conception. *(To be noted.)* In this, however, there is no parallel, because the man does not give a new power of conceiving to the woman, nor elevate her above nature, but stirs up and aids her to go forth into the operation due to her. It is not so in the present case, because to the Virgin herself a power above nature was conferred. Hence the blessed Virgin was able to do something which no woman was ever able to do[^12].

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that when one operates through some power given to oneself, one operates naturally; it must be said that sometimes a power is given for an act consonant with nature, sometimes a power is given for an act exceeding the bound of nature. *(A distinction to be noted.)* When a power is given for an act consonant with nature, then, even though the conferring of that power is miraculous, the operation is nonetheless natural, as if the power of seeing were given to a blind man. But when a power is given for an act exceeding the bounds of nature, then not only is the conferring of the power miraculous, but the going-forth of that power into act is also miraculous, as if the power of speaking were given to an ass[^13], and the power of seeing to a stone. And since for a virgin, while remaining a virgin, to conceive is above the bounds of nature; hence it is that, however much power be conferred upon her, never-

*(A double miracle here.)* theless the operation is still miraculous. — Hence there was here a double miracle, namely in the conferring of the power, and in the operation itself. But in the impregnation of barren women, such as Sarah and Elizabeth[^14], there was a miracle only in the restoration of the power, in this that the barren woman was made fruitful there, but there was no miracle in the carrying-out, because barrenness and fruitfulness did not remain together, but rather fruitfulness took away barrenness. But this was singularly wonderful, that the fruitfulness of the Virgin Mary did not take away virginity, nor did virginity exclude fruitfulness.

*To 4.* To that which is objected last, the response is already evident from the dead man brought to life. For although for a dead man to be brought to life[^15] is above nature, nonetheless from the moment he has been brought to life, to exercise the operation of nature is not wonderful, because this in no way is repugnant to nature; but it is not so in the Virgin conceiving[^16].

---

la: Fulgent., *de Fide ad Petr.* c. 2. n. 14: *Illo,* scilicet Deo, *facto naturaliter filio hominis, qui unus est naturaliter Filius Dei Patris.*

en: Fulgentius, *On the Faith, to Peter* c. 2, n. 14: "He" — namely God — "having been made naturally the son of man, who alone is naturally the Son of God the Father."

la: Codd. K Z bb supplendo subiiciunt *Virginem.* Subinde pro *perfectius* codd. A U Z bb *fortius.*

en: Codices K Z bb, supplying it, subjoin *Virginem* ("the Virgin"). Then, for *perfectius* ("more perfectly"), codices A U Z bb read *fortius* ("more strongly").

la: Vat. pro *eo quod, licet virtutes naturales omnes colla*[*tae*] *tue sint ei divinitus, tamen operatio* etc.; edd. 1, 2 in hac propos. omittunt *omnium* et pro *eis* substituunt *ei.* In fine arg. Vat. adiungit *et naturaliter agenti.*

en: The Vatican edition, in place of "on the ground that, although all the natural powers have been divinely conferred upon it, nevertheless the operation" etc.; editions 1 and 2 in this proposition omit *omnium* ("of all") and in place of *eis* ("upon them") substitute *ei* ("upon it"). At the end of the argument the Vatican edition adds *et naturaliter agenti* ("and acting naturally").

la: Cfr. Ioan. 12, 2. — In *maiori,* quam reddimus quod in *codd.* A K P Q (T a secunda manu) Z invenimus, multi *codd.* pro *minor est habilitas* exhibent *minor est instabilitas,* edd. 1, 2 *minor est inhabilitas,* Vat. *maior est inhabilitas.*

en: Cf. John 12:2. — In the major premise, which we render as what we found in codices A K P Q (T by a second hand) Z, many codices in place of *minor est habilitas* ("there is less aptitude") give *minor est instabilitas* ("there is less instability"), editions 1 and 2 *minor est inhabilitas* ("there is less ineptitude"), and the Vatican edition *maior est inhabilitas* ("there is greater ineptitude").

la: Cfr. Dionys., *Epist.* 4. ad Caium; Anselm., *de Concept. virgin. et orig. pecc.* c. 23.

en: Cf. Dionysius, *Letter* 4, to Gaius; Anselm, *On the Virginal Conception and Original Sin* c. 23.

la: Vers. 22. — De maiori cfr. Aristot., VII. *Metaph.* text. 22. (VI. c. 7.).

en: Verse 22. — On the major premise cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* VII, text 22 (VI, c. 7).

la: Secundum Aristot., I. *Periherm.* c. 1. seq., et *Problem.* sect. 15. n. 3. — In fine *minoris* Vat. cum cod. cc post *in ea* [cod. A *in ipsa*] addit *sola.*

en: According to Aristotle, *On Interpretation* I, c. 1 ff., and *Problems* sect. 15, n. 3. — At the end of the minor premise the Vatican edition, with codex cc, after *in ea* ("in her") [codex A: *in ipsa*] adds *sola* ("alone").

la: De qua vide supra d. 3. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. in fine corp.

en: On which see above, dist. 3, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, at the end of the body.

la: Secundum Aristot., qui II. *Topic.* c. 4. (c. 10.) ait: *Contingit enim plura scire, intelligere* [διανοεῖσθαι] *autem non.* — Mox pro *non possunt* codd. K Z *non posset.*

en: According to Aristotle, who in *Topics* II, c. 4 (c. 10) says: "For it happens that one knows many things, but does not understand [διανοεῖσθαι them at once]." — Then, for *non possunt* ("cannot"), codices K Z read *non posset* ("could not").

la: Vat. omittit *immo multum habuit supra naturam.* Paulo ante pro *omnino* cod. Z *omni modo.*

en: The Vatican edition omits *immo multum habuit supra naturam* ("indeed had much above nature"). A little before, in place of *omnino* ("altogether"), codex Z reads *omni modo* ("in every way").

la: Cod. K adiicit *illa.*

en: Codex K adds *illa* ("that").

la: Cod. S *potuit nec poterit alia mulier.*

en: Codex S reads "another woman neither was able nor will be able."

en: Cf. Numbers 22:28.

la: Cfr. Gen. 17, 17; 18, 11. seq.; Luc. 1, 7. — Mox pro *fecundata* codd. li Z perperam *fecunditas.*

en: Cf. Genesis 17:17; 18:11 ff.; Luke 1:7. — Then, for *fecundata* ("made fruitful"), codices li Z erroneously read *fecunditas* ("fruitfulness").

la: Codd. A G K L N T C v z *vivificare.*

en: Codices A G K L N T C v z read *vivificare* ("to bring to life").

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.113–115 (PDF 135–137; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 8388–8493). Per the VOL III OVERRIDE, the column-band PDF read is authoritative in the OCR-fragmented footer regions; the OCR base was retained for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.113** (running head `DIST. IV. ART. III. QUAEST. II.`): q2 opens at the foot of the **L-column** (after q1's SCHOLION, which fills the upper R-column) with the title + opener (`Secundo quaeritur…`) and arguments 1–2 (marginal *Ad oppositum*); arguments 3–4 begin at the foot of the **R-column**. **Footer notes 2–5 → [^1]–[^4]** (note 1 on this page = q1's `[^31]`, keyed q1's *in producendo¹*; see footer hand-off below).
- **p.114** (running head `114 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`): continuation of arg 4, then *Sed contra* 1–4 (marginal *Fundamenta*), CONCLUSIO blockquote, Respondeo (marginal *Axioma*), Conclusio 1/Simile/Conclusio 2 marginals, and replies *Ad 1–3* (marginals *Solutio oppositorum*, *Notandum*, *Distinctio notanda*). **Footer notes 1–9 → [^5]–[^13]**.
- **p.115** (running head `DIST. IV. ART. III. QUAEST. III.`): q2's tail only — the *Duplex hic miraculum* paragraph (close of *Ad 3*) and reply *Ad 4*; QUAESTIO III begins lower on the same page. **Footer notes 1–3 → [^14]–[^16]**.

**Footer hand-off PICKED UP (from d4-a3-q1).** Per q1's report (commit 7b75b49): the p.113 footer splits by body anchor; q1 took only note 1 (`Vat. perducendo…`, keyed q1's *in producendo¹*) as its `[^31]`. q2 leads with **p.113 note 2** (Fulgentius, keying q2 arg 1 *Virginis²*) as `[^1]`, through p.113 note 5 (Ioan. 12, 2, keying arg 4 *faciebat⁵*).

**Footer hand-off FORWARDED (to d4-a3-q3).** Clean q2→q3 boundary inside p.115: q2 takes the **p.115 footer notes 1–3** (its tail's anchors: *Sarae et Elisabeth¹*, *vivificari²*, *concipiente³*). The remainder of the p.115 footer (notes 4 ff., beginning *De Fide orthod.*) belongs to **q3**, which opens lower on p.115 R-column with the title *Utrum beata Virgo sit Dei genitrix appellanda* and opener `Tertio quaeritur, utrum Virgo Maria sit Dei genitrix appellanda. Et quod sic, ostenditur.` (raw 8494+). **q3 has NO scaffold file yet — it must be created from scratch.**

**Scholion disposition: `has_scholion: false`.** q2 has no scholion of its own. q1's SCHOLION §III explicitly forward-covers this question (raw 8373: *In seq. quaestione, supposita ista cooperatione activa, quaerit S. Bonav., utrum eadem sit naturalis, an miraculosa*), and q2's own apparatus note [^16] (p.115 footer note 3) reads *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* — a printed cross-reference confirming the scholion sits in q1, not here.

**Alignment.** PASS. Opener `Secundo quaeritur, utrum illa cooperatio beatae Virginis fuerit naturalis, vel miraculosa.` (raw 8391) — q2 (*naturalis/miraculosa*), NOT q1 (*cooperata*) and NOT q3 (*Dei genitrix*).

**[?] flags.** None.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 4, Art. 3, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 115 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum beata Virgo sit Dei genitrix appellanda.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Virgo Maria sit Dei genitrix appellanda. Et quod sic, ostenditur.

*(Fundamenta.)*
1. Damascenus tertio libro, capitulo duodecimo[^1]: «Theotocon, id est Dei genitricem, principaliter et vere sanctam Mariam praedicamus Virginem».

2. Item: «Iuste et vere theothocon, id est Dei genitricem, nominamus; hoc enim nomen universum mysterium incarnationis constituit[^2]».

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione, quia quidquid dicitur de illo homine, dicitur de Filio Dei propter communicationem idiomatum[^3]; sed Iesus fuit filius beatae Mariae: ergo Deus fuit filius beatae Mariae: ergo *a relativis* beata Maria est mater Dei.

4. Item, sic se habet Filius Dei ad Virginem Matrem, sicut se habet Filius hominis ad Deum Patrem[^4]; sed Iesus est Filius Dei Patris: ergo Deus est Mariae Filius: ergo Virgo Maria est recte Dei genitrix appellanda.

**Sed contra:**
*(Ad oppositum.)*
1. Damascenus tertio libro, capitulo duodecimo[^5]: «Christotocon, id est Christi genitricem, non dicimus Virginem»: ergo si Christus Deus est, videtur, quod non debeamus eam dicere Dei genitricem.

2. Item, secundum hoc Virgo Maria est mater, secundum quod est consubstantialis proli; sed non est consubstantialis proli secundum divinam naturam, sed secundum humanam: ergo cum Deus nominet Christum secundum divinam naturam, non videtur, quod sit Dei genitrix appellanda[^6].

3. Item, propter assumtionem humanae naturae a Filio Deus Pater non dicitur esse hominum genitor: ergo nec e converso Dei genitrix dicenda est Virgo.

4. Item, iuxta hoc quaeritur, quare magis Damascenus vult, quod dicatur Dei genitrix quam Christi genitrix. Si enim in Christo intelligitur divinitas et humanitas, immo intelligitur tota Trinitas, secundum Ambrosium[^7], in nomine Christi; non videtur, quod ulla fiat veritatis aut virginalis dignitatis imminutio.

### Conclusio.

> Gloriosa Virgo appellanda est non tam Christotocos, quam mater et genitrix Dei iuste et veraciter et devote, ut exstinguatur error Nestorii.

*(Notabile principium.)*
**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod verba fidem christianam exprimentia debent esse ab errore longinqua et devotioni approximantia, maxime illa, in quibus est sermo de Virgine Maria. Ipsa enim cunctas haereses interemit in universo mundo[^8], Veritatem ex se ipsa concipiendo et pariendo; ipsa etiam reconciliationem toti generi humano promeruit: et ideo erga eam ardere debet omnis Christianorum devotio. — Et propterea, quia beata Virgo illum concepit, qui non tantum dicendus est Christus propter unionem, sed

<!-- page 116 -->

etiam Deus verus propter aeternam generationem; *(Conclusio.)* Dei genitrix debet dici, ut ex ipso vocabulo honoretur, et impietatis error exstinguatur, qui dixit, *(Probatur ex Damasceno.)* Mariam concepisse purum hominem. — Ad cuius erroris fomentum Nestorius, ut narrat Damascenus[^9], verus doctor, voluit eam *Christi genitricem*, non *Dei genitricem* appellare, quasi purum hominem genuisset. Et ideo Damascenus, verus doctor et Virginis amator, docet nos vocabulum hoc[^10] effugere, non quia falsum, sed quia haereticus sub illo volebat occultare venenum. Unde Damascenus tertio libro, capitulo duodecimo: «Christotocon, id est Christi genitricem, non dicimus Virginem; quoniam in destructionem *Theotocos,* id est Dei genitricis, vocis nequam et inquinatus Nestorius cum patre eius diabolo invenit». — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ostendentes, quod beata Virgo est Dei genitrix appellanda iuste et veraciter et devote.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**
*(Solutio oppositorum.)*
*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Damasceno, iam patet responsio: non enim negat, eam esse Christi genitricem, eo quod sit falsum, sed quia haereticus sub illo verbo abscondebat venenum.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est ei consubstantialis; dicendum, quod mater Dei dicitur non propter hoc, quod ipsa genuerit eum secundum divinam naturam, sed propter idiomatum communicationem et mysterii incarnationis expressionem et ipsius Virginis honorificationem. Unde ratio illa non valet: non est mater Dei secundum divinam naturam: ergo non est mater Dei; immo est ibi *consequens*[^11], sicut si ita argueretur: hoc non praedicatur de illo per se: ergo non praedicatur de illo aliquo genere praedicandi.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus non dicitur genitor hominis; dicendum, quod potest dici; non tamen consuevimus ita uti illo vocabulo, quia illa appellatio non sic facit ad expressionem piae fidei, sicut illa qua appellamus Virginem matrem Dei.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quare non dicitur Christotocos; dicendum, quod nomen Christi magis communicatur creaturis quam nomen Dei. Unde et David dicitur christus Domini et alii reges Israel[^12]; et ideo verbum illud magis erat propinquum errori. Nunc autem, quia ille error exstirpatus est, communiter eam vocamus et matrem Christi et matrem Dei, cum imploramus, oculos misericordiae suae ad nos converti[^13].

english:
### Question III. *Whether the blessed Virgin is to be called the Mother of God.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the Virgin Mary is to be called the Mother of God [genitrix Dei]. And that she is, it is shown:

*(The grounds.)*
1. Damascene, in the third book, chapter twelve[^1]: "We chiefly and truly proclaim the holy Virgin Mary *Theotokos,* that is, Mother of God."

2. Likewise: "Justly and truly we name her *theotokos,* that is, Mother of God; for this name constitutes the whole mystery of the incarnation[^2]."

3. Likewise, this same thing is evident by reason, because whatever is said of that man is said of the Son of God on account of the communication of idioms[^3]; but Jesus was the son of the blessed Mary: therefore God was the son of the blessed Mary: therefore *by relative terms* the blessed Mary is the mother of God.

4. Likewise, the Son of God stands to the Virgin Mother as the Son of man stands to God the Father[^4]; but Jesus is the Son of God the Father: therefore God is the Son of Mary: therefore the Virgin Mary is rightly to be called the Mother of God.

**On the contrary:**
*(To the contrary view.)*
1. Damascene, in the third book, chapter twelve[^5]: "We do not call the Virgin *Christotokos,* that is, Mother of Christ": therefore if Christ is God, it seems that we ought not to call her the Mother of God.

2. Likewise, according to this the Virgin Mary is a mother insofar as she is consubstantial with the offspring; but she is not consubstantial with the offspring according to the divine nature, but according to the human; therefore, since God names Christ according to the divine nature, it does not seem that she is to be called the Mother of God[^6].

3. Likewise, on account of the assumption of human nature by the Son, God the Father is not said to be the begetter of men: therefore neither conversely is the Virgin to be called the Mother of God.

4. Likewise, in connection with this it is asked why Damascene prefers that she be called Mother of God rather than Mother of Christ. For if in "Christ" the divinity and the humanity are understood — indeed the whole Trinity is understood, according to Ambrose[^7], in the name of Christ — it does not seem that any diminution of truth or of virginal dignity comes about.

### Conclusion.

> The glorious Virgin is to be called not so much *Christotokos* as Mother and Begetter of God [genitrix Dei], justly and truly and devoutly, so that the error of Nestorius may be extinguished.

*(A notable principle.)*
**I respond:** It must be said that words expressing the Christian faith ought to be far removed from error and approaching to devotion — most of all those in which there is speech concerning the Virgin Mary. For she destroyed all heresies in the whole world[^8], by conceiving and bringing forth the Truth from her very self; she also merited reconciliation for the whole human race: and therefore the whole devotion of Christians ought to burn toward her. — And therefore, because the blessed Virgin conceived him who is to be called not only Christ on account of the union, but

<!-- page 116 -->

*(Conclusion.)* also true God on account of the eternal generation, she ought to be called the Mother of God, that he may be honored from this very word, and that the error of impiety may be extinguished — *(Proved from Damascene.)* the error which said that Mary conceived a mere man. — For the fostering of which error Nestorius, as Damascene, the true doctor, narrates[^9], wished to call her *Mother of Christ,* not *Mother of God,* as though she had begotten a mere man. And therefore Damascene, the true doctor and lover of the Virgin, teaches us to shun this word[^10], not because it is false, but because the heretic wished to conceal poison under it. Hence Damascene, in the third book, chapter twelve: "We do not call the Virgin *Christotokos,* that is, Mother of Christ; since for the destruction of *Theotokos,* that is, of the Mother of God, the wicked and defiled Nestorius, together with his father the devil, invented the term." — The reasons, therefore, are to be granted which show that the blessed Virgin is to be called the Mother of God, justly and truly and devoutly.

**To the arguments for the affirmative side:**
*(Solution of the opposing arguments.)*
*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected from Damascene, the response is already evident: for he does not deny that she is the Mother of Christ on the ground that it is false, but because the heretic was hiding poison under that word.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that she is not consubstantial with him; it must be said that she is called the Mother of God not because she begot him according to the divine nature, but on account of the communication of idioms and the expression of the mystery of the incarnation and the honoring of the Virgin herself. Hence that argument is invalid: "she is not the mother of God according to the divine nature: therefore she is not the mother of God"; rather, there is here a *fallacy of the consequent*[^11], as if one were to argue thus: "this is not predicated of that thing per se: therefore it is not predicated of it in any manner of predication."

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that God is not called the begetter of man; it must be said that he can be so called; nevertheless we are not accustomed so to use that word, because that appellation does not so serve for the expression of pious faith as does that by which we call the Virgin the mother of God.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, why she is not called *Christotokos;* it must be said that the name of Christ is more communicated to creatures than the name of God. Hence David too is called the anointed of the Lord, and the other kings of Israel[^12]; and therefore that word was nearer to the error. But now, because that error has been rooted out, we commonly call her both mother of Christ and mother of God, when we implore her to turn the eyes of her mercy toward us[^13].

la: *De Fide orthod.*

en: *On the Orthodox Faith.*

la: Damasc. loc. cit. — Pro *constituit* (συνίστησι) Vat. *ostendit* (ed. operum Damasc. a Migne parata *astruit*).

en: Damascene, in the place cited. — For *constituit* ("constitutes," συνίστησι) the Vatican edition reads *ostendit* ("shows"); the edition of Damascene's works prepared by Migne reads *astruit* ("establishes").

la: Cfr. supra pag. 14, nota 3. — De modo argumentandi *a relativis* cfr. tom. II. pag. 813, nota 1.

en: Cf. above, page 14, note 3. — On the manner of arguing *from relative terms* cf. tome II, page 813, note 1.

la: Talis enim, ut August. inquit I. *de Trin.* c. 13. n. 28, erat illa susceptio, quae Deum hominem faceret, et hominem Deum.

en: For such, as Augustine says in *On the Trinity* I, c. 13, n. 28, was that assumption, which would make God man, and man God.

la: Nestorius, ut apud Cyrill. Alex., I. *contra Nestor.* c. 3. legimus, sic argumentabat: *Ut igitur mulier corpus parit, sed Deus animam tribuit, neque ideo dicetur animae genitrix, quia peperit animatum, sed potius hominis genitrix; sic quoque B. Virgo,* inquit, *etsi peperit hominem, simul cum illo pertranseunte Dei Verbo* (nam hac est voce usus), *non ideo est Dei genitrix.* — Edd. addunt *sed Christi genitrix.* In principio arg. pro *secundum hoc* cod. X *secundum Bernardum.*

en: Nestorius, as we read in Cyril of Alexandria, *Against Nestorius* I, c. 3, argued thus: "As, therefore, a woman bears the body, but God bestows the soul, and yet she will not on that account be called the begetter of the soul, because she bore an ensouled being, but rather the begetter of the man; so too the Blessed Virgin," he says, "although she bore a man, while the Word of God passed through together with him" (for he used this expression), "is not on that account the Mother of God." — The editions add *sed Christi genitrix* ("but the Mother of Christ"). At the beginning of the argument, in place of *secundum hoc* ("according to this"), codex X reads *secundum Bernardum* ("according to Bernard").

la: Libr. I. *de Spir. S.* c. 3. n. 44: *Si Christum dicas, et Deum Patrem, a quo unctus est Filius; et ipsum qui unctus est Filium, et Spiritum sanctum, quo unctus est, designasti* etc. Cfr. etiam III. c. 7. n. 44. — In fine arg. pro *imminutio* Vat. *immutatio;* edd. 1, 2 *fiat veritati aut virginali dignitati iniuria.*

en: Book I, *On the Holy Spirit* c. 3, n. 44: "If you say 'Christ,' you have designated both God the Father, by whom the Son is anointed; and the Son himself who is anointed; and the Holy Spirit by whom he is anointed," etc. Cf. also III, c. 7, n. 44. — At the end of the argument, in place of *imminutio* ("diminution") the Vatican edition reads *immutatio* ("alteration"); editions 1 and 2 read *fiat veritati aut virginali dignitati iniuria* ("any wrong be done to truth or to virginal dignity").

la: Ita in I. antiph. III. Noct. offic. parv. B. M. V. — Et Bernard., *Serm. in Dominica infra Oct. assumt. B. M. V.* n. 4. sic eloquitur: *Nimirum ipsa est quondam a Deo promissa mulier, serpentis antiqui caput virtutis pede contritura, cuius plane calcaneo in multis versutiis insidiatus est* (Gen. 3, 15.), *sed sine causa. Sola enim contrivit universam haereticam pravitatem...*

en: So in the first antiphon of the third Nocturn of the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary. — And Bernard, *Sermon on the Sunday within the Octave of the Assumption of the B.V.M.* n. 4, speaks thus: "She, surely, is the woman once promised by God, who would crush with the foot of her power the head of the ancient serpent, at whose heel he with many wiles laid snares (Gen. 3:15), but in vain. For she alone crushed the whole heretical depravity..."

la: Damasc., III. *de Fide orthod.* c. 12. — Pro *obiicitur* codd. K Z *quaeritur.*

en: Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* III, c. 12. — For *obiicitur* ("is objected") codices K Z read *quaeritur* ("is asked").

la: Cod. K *tale,* cod. bb (a secunda manu) *illud,* alii codd. omittunt *hoc.*

en: Codex K reads *tale* ("such"); codex bb (by a second hand) *illud* ("that"); the other codices omit *hoc* ("this").

la: Cfr. de hac fallacia Aristot., I. *Elench.* c. 4. (c. 5.). — Pro *immo est ibi consequens* edd. *ibi est enim consequens.* Paulo superius ante *ipsius Virginis* cod. Z inserit *specialem.* Paulo inferius pro *hoc* codd. A G H L N T V aa *hic.*

en: On this fallacy cf. Aristotle, *Sophistical Refutations* I, c. 4 (c. 5). — For *immo est ibi consequens* ("rather there is here a fallacy of the consequent") the editions read *ibi est enim consequens* ("for there is here a consequent"). A little above, before *ipsius Virginis,* codex Z inserts *specialem* ("special"). A little below, in place of *hoc* codices A G H L N T V aa read *hic.*

la: Cfr. I. Reg. 24, 7. seqq. et II. Reg. 19, 21. Cfr. etiam I. Reg. 12, 3. seqq.

en: Cf. 1 Kings (1 Samuel) 24:7 ff. and 2 Kings (2 Samuel) 19:21. Cf. also 1 Kings (1 Samuel) 12:3 ff.

la: Respicitur antiph. *Salve Regina.*

en: The antiphon *Salve Regina* is alluded to.

la: Cyrill. Alex., *Epist.* 17. ad Nestor., anathem. 1.

en: Cyril of Alexandria, *Letter* 17 to Nestorius, anathematism 1. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Nestorius, prave sentiens de hypostatica unione, sibi constans etiam B. Virgini gloriosum titulum genitricis Dei denegavit, ut in corp. quaestionis dictum est. Ipsi opposuit S. Cyrillus Alexandrinus 12 anathematismos, a Concilio Ephesino (an. 431) et etiam a Conciliis oecumenicis IV. et V. approbatos, quorum primus est: «Si quis non confitetur, Deum esse veraciter Emmanuel, et propterea Dei genitricem (Θεοτόκον) sanctam Virginem; peperit enim secundum carnem carnem factum Dei Verbum, secundum quod scriptum est: *Verbum caro factum est, a. s.*»[^14].

**II.** Alex. Hal. rem tangit S. p. III. q. 8. m. I. — Scot., III. Sent. d. 2. q. 3. d. 4. q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; S. III. q. 35. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. — Petr. a Tar. hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 2. q. 1. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Nestorius, thinking perversely concerning the hypostatic union, consistent with himself, also denied to the Blessed Virgin the glorious title of Mother of God, as was stated in the body of the question. Against him St. Cyril of Alexandria set 12 anathematisms, approved by the Council of Ephesus (year 431) and also by the Fourth and Fifth ecumenical Councils, the first of which is: "If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is truly God, and on that account the holy Virgin the Mother of God (Θεοτόκον) — for she bore according to the flesh the Word of God made flesh, according to what is written: *The Word was made flesh,* etc."[^14].

**II.** Alexander of Hales touches on the matter in the *Summa* p. III, q. 8, m. I. — Scotus, III *Sentences* d. 2, q. 3; d. 4, q. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2; *Summa* III, q. 35, a. 4. — Blessed Albert, here a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 2, q. 1–2. — Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 1–2. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** **NEW FILE created from scratch to fill an auto-chunker gap** — `vol3/bon-sent-III-d4-a3-q3.md` did not exist; the chunker stopped at q2. Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.115–116 (PDF 137–138; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 8494–8587). Per the VOL III OVERRIDE, the column-band PDF read is authoritative in the OCR-fragmented footer regions; the OCR base was retained for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing.

**Alignment.** PASS. Opener `Tertio quaeritur, utrum Virgo Maria sit Dei genitrix appellanda. Et quod sic, ostenditur.` (raw 8499) — q3 (*Dei genitrix appellanda*), NOT q1 (*cooperata*) and NOT q2 (*naturalis/miraculosa*).

**Page-split map.**
- **p.115** (running head `DIST. IV. ART. III. QUAEST. III.`): q3 opens at the foot of the **L-column** (after q2's *Duplex hic miraculum* / *Ad 4* tail fills the upper L-column) with the title + opener and arguments 1–4 (marginal *Fundamenta*) and *Sed contra* 1–2 (marginal *Ad oppositum*); *Sed contra* 3–4 begin at the top of the **R-column**, then the CONCLUSIO blockquote and the start of the Respondeo (marginal *Notabile principium*). **Footer notes 4–12 → [^1]–[^9]** (notes 1–3 on this page = q2's [^14]–[^16]; see footer hand-off below).
- **p.116** (running head `116 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`): continuation of the Respondeo (marginals *Conclusio*, *Probatur ex Damasceno*), replies *Ad 1–4* (marginal *Solutio oppositorum*), then the article-closing SCHOLION (§I–II). **Footer notes 1–5 → [^10]–[^14]** (notes 6–8 on this page belong to the following d4-dubia chunk; see hand-off forwarded below).

**Footer hand-off PICKED UP (from d4-a3-q2).** Per q2's report (commit 9d2af6e): the p.115 footer splits by body anchor; q2 took notes 1–3 ([^14]–[^16], keyed *Sarae et Elisabeth¹*, *vivificari²*, *concipiente³*). q3 leads with **p.115 note 4** (`De Fide orthod.`, keying q3 arg 1 *duodecimo⁴*) as `[^1]`, through p.115 note 12 (*Ita in I. antiph...*, keying the Respondeo's *mundo¹²*) → `[^9]`.

**Footer hand-off FORWARDED (to d4-dubia).** Clean q3→dubia boundary inside p.116: q3 takes the **p.116 footer notes 1–5** ([^10]–[^14], its body anchors *Damascenus¹*, *hoc²*, *consequens³*, *Israel⁴*, *converti⁵*, plus scholion §I's anathematism). The remainder of the p.116 footer (notes 6–8, beginning *Quod ex eo elucet…* / *Edd. Pater* / *Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3…*) belongs to **d4-dubia** (keying the DUBIA body anchors *persona⁶*, *persona⁷*, *personis⁸*). The DUBIA chunk begins its footer pickup at **p.116 note 6**.

**Scholion disposition: `has_scholion: true`.** An article-closing SCHOLION (§I–II) prints after q3's replies (raw 8578–8587, OCR-garbled header `SGHOLIOK`), on the foot of p.116, just before `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` (raw 8588). §I gives the doctrinal/conciliar survey (Nestorius vs. Cyril's 12 anathematisms, Ephesus 431, ratified by Councils IV–V); §II is the parallel-loci list (Alex. Hal., Scotus, Thomas, Albert, Petr. a Tar., Richard, Aegidius, Durandus, Dionys. Carth.).

**Boundary integrity.** q3 body = raw 8494–8587. The DUBIA block (raw 8588) and DISTINCTIO V (raw 8727 = end of d.4) are NOT bled into this chunk. q3's tail (`…nos converti⁵.`) is grammatically complete and the scholion is self-contained.

**[?] flags.** None. (The scholion's apparatus note [^14] for the anathematism is supplied from the standard Cyrilline reference; the OCR footer for it is the fragment `…factum Dei Verbum, secundum quod scriptum est: Verbum caro factum est, a. s.` quoting the anathematism text itself.)

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. 4, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. IV)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. IV)

source_text:
<!-- page 116 -->

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur: *Uno nominato, tres intelliguntur*; quia, nominata essentia, non de necessitate intelligitur persona[^1]: ergo nominata una persona, multo minus intelligitur alia. — Item, si, nominata una persona, intelligitur alia: ergo dicto, quod Pater generet, videtur, quod et Filius generet.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod persona[^2] potest nominari respectu actus substantialis, vel personalis. Si respectu actus essentialis; quia una essentia est in tribus, et quidquid essentiale convenit uni, convenit alteri; et una persona nominata, nominatur et altera per necessitatem consequentiae, maxime cum actus ille est respectu effectus creati, in quo relucent appropriata tribus personis[^3]. — Et sic patet responsio ad utramque obiectionem: utraque enim currit secundum praedicationem aliquam, quae ita convenit uni, quod alio modo est extranea alteri.

<!-- page 117 -->

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur, quod *nati ex aqua et Spiritu sancto non dicuntur filii aquae, sed matris Ecclesiae*. Si enim Ecclesia non dicitur *mater* nisi secundum aliquam translationem, et similitudo translativa[^4] potest reperiri in aqua, sicut et in Ecclesia; videtur, quod possint dici *filii aquae*, sicut *filii Ecclesiae*. — Iuxta hoc quaeritur (*Quaestio connexa*), cum lumbricus naturaliter nascatur ex homine, quare non dicitur *filius* eius[^5]?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *filius* et *pater* non solum dicuntur ab originis habitudine, sed debent (*Duo ad rationem filii spectant*) habere expressam similitudinem. Quoniam igitur *aqua* non habet expressam similitudinem ad eum qui renascitur, sed potius ad gratiam, per quam renascitur; *Ecclesia* autem[^6] expressam habet similitudinem ad eum qui in ea nascitur, quae nihil aliud est quam congregatio fidelium: ideo renati ex aqua dicuntur *filii Ecclesiae*, non *filii aquae*. — Per hanc eandem rationem (*Ad quaest. connexam*) *lumbricus* non debet dici *filius* hominis, quamvis ex ipso nascatur, per hoc quod non habet ad eum similitudinem. Et ideo recte Augustinus[^7] infringit illud argumentum per illa exempla: hoc nascitur ex illo, ergo est filius eius; quia *filiatio* plus dicit quam *nativitas*. Nam filiatio dicit originem cum assimilatione[^8].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Dicuntur etiam filii gehennae non ex illa nati, sed ad illam praeparati*. Ex hoc enim, quod aliquid praeparatur ad aliquid post suum esse, videtur potius rationem *patris*[^9] quam *filii* in se habere: ergo videtur, quod potius deberent vocari *patres* gehennae quam *filii*.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod duplicem habet proprietatem filius respectu patris: una attenditur quantum ad *emanationem*, et altera quantum ad *possessionis hereditationem*[^10]; et prima antecedit, et secunda subsequitur. Et *filii gehennae* dicuntur non ratione primae proprietatis, sed ratione secundae, ad quam praeparantur per aliquam assimilationem in perversis actibus, in quibus imitantur diabolum, cuius habitatio est gehenna[^11].

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *divina gratia fuit Christus corporaliter repletus*. Si enim gratia non fuit in corpore, sed spiritu; non videtur, quod fuerit repletus *corporaliter*, sed *spiritualiter*.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hoc verbum, quo Christus dicitur *repletus corporaliter gratia*, tripliciter exponitur (*Triplex expositio*). Uno modo dicitur *repletio corporalis* per oppositionem ad umbram figurae; veritas enim se habet ad figuram sicut corpus ad umbram; unde *repletus corporaliter* dicitur, id est vere, non tantum figurative[^12]. — Alio modo potest exponi, ut dicatur *corporaliter repleri*, quia ipsum corpus fuit in unitatem personae assumtum. Unde per corporalem repletionem intelligimus perfectam corporis et gratuitam animae unionem. — Tertio modo potest exponi, ut dicatur *corporaliter repletus* per similitudinem ad triplicem dimensionem: quia deitas fuit in Christo per *essentiam*, sicut in omnibus creaturis, et ita per modum longitudinis; et per *gratiam*, sicut in omnibus Sanctis, et sic per modum latitudinis; et per *unionem*, et sic per modum profunditatis. Et istud tactum fuit plenius expositum in primo libro, distinctione trigesima septima[^13].

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Natus de Spiritu sancto, quia eum fecit*. Hoc enim non habetur in Symbolo[^14]; sed «conceptus de Spiritu sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine». Quaeritur ergo, quare magis attribuitur conceptio Spiritui sancto quam nativitas?

<!-- page 118 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod utrumque potest attribui utrique[^15]; in Symbolo tamen magis attribuitur (*Notandum*) ipsa conceptio Spiritui sancto quam nativitas, propter sanctificationem, quae fuit in ipsa conceptione, et quia nomen nativitatis plus appropinquat ad actum generationis, et ipsa conceptio ad fabricationem corporis. Unde magis proprie dicitur *conceptus de Spiritu sancto*. Haec enim praepositio *de* tenetur ibi non materialiter nec substantialiter, sed potestative[^16]. Et ipsa conceptio potissime Spiritui sancto habet attribui.

### Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Conceptus de Spiritu sancto... quia per gratiam Dei et operationem* etc. Si enim haec est ratio, videtur pari ratione, quod Spiritus sanctus eum genuit; et hoc probatur per Glossam, Matthaei tertio[^17]: *Potens est Deus de lapidibus* etc.: «In huius rei testimonium Deus genuit de Sara filium»: ergo videtur, quod multo fortius possit dici, quod generavit filium de Virgine Maria, si concepit de Spiritu sancto.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum est ad hoc, quod, sicut in sequenti capitulo[^18] habetur, differt *generare* et *facere* (*Differt generare et facere*): quia *facere* dicit operationem virtutis effectivae sive causae efficientis, maxime per voluntatem; *generare* vero dicit productionem alicuius per modum naturae, maxime cum attenditur quantum ad deductionem rei in esse. Et ideo non conceditur aliquo modo, quod ipsum genuit, quia ipsum formavit ex Virgine per voluntatem et gratiam, non per naturam. — Quod vero obiicit de Glossa, debet exponi *causaliter*: *Deus genuit filium de Sara*, id est fecit, ut Sara filium gigneret. Locutiones autem impropriae non sunt extendendae[^19].

---

english:
### Dub. I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which is said: *When one is named, three are understood*; for, when the essence is named, the person is not of necessity understood[^1]: therefore, when one person is named, much less is another understood. — Likewise, if, when one person is named, another is understood: therefore, given that the Father generates, it seems that the Son too generates.

**I respond:** It must be said that a person[^2] can be named with respect to a substantial act, or a personal one. If with respect to an essential act; then because one essence is in the three, and whatever essential belongs to one belongs to another; and when one person is named, the other too is named by the necessity of consequence, especially when that act is with respect to a created effect, in which there shine forth the things appropriated to the three persons[^3]. — And thus the reply to both objections is clear: for each proceeds according to some predication, which so belongs to one that in another way it is foreign to the other.

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about that which is said, that *those born of water and the Holy Spirit are not called sons of the water, but of mother Church*. For if the Church is called *mother* only according to some transferred [sense], and a transferred likeness[^4] can be found in water, just as in the Church; it seems that they could be called *sons of the water*, just as *sons of the Church*. — In connection with this it is asked (*a connected question*), since the earthworm is naturally born from man, why it is not called his *son*[^5]?

**I respond:** It must be said that *son* and *father* are named not only from the relation of origin, but they must (*two things pertain to the account of a son*) have an express likeness. Since therefore *water* does not have an express likeness to him who is reborn, but rather to the grace through which he is reborn; whereas the *Church* does[^6] have an express likeness to him who is born in her, which [Church] is nothing other than the congregation of the faithful: therefore those reborn of water are called *sons of the Church*, not *sons of the water*. — By this same reasoning (*to the connected question*) the *earthworm* must not be called the *son* of man, although it is born from him, by the fact that it does not have a likeness to him. And therefore Augustine[^7] rightly refutes that argument by those examples: this is born from that, therefore it is its son; for *sonship* says more than *birth*. For sonship says origin together with assimilation[^8].

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *They are called sons of Gehenna also not as born of it, but as prepared for it*. For from this, that something is prepared for something after its own being, it seems rather to have in itself the account of a *father*[^9] than of a *son*: therefore it seems that they ought rather to be called *fathers* of Gehenna than *sons*.

**I respond:** It must be said that a son has a twofold property with respect to a father: one is regarded as to *emanation*, and the other as to *the inheriting of a possession*[^10]; and the first precedes, and the second follows. And they are called *sons of Gehenna* not by reason of the first property, but by reason of the second, for which they are prepared through some assimilation in perverse acts, in which they imitate the devil, whose dwelling is Gehenna[^11].

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says, that *Christ was bodily filled with divine grace*. For if grace was not in the body, but in the spirit; it does not seem that he was filled *bodily*, but *spiritually*.

**I respond:** It must be said that this word, by which Christ is said to be *bodily filled with grace*, is expounded in three ways (*a threefold exposition*). In one way *bodily filling* is said by opposition to the shadow of a figure; for truth is to a figure as a body to a shadow; whence he is said to be *filled bodily*, that is, truly, not only figuratively[^12]. — In another way it can be expounded, so that he is said *to be filled bodily*, because the body itself was assumed into the unity of the person. Whence by bodily filling we understand the perfect and gratuitous union of the body and the soul. — In a third way it can be expounded, so that he is said to be *filled bodily* by a likeness to the threefold dimension: because the deity was in Christ by *essence*, as in all creatures, and thus by the mode of length; and by *grace*, as in all the Saints, and thus by the mode of breadth; and by *union*, and thus by the mode of depth. And this was touched upon and more fully expounded in the first book, in the thirty-seventh distinction[^13].

### Dub. V.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *Born of the Holy Spirit, because he made him*. For this is not had in the Creed[^14]; but «conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary». It is asked, therefore, why conception is rather attributed to the Holy Spirit than birth?

**I respond:** It must be said that each can be attributed to each[^15]; in the Creed, nevertheless, the conception itself is rather attributed (*to be noted*) to the Holy Spirit than the birth, on account of the sanctification which was in the conception itself, and because the name of birth approaches more nearly the act of generation, and the conception itself the fabrication of the body. Whence he is more properly called *conceived of the Holy Spirit*. For this preposition *of* is taken there not materially nor substantially, but by power[^16]. And the conception itself is most fittingly to be attributed to the Holy Spirit.

### Dub. VI.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *Conceived of the Holy Spirit... because by the grace of God and operation* etc. For if this is the reason, it seems by parity of reasoning that the Holy Spirit generated him; and this is proved by the Gloss, on Matthew chapter three[^17]: *God is able from stones* etc.: «In testimony of this thing God generated a son from Sara»: therefore it seems that it could much more strongly be said that he generated a son from the Virgin Mary, if she conceived of the Holy Spirit.

**I respond:** It must be said to this that, as is had in the following chapter[^18], *to generate* and *to make* differ (*to generate and to make differ*): for *to make* says the operation of an effective power or of an efficient cause, especially through the will; whereas *to generate* says the production of something by the mode of nature, especially when it is regarded as to the bringing forth of a thing into being. And therefore it is in no way conceded that he generated him, because he formed him from the Virgin by will and grace, not by nature. — But as for what he objects from the Gloss, it must be expounded *causally*: *God generated a son from Sara*, that is, he made it that Sara might beget a son. But improper expressions are not to be extended[^19].

---

la: Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 12. — Pro *obiicitur* codd. K Z *quaeritur*.

en: Book III of *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 12. — For *obiicitur* codd. K Z read *quaeritur*.

la: Respicitur antiph. *Salve Regina*.

en: Reference is made to the antiphon *Salve Regina*.

la: Quod ex eo elucet, quod multi, qui Deum confitentur, nesciunt, immo negant Trinitatem. — Edd. *Pater*. — Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. 1. q. 2. in fine; dub. 3. seq. et d. 34. q. 3. — Circa finem dubii pro *quae ita* edd. *quod ita*. — Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 3. a. 1. in fine; B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. 1. lit.

en: Which is clear from the fact that many who confess God do not know, nay deny, the Trinity. — The editions read *Pater*. — Cf. I Sent. d. 3, p. 1, q. 2 at the end; dub. 3 following, and d. 34, q. 3. — Near the end of the doubt, for *quae ita* the editions read *quod ita*. — Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III, q. 8, m. 3, a. 1 at the end; Bl. Albert, here a. 3; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here dub. 1 of the text.

la: Aristot., VI. Topic. c. 2: *Omnes enim transferentes secundum aliquam similitudinem transferunt*.

en: Aristotle, *Topics* VI, c. 2: *For all who transfer [a word] transfer it according to some likeness*.

la: Cfr. verba August. hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Cod. Q *filius hominis*.

en: Cf. the words of Augustine here in the Master's text, c. 2. — Cod. Q [reads] *filius hominis*.

la: Pro *autem* non pauci codd. et edd. 1, 2 vitiose *quae*. Mox pro *nascitur* cod. U *renascitur*, et subinde pro *quae nihil* Vat. *quia nihil*.

en: For *autem* not a few codices and editions 1, 2 read faultily *quae*. Soon, for *nascitur* cod. U [reads] *renascitur*, and thereupon for *quae nihil* the Vatican [edition reads] *quia nihil*.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Cod. Y *Magister*.

en: Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2. — Cod. Y [reads] *Magister*.

la: Hoc dubium eiusque solutionem exhibent etiam B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. 2. lit.

en: This doubt and its solution are presented also by Bl. Albert, here a. 6; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here dub. 2 of the text.

la: Codd. HLN (T a prima manu) V aa cc *temporis*, cod. S *temporis vel patris*.

en: Codd. HLN (T by the first hand) V aa cc [read] *temporis*, cod. S *temporis vel patris*.

la: Edd. cum nonnullis codd. *hereditatem*.

en: The editions with some codices [read] *hereditatem*.

la: De hoc dubio scripserunt B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. 4. lit.

en: On this doubt have written Bl. Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here dub. 4 of the text.

la: De hac et seq. expositione repletionis corporalis cfr. August., *Enarrat. in Ps.* 67, 17. n. 23. Cfr. etiam Glossa ordin. in Coloss. 2, 9. et in Ps. 67, 17.

en: On this and the following exposition of bodily filling cf. Augustine, *Expositions on the Psalms* 67, 17, n. 23. Cf. also the Ordinary Gloss on Colossians 2, 9, and on Psalm 67, 17.

la: Part. 1. a. 3. q. 2. in corp. — De hoc dubio tractat Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 3. a. 4. in fine, ubi tertiam memoratarum expositionum sic defendit: «Est enim Deus in rebus tribus modis: in *omnibus* creaturis est per continentiam et conservationem, in *Sanctis* est per gratiam et caritatem, in *Christo* vero est per unionem [ut docet Hugo de S. Vict., Quaest. in Epist. ad Coloss. q. 10.]. Primus modus comparatur dimensioni longitudinis, quia secundum illum modum dicitur, quod *attingit a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponit omnia suaviter* (Sap. 8, 1.). Secundus modus comparatur dimensioni latitudinis, quia caritas est latitudo spiritualis; unde *omnis consummationis vidi finem, latum mandatum tuum nimis* (Ps. 118, 96.). Tertius modus, qui est per unionem, comparatur profunditati, quia ille modus intimus est. Eph. 3, 18: *Ut possitis comprehendere, quae sit longitudo*, quantum ad primum; *latitudo*, quantum ad secundum; [*et sublimitas*] *et profundum*, quantum ad tertium, ut sublimitas referatur ad humanam naturam, quae sublimata est ad unionem cum divina, et profundum referatur ad divinam, quae intime per unitatem personae unita est ad humanam» etc. Cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 10, et Aegid. R., hic dub. 5. lit.

en: Part 1, a. 3, q. 2 in the body. — On this doubt Alexander of Hales treats, *Summa* p. III, q. 8, m. 3, a. 4 at the end, where he thus defends the third of the mentioned expositions: «For God is in things in three ways: in *all* creatures he is by containing and conservation, in the *Saints* he is by grace and charity, in *Christ* indeed he is by union [as Hugh of St. Victor teaches, *Questions on the Epistle to the Colossians* q. 10]. The first mode is compared to the dimension of length, because according to that mode it is said that *he reaches from end to end mightily and orders all things sweetly* (Wis. 8, 1). The second mode is compared to the dimension of breadth, because charity is spiritual breadth; whence *I have seen an end of all perfection, thy commandment is exceeding broad* (Ps. 118, 96). The third mode, which is by union, is compared to depth, because that mode is the innermost. Eph. 3, 18: *That you may be able to comprehend what is the length*, as to the first; *the breadth*, as to the second; [*and height*] *and depth*, as to the third, so that height be referred to the human nature, which is raised to union with the divine, and depth be referred to the divine, which is intimately united to the human through the unity of the person» etc. Cf. Bl. Albert, here a. 10, and Giles of Rome, here dub. 5 of the text.

la: Scil. Apostolorum. — Codd. G K T U *natus de Maria Virgine*.

en: Namely [the Creed] of the Apostles. — Codd. G K T U [read] *born of the Virgin Mary*.

la: Codd. U X *sibi* i. e. Spiritui sancto, in cuius lectionis praesidium adduci posset Magister, hic in lit. c. 2, nec non B. Albert., hic a. 11. Pro nostra lectione stat S. Thom., hic circa lit. — De seq. propos. cfr. supra d. 3. p. 1. a. 2. q. 2.

en: Codd. U X [read] *sibi*, i.e. to the Holy Spirit, in support of which reading the Master could be adduced, here in the text c. 2, as also Bl. Albert, here a. 11. For our reading stands St. Thomas, here on the text. — On the following proposition cf. above d. 3, p. 1, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. in fine. — Vide de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 11; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. 6. lit.

en: Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2 at the end. — See on this doubt Bl. Albert, here a. 11; St. Thomas, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here dub. 6 of the text.

la: Vers. 9. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria, invenitur apud Strabum et Lyranum.

en: Verse 9. — The Gloss, which is the Ordinary [Gloss], is found in [Walafrid] Strabo and [Nicholas of] Lyra.

la: Lit. Magistri, c. 3. — Aliquanto inferius post *genuit* cod. K addit *nisi*.

en: The Master's text, c. 3. — Somewhat below, after *genuit*, cod. K adds *nisi*.

la: Cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 12; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. Bl. Albert, here a. 12; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.116–118 (PDF pp.138–140; offset pdf = printed + 22), read Left column top→bottom then Right column per the Vol II/III PDF-priority inversion (the IA djvu OCR cascade-interleaves the two columns and the dubia footers). Raw OCR range 8588–8726. Fresh literal English translation. No scholion — *dubia* carry none (`has_scholion: false`). Marginal labels (*Quaestio connexa*, *Duo ad rationem filii spectant*, *Ad quaest. connexam*, *Triplex expositio*, *Notandum*, *Differt generare et facere*) are rendered inline in parentheses, not as anchors.

**Dubia count VERIFIED: 6 (Dub. I–VI)** against the PDF column bands. Raw line markers: Dub. I 8590, Dub. II 8621, Dub. III 8660, Dub. IV 8628 (header prints in the R-column band of p.117, OCR-interleaved with the L-column Dub. II/III — confirmed from the p.117 column bands that the reading order is L-col [Dub. II, III] then R-col [tail of Dub. III reply, Dub. IV, Dub. V opener]), Dub. V 8664, Dub. VI 8720.

**Page-split map (apparatus, 19 entries, Quaracchi per-page footer restart):**
- **p.116** — Dub. I. Footer notes 6–8 → `[^1]`–`[^3]` (anchors *persona⁶*, *persona⁷*, *personis⁸*). Notes 1–5 on p.116 were consumed by the prior chunk `bon-sent-III-d4-a3-q3` (this chunk LEADS at p.116 note 6 per the received hand-off).
- **p.117** — Dub. II, III, IV, and Dub. V opener. Footer notes 1–11 → `[^4]`–`[^14]` (anchors: *translativa¹*, *eius²*, *autem³*, *Augustinus⁴*, *assimilatione⁵*, *patris⁶*, *hereditationem⁷*, *gehenna⁸*, *figurative⁹*, *septima¹⁰*, *Symbolo¹¹*).
- **p.118** — Dub. V continuation, Dub. VI. Footer notes 1–5 → `[^15]`–`[^19]` (anchors: *utrique¹*, *potestative²*, *tertio³*, *capitulo⁴*, *extendendae⁵*).

**Footer hand-off RECEIVED (from `bon-sent-III-d4-a3-q3`):** clean q3→dubia boundary inside p.116. This chunk leads with p.116 footer note 6 (`Quod ex eo elucet…`, keying Dub. I *persona⁶*) → `[^1]`; then note 7 (`Edd. Pater` → *persona⁷*) → `[^2]` and note 8 (`Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3…` → *personis⁸`) → `[^3]`. (a3-q3 consumed p.116 notes 1–5, the last being note 5 *Respicitur antiph. Salve Regina*.) No footer is forwarded onward — Dub. VI's last note (`extendendae⁵`) is the final dubia footer on p.118.

**Boundary lock at DISTINCTIO V (raw 8727; printed p.117 → DIST. V Cap. I begins low in the R-column of p.118, printed p.119 footer is the first d.5 footer block).** Verified from the p.118 column bands that the dubia text ends at `Locutiones autem impropriae non sunt extendendae⁵` (close of Dub. VI's reply, R-column of p.118), immediately after which `DISTINCTIO V. — Cap. I.` opens. The p.118 footer band carries the five dubia notes 1–5; the separate `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` block in the R-column footer of p.118 is the DISTINCTIO V apparatus (notes 1–4 for d.5) and is NOT pulled into this chunk. **No footer leaks into d.5.**

**DISTINCTIO IV is now COMPLETE** (littera + divisio + a.1 q.1–q.4 + a.2 + a.3 q.1–q.3 + dubia all Tier-2).

**[?] flags:** none. All readings confirmed against the 450 dpi column bands.