title: Dist. 8, Art. 1, Q. 3

title_alt: Whether 'man' is truly said of the divine nature

source_text:
<!-- page 189 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum homo veraciter dicatur de divina natura.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum homo veraciter dicatur de divina natura. Et quod sic, videtur.

*(Fundamenta.)*

1. Haec est vera: divina natura est persona Filii Dei propter summam simplicitatem et identitatem, quae est in Deo; sed de quocumque praedicatur Filius Dei, praedicatur homo[^1]: igitur haec est vera: divina natura est homo.

2. Item, homo est divina natura; haec est vera, quia aliquis homo, utpote Christus, est divina essentia vel natura: ergo a simplici conversa[^2] divina natura est homo.

3. Item, Deus et divina natura convertuntur, igitur de quocumque praedicatur unum, et alterum; sed haec est vera: Deus est homo[^3]: igitur haec est vera: divina natura est homo.

4. Item, aut divina natura est homo, aut non-homo. Si est homo, habeo propositum; si est non-homo, sed Filius Dei est divina natura: ergo Filius Dei est non-homo. Quodsi hoc est impossibile, restat, quod haec est vera: divina natura est homo.

**Sed contra:** *(Ad oppositum.)*

1. Sicut se habet humana natura ad esse Deum, sic se habet divina ad esse hominem; sed haec est simpliciter falsa: humana natura est Deus: ergo et haec est simpliciter falsa: divina natura est homo.

2. Item, de quocumque praedicatur esse hominem, praedicatur esse mortale[^4]: ergo si divina natura est homo, divina natura est mortalis.

<!-- page 190 -->

3. Item, de quocumque praedicatur homo, inest ei humanitas; sed cuicumque inest humanitas, informatur humanitate: ergo de illo solo praedicatur homo, respectu cuius humanitas est forma. Sed humanitas non est forma divinae naturae: ergo haec est simpliciter falsa: divina natura est homo.

4. Item, si divina natura est homo, aut ratione essentiae, aut ratione personae. Non ratione essentiae, quia humanitatis et divinitatis essentiae simpliciter sunt distinctae; non ratione personae, quia natura non supponit pro persona, sicut supra in primo libro[^5] dictum est: ergo haec est simpliciter falsa: divina natura est homo.

> **Conclusio.** Locutio: *divina natura est homo,* potest tantum concedi, si praedicatur ratione suppositi.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut in primo libro[^6] habitum fuit, in divinis est reperire praedicationem per identitatem et per denominationem *(Duplex praedicatio)*, licet non usquequaque proprie omnino. Differt autem praedicatio per denominationem a praedicatione per identitatem, quia, cum aliquid praedicatur per modum denominativum, praedicatur sub ratione formae; ut cum dicitur: Pater generat. Cum autem praedicatio est per identitatem, potest praedicari ratione suppositi; ut cum dicitur: divina essentia est Pater, sensus est: divina essentia est ille qui est Pater. Et hoc modo non praedicatur ratione suppositi nisi illud nomen, quod claudit intra se suum suppositum, sicut est nomen substantivum, vel substantivatum. Hunc igitur duplicem modum praedicandi reperimus in divinis secundum catholicum modum loquendi, ut aliquid praedicetur ratione formae, aliquid ratione suppositi.

*(Conclusio 1.)* Cum ergo quaeritur, utrum divina natura sit homo; distinguendum est, quia iste terminus *homo* dupliciter potest intelligi praedicari: quia si intelligatur praedicari ratione suppositi, tunc est vera, et est sensus: divina essentia[^7] est homo, id est, divina essentia est ille qui est homo; et reducitur ista praedicatio ad praedicationem, quae est per identitatem quantum ad principalem compositionem; quantum vero ad implicationem[^8] clauditur ibi praedicatio per unionem. Divina enim essentia est Filius Dei per identitatem; sed Filius Dei est homo per unionem.

*(Conclusio 2.)* — Si autem fit praedicatio ratione formae sive per modum cuiusdam denominationis, falsa est; et est sensus: divina natura est homo, id est, divina natura est humanitate informata. Et hoc modo locutio est falsa, licet secundum sensum priorem habeat veritatem, sicut ostendunt rationes ad primam partem inductae.

**Ad argumenta:** *(Solutio oppositorum.)*

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod sicut se habet humana natura ad esse Deum etc.; dicendum, quod falsum est, pro eo quod humana natura non praedicatur de sua hypostasi per identitatem, sicut divina praedicatur[^9] propter summam simplicitatem *(Notandum)*. Unde haec est falsa: Christus est humana natura; quamvis haec sit vera: Christus est divina natura. Et ideo non sequitur, si haec est falsa: humana natura est Deus, quod haec sit falsa: divina natura est homo.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod de quocumque praedicatur esse hominem, praedicatur esse mortale; dicendum, quod hoc est verum quantum ad praedicationem, qua homo praedicatur per modum denominandi *(Distinctio)*. Quantum vero ad praedicationem, qua praedicatur ratione suppositi, non habet veritatem. Homo enim, cum sit nomen substantivum, ratione suppositi potest praedicari; mortale vero, cum sit nomen adiectivum, adiective retentum[^10] ponit rem suam circa illud, de quo praedicatur *(Notandum)*. Et sicut non sequitur: divina essentia est Pater, ergo divina essentia generat; sic non sequitur: divina essentia est homo, ergo moritur vel nascitur.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod de quocumque praedicatur homo, inest ei humanitas; dicendum, quod verum est de illo modo praedicationis, quo modo praedicatur ratione formae; sed non de illo quo praedicatur ratione suppositi; tunc enim non significatur, quod humanitas insit ei, de quo praedicatur, sed quod inest alicui, quod habet identitatem cum eo, de quo praedicatur.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod haec non est vera ratione substantiae vel personae: divina natura est homo; dicendum, quod etsi divina natura non supponat pro persona, homo tamen pro persona potest supponere, divina vero natura subiicitur ratione sui; ita quod veritatem habet[^11] ratione utriusque: ratione unius ex parte subiecti, ratione vero alterius ex parte praedicati, videlicet ratione personae[^12].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether "man" is truly said of the divine nature.*

Thirdly it is asked whether "man" is truly said of the divine nature. And that it is so, it seems.

*(The grounds.)*

1. This is true: the divine nature is the person of the Son of God, on account of the supreme simplicity and identity that is in God; but of whatever the Son of God is predicated, "man" is predicated[^1]: therefore this is true: the divine nature is man.

2. Likewise, man is the divine nature; this is true, because some man, namely Christ, is the divine essence or nature: therefore, by simple conversion[^2], the divine nature is man.

3. Likewise, "God" and "the divine nature" are convertible, therefore of whatever the one is predicated, the other is too; but this is true: God is man[^3]: therefore this is true: the divine nature is man.

4. Likewise, either the divine nature is man, or not-man. If it is man, I have what was proposed; if it is not-man — but the Son of God is the divine nature: therefore the Son of God is not-man. But if this is impossible, it remains that this is true: the divine nature is man.

**On the contrary:** *(To the opposite.)*

1. As the human nature stands to being God, so the divine stands to being man; but this is simply false: the human nature is God: therefore this also is simply false: the divine nature is man.

2. Likewise, of whatever "to be man" is predicated, "to be mortal" is predicated[^4]: therefore if the divine nature is man, the divine nature is mortal.

3. Likewise, of whatever "man" is predicated, humanity is in it; but in whatever humanity is, it is informed by humanity: therefore "man" is predicated only of that with respect to which humanity is a form. But humanity is not the form of the divine nature: therefore this is simply false: the divine nature is man.

4. Likewise, if the divine nature is man, it is either by reason of the essence or by reason of the person. Not by reason of the essence, because the essences of humanity and of divinity are simply distinct; not by reason of the person, because the nature does not stand for the person, as was said above in the first book[^5]: therefore this is simply false: the divine nature is man.

> **Conclusion.** The locution "*the divine nature is man*" can be conceded only if it is predicated by reason of the supposit.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was held in the first book[^6], in divine matters one finds predication by identity and by denomination *(twofold predication)*, although not altogether wholly properly. Now predication by denomination differs from predication by identity, because, when something is predicated in a denominative manner, it is predicated under the aspect of a form; as when one says: the Father generates. But when the predication is by identity, it can be predicated by reason of the supposit; as when one says: the divine essence is the Father, the sense is: the divine essence is He who is the Father. And in this way nothing is predicated by reason of the supposit except that noun which encloses within itself its own supposit, such as a substantive noun, or one made substantive. This twofold mode of predicating, therefore, we find in divine matters according to the catholic manner of speaking: that something be predicated by reason of the form, something by reason of the supposit.

*(Conclusion 1.)* When, therefore, it is asked whether the divine nature is man, a distinction must be made, because this term *man* can be understood to be predicated in two ways: for if it is understood to be predicated by reason of the supposit, then it is true, and the sense is: the divine essence[^7] is man, that is, the divine essence is He who is man; and this predication is reduced to the predication that is by identity as regards the principal composition; but as regards the implication[^8], the predication by union is enclosed there. For the divine essence is the Son of God by identity; but the Son of God is man by union.

*(Conclusion 2.)* — But if the predication is made by reason of the form or through the manner of a certain denomination, it is false; and the sense is: the divine nature is man, that is, the divine nature is informed by humanity. And in this way the locution is false, although according to the prior sense it has truth, as the reasons adduced for the first part show.

**To the arguments:** *(Solution of the opposing arguments.)*

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected first, that as the human nature stands to being God, etc.; it must be said that it is false, for this reason: that the human nature is not predicated of its own hypostasis by identity, as the divine is predicated[^9] on account of the supreme simplicity *(note)*. Hence this is false: Christ is the human nature; although this is true: Christ is the divine nature. And therefore it does not follow, if this is false: the human nature is God, that this is false: the divine nature is man.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that of whatever "to be man" is predicated, "to be mortal" is predicated; it must be said that this is true as regards the predication by which "man" is predicated by the manner of denominating *(distinction)*. But as regards the predication by which it is predicated by reason of the supposit, it does not hold true. For "man," since it is a substantive noun, can be predicated by reason of the supposit; but "mortal," since it is an adjectival noun, taken adjectivally[^10] sets its own thing about that of which it is predicated *(note)*. And just as it does not follow: the divine essence is the Father, therefore the divine essence generates; so it does not follow: the divine essence is man, therefore it dies or is born.

*To 3.* To that, however, which is objected, that of whatever "man" is predicated, humanity is in it; it must be said that it is true of that mode of predication by which it is predicated by reason of the form; but not of that by which it is predicated by reason of the supposit; for then it is not signified that humanity is in that of which it is predicated, but that it is in something which has identity with that of which it is predicated.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that this is not true by reason of the substance or of the person: the divine nature is man; it must be said that, although the divine nature does not stand for the person, "man" can nonetheless stand for the person, while the divine nature is made subject by reason of itself; so that it has truth[^11] by reason of both: by reason of the one on the part of the subject, by reason of the other on the part of the predicate, namely by reason of the person[^12].

---

la: Quia, ut supra d. 7. a. I. q. I. monstratum est, Filius Dei propter unionem hypostaticam est homo. *(p. 189, nota 6.)*

en: Because, as was shown above in d. 7, a. I, q. I, the Son of God is man on account of the hypostatic union. *(p. 189, note 6.)*

la: Vide supra pag. 175, nota 10. *(p. 189, nota 7.)*

la: Cfr. supra d. 7. a. I. q. I. — Paulo superius ante *et alterum* edd. repetunt *praedicatur.* Pro *et alterum* codd. K X exhibent *et reliquum.* *(p. 189, nota 8.)*

en: Cf. above, d. 7, a. I, q. I. — A little before, ahead of *et alterum* ("and the other") the editions repeat *praedicatur* ("is predicated"). For *et alterum* codices K X give *et reliquum* ("and the rest"). *(p. 189, note 8.)*

la: Prophyr., de Praedicab. c. de Differentia, dicit, quod «rationalis et mortalis differentiae constitutivae fiunt hominis, rationalis vero et immortalis Dei, irrationalis autem et mortalis irrationalium animalium». *(p. 189, nota 9.)*

en: Porphyry, *On the Predicables*, chapter on Difference, says that "rational and mortal become the constitutive differences of man, but rational and immortal of God, while irrational and mortal of irrational animals." *(p. 189, note 9.)*

en: Distinction 4, q. 1, and d. 5, a. 1, q. I. *(p. 190, note 1.)*

la: Codd. I L N Z aa cc et edd. 1, 2 *natura.* Paulo superius pro *quia iste* non pauci codd. male *quod quia iste.* *(p. 190, nota 3.)*

en: Codices I L N Z aa cc and editions 1, 2 read *natura* ("nature"). A little before, for *quia iste* ("because this") not a few codices wrongly have *quod quia iste.* *(p. 190, note 3.)*

la: Quae intelligit propositionem relativam: *qui est homo.* Cfr. supra pag. 171, nota 4. *(p. 190, nota 4.)*

en: By which is understood the relative proposition: *who is man.* Cf. above, p. 171, note 4. *(p. 190, note 4.)*

la: Codd. F U supplent *de sua.* Subinde pro *summam simplicitatem* codd. A N *suam simplicitatem.* — De simplicitate Dei et compositione creaturarum cfr. I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 2. *(p. 190, nota 5.)*

en: Codices F U supply *de sua* ("of its own"). Thereupon, for *summam simplicitatem* ("supreme simplicity") codices A N read *suam simplicitatem* ("its own simplicity"). — On the simplicity of God and the composition of creatures, cf. I Sent., d. 8, p. II, q. 2. *(p. 190, note 5.)*

la: Pro *retentum* Vat. *tantum,* edd. 1, 2 *tentum.* *(p. 190, nota 6.)*

en: For *retentum* ("retained") the Vatican edition reads *tantum* ("only"), editions 1, 2 *tentum.* *(p. 190, note 6.)*

la: Supple: *illa propositio.* *(p. 190, nota 7.)*

en: Supply: *that proposition.* *(p. 190, note 7.)*

la: Vide scholion ad 1. q. huius art. *(p. 190, nota 8.)*

en: See the scholion to the first question of this article. *(p. 190, note 8.)* ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 189–190 (PDF 211–212; offset pdf = printed + 22), read Left column top→bottom then Right, cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 13565–13674). Where the OCR cascade-fragmented the Respondeo and Solutio oppositorum, the PDF column-band reading is authoritative per the VOL II/III OVERRIDE.

**Alignment.** VERIFIED vs raw: q3 opener (raw 13568) *Tertio quaeritur, utrum homo veraciter dicatur de divina natura* — predicating "man" OF the divine nature. NOT q1 (*divina natura est de Virgine nata*) nor q2 (*nasci de Virgine… de natura assumta*). q3 is the LAST quaestio of ARTICULUS I.

**Page-split map.**
- **p. 189** (foot of both columns, below QUAEST. II): QUAEST. III header + title + opener + Fundamenta args 1–4 + *Sed contra* (Ad oppositum) args 1–2 + arg. 3 opening clause. Footer notes **6–9** (= this chunk's `[^1]`–`[^4]`).
- **p. 190**: *Sed contra* arg. 3 tail + arg. 4 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (*Duplex praedicatio*) + Conclusio 1 / Conclusio 2 + Solutio oppositorum *Ad 1–4*, ending *…ratione personae.* Footer notes **1–8** (= this chunk's `[^5]`–`[^12]`).

The page break falls inside *Sed contra* arg. 3 (foot of p. 189-R *…de quocumque praedicatur homo,* | top of p. 190-L *inest ei humanitas*) — grammatically continuous.

**Apparatus count: 12 entries** (renumbered continuously `[^1]`–`[^12]`). p. 189 notes 6–9 → `[^1]`–`[^4]`; p. 190 notes 1–8 → `[^5]`–`[^12]`. No per-page suffix collision (different source numbers map to a single continuous chunk sequence).

**Footer hand-off.**
- **RECEIVED from d8-a1-q2:** the p. 189 footer split was forecast — q2 consumed p. 189 notes 1–5 (ending at q2's *immediatam eductionem⁵* = note 5 *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*), and q3's first footer is p. 189 **note 6**. Confirmed eyes-on: notes 6–9 key q3's body markers (note 6 → arg. 1 *praedicatur homo⁶*; note 7 → arg. 2 *a simplici conversa⁷*; note 8 → arg. 3 *Deus est homo⁸*; note 9 → Sed contra arg. 2 *esse mortale⁹*).
- **FORWARDED to d8-a2-q1: NONE.** q3's p. 189 n. 6–9 + p. 190 n. 1–8 are fully exhausted by Ad 4's *ratione personae⁸* (= note 8). ARTICULUS II opens a fresh footer sequence on p. 191 (PDF 213).

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false` — CONFIRMED. q3 has no standalone SCHOLION block: it ends with Solutio oppositorum *Ad 4*, immediately followed by `ARTICULUS II` (raw 13675). The article-level SCHOLION §III of q1 (commit eb7dc3f) already forward-covers q3, and q3's own last footer (p. 190 note 8, `[^12]`) explicitly redirects *Vide scholion ad 1. q. huius art.* — exactly as forecast.

**`[?]` flags:** none. All OCR garbles (e.g. *srrmmam* → *summam*, *Urr* → *Filius Dei*, *setl* → *sed*, *Disunctio* → *Distinctio*, *signifkatur* → *significatur*) were resolved unambiguously against the PDF column bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 8, Art. 2, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 191 -->

### Articulus II. *De nativitate temporali in comparatione ad aeternam.*

Consequenter quaeritur de nativitate temporali in comparatione ad aeternam. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, supposito quod in Christo duplex sit nativitas[^1], utrum concedendum sit, Christum bis natum esse.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum in Christo sint filiationes duae.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum sit naturalis filius ratione utriusque nativitatis, scilicet temporalis et aeternae.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum concedendum sit, Christum bis esse natum.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum concedendum sit, Christum bis natum esse. Et quod sic, videtur:

*(Fundamenta.)* 1. Augustinus de Fide ad Petrum[^2]: « Unigenitus Dei secundo natus est, semel ex Patre, semel ex Matre » ; sed *primo et secundo nasci* non est nisi *bis nasci*: ergo videtur, quod Filius Dei bis natus est.

2. Item, Damascenus[^3]: « In Christo duas nativitates veneramur » ; sed ubicumque est *duplex nativitas*, ibi est *duplex nasci*, et ubicumque est *duplex nasci*, ibi est *bis nasci*: ergo etc.

3. Item, Christus semel genitus est ex Patre, secundum illud Psalmi[^4]: *Semel locutus est Deus* ; Glossa, id est, « Filium genuit » ; et semel natus est ex Matre; et constat, illud *semel* et illud non est unum, sicut temporale et aeternum: ergo ponunt in numerum. Si ergo *semel* et *semel* faciunt *bis*, Christus est bis natus.

4. Item, actio geminata geminat passionem[^5]: igitur si alia est generatio, qua Pater, et alia, qua Mater genuit, ergo alia et alia vice genitus est Christus a Patre et a Matre: ergo est pluries natus; sed non ter, vel quater, et sic de aliis: ergo bis natus.

**Sed contra:** *(Ad oppositum.)* 1. *Bis* dicit consimilis actus geminationem — unde non dicitur aliquis aliquid fecisse *bis*, eo quod legit et disputavit[^6] — sed generatio aeterna et temporalis non est idem actus nec consimilis: ergo ratione illius duplicis nativitatis non potest dici bis natus.

2. Item, *semel* et *bis* dicunt vicissitudinem — idem enim est aliquid *bis fieri* et quod *duabus vicibus fieri* — sed apud Filium non cadit transmutatio nec vicissitudinis obumbratio[^7]: ergo non debet dici bis natus.

3. Item, *bis* dicit actus interruptionem — unde convenienter dicitur aliquis bis fuisse Parisius, sed non convenienter dicitur bis fuisse homo — sed generatio, quae est aeterna ex Patre, nullatenus fuit interrupta: ergo videtur simpliciter esse falsum: Christus bis natus est[^8].

4. Item, hoc adverbium *bis* importat actus terminationem, quia de actu, qui non terminatur, non est dicere, ipsum bis exerceri; sed generatio aeterna non habet terminum, quia Filius semper generatur a Patre[^9]: ergo etc.

5. Item, hoc adverbium *bis* importat successionis ordinem; sed circa Christi generationem aeternam respectu temporalis nulla cadit successio[^10]: ergo sicut aliquis non dicitur bis natus, qui simul generatur a patre et a matre; ita non videtur, quod Christus dicatur bis natus, cum simul sit verum, ipsum dicere generari a Patre et a Matre; Pater enim nunc generat Filium, et in tempore nativitatis suae sic Virgo Maria genuit.

<!-- page 192 -->
6. Item, *nunc* temporis et *nunc* aeternitatis non ponunt in numerum[^11], cum unum claudatur in altero: ergo si Filius genitus est a Patre in *nunc* aeternitatis et a Matre in *nunc* temporis, non videtur, quod debeat dici bis natus vel genitus.

### Conclusio.

> Concedi potest et debet, Christum esse bis natum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut vult Philosophus[^12], *(Actus tripliciter numeratur.)* actus tripliciter habet numerari, videlicet subiecto et tempore et specie sive termino. Unde actus multiplicari dicitur, aut quia est in alio et alio subiecto, aut quia in alio et alio termino, aut quia in alio et alio tempore sive mensura. Cum igitur adverbium numerandi dicat numerum actus aliquo istorum modorum, necesse est, ut importet ipsum numerari. Adverbium enim, cum sit adiectivum verbi[^13], sub ratione verbi importat illum numerum, qui est ipsius actus, secundum quod actus, hoc est ex parte temporis sive durationis; et iste est numerus, qui est ex parte mensurae. Et quod hoc adverbium *bis* importet numerum actus ex parte mensurae, patet per ipsum modum loquendi. Non enim dicor *bis* comedisse propter duas res, quas comedi, vel propter plurificationem ex parte subiecti, sed propter multiplicationem[^14] ex parte temporis sive mensurae, quia comedi in alio et alio tempore. — Quoniam igitur generatio sive Christi nativitas aeterna mensuratur ipsa aeternitate, et nativitas temporalis ipso tempore, ita quod illa completionem habet in *nunc* aeternitatis, ista in *nunc* temporis; *(Conclusio.)* hinc est, quod concedi potest et debet, Christum bis esse natum. — Et concedendae sunt rationes et auctoritates ad hoc inductae.

**Ad argumenta pro parte opposita:**
*(Solutio oppositorum.)* 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod *bis* dicit eiusdem actus geminationem; *(Notandum.)* dicendum, quod non oportet, quod dicat geminationem eiusdem actus secundum unitatem univocationis, sed sufficit, quod dicat secundum convenientiam analogiae. Unde sicut potest concedi, quod Deus et homo sint duo entia vel res, non quod dicantur duae res vel duo entia aequivoce, sed analogice[^15]; ita concedi potest, quod generatio Christi et aeterna et temporalis sit duplex generatio. Et sic potest concedi, quod sit bis generatus; quia tantum se extendit numerus adverbiorum numeralium respectu verbi, quantum numerus numeralium nominum respectu nominum.

*(Notandum.)* 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *semel* et *bis* dicunt vicissitudinem; dicendum, quod illud non est verum de significatione generali; sed *semel* dicit actus completionem. Quod autem dicit vicissitudinem, hoc solum est, quia adiacet actui temporali; et ideo, quia generatio Christi aeterna non subiacet actui temporali, non est necesse, quod quantum ad illam dicant vicissitudinem[^16].

*(Notandum.)* 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *bis* dicit interruptionem; dicendum, quod illud verum est in illis actibus, qui non numerantur sine interruptione, sicut legere, vel morari Parisius, vel aliquid tale. In his autem actibus, qui sine interruptione numerari possunt, non habet veritatem; sicut caelum dicitur bis esse revolutum, et tamen motus eius non dicitur esse discontinuatus vel interruptus. Numeratio enim revolutionum non venit ex motus discontinuatione, sed secundum circulationis completionem, et secundum illam completionem circulationis est numeratio dierum et temporum; et talis numeratio importatur per adverbium. Et quoniam generatio Christi ex Patre et Matre modum habet unum numerandi, ut praedictum est; ideo sane potest concedi, Christum bis natum esse.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *bis* importat terminationem actus; *(Duplex terminatio.)* dicendum, quod terminatio actus dupliciter dicitur: uno modo ex completione, alio modo ex desitione. Cum ergo dicitur, quod *bis* importat terminationem; si intelligatur terminatio communiter ad utrumque modum, dicendum, quod verum est. Si autem dicatur terminatio per desitionem[^17], non habet veritatem; hoc enim accidit numerationi alicuius actus, quod non possit esse sine actus desitione, sicut tactum est.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *bis* dicit successionis ordinem; dicendum similiter, quod hoc non est de necessitate, sed quando importat actus geminationem[^18] et successionem et respectu eiusdem principii; sic autem non est reperiri hic; et sic patet illud.

<!-- page 193 -->
*(Notandum.)* 6. Ad illud vero quod ultimo obiicitur, quod *nunc* temporis et *nunc* aeternitatis non ponunt in numerum[^19]; dicendum, quod si loquamur de numero proprie accepto, veritatem habet; si autem large, falsitatem habet. Aeternitas enim et tempus sunt diversae mensurae per essentiam; et productio, quae mensuratur tempore, est alia a productione, quae mensuratur aeternitate, et posterior illa: et ideo illae duae productiones possunt dici et duae mensurae. Nec valet, quod una clauditur in alia; hoc enim non est per continentiam, quae tollat numerum, sicut continetur pars intra totum, sed per quandam praesuppositionem, quae quidem relinquit ordinem sive distinctionem[^20].

english:
### Article II. *On the temporal nativity in comparison with the eternal.*

Next, inquiry is made concerning the temporal nativity in comparison with the eternal. And concerning this three questions are asked.

First it is asked, supposing that in Christ there is a twofold nativity[^1], whether it must be conceded that Christ was born twice.

Second it is asked, whether in Christ there are two filiations.

Third it is asked, whether he is a natural son by reason of each nativity, namely the temporal and the eternal.

### Question I. *Whether it must be conceded that Christ was born twice.*

Concerning the first the procedure is thus, and it is asked, whether it must be conceded that Christ was born twice. And that it must, seems [to be the case]:

*(Foundations.)* 1. Augustine, *On the Faith, to Peter*[^2]: « The Only-Begotten of God was born a second time, once from the Father, once from the Mother » ; but *to be born first and second* is nothing other than *to be born twice*: therefore it seems that the Son of God was born twice.

2. Likewise, Damascene[^3]: « In Christ we venerate two nativities » ; but wherever there is a *twofold nativity*, there is a *twofold being-born*, and wherever there is a *twofold being-born*, there is a *being-born twice*: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, Christ was once begotten of the Father, according to that text of the Psalm[^4]: *Once has God spoken* ; the Gloss, that is, « he begot the Son » ; and once he was born of the Mother; and it is established that that *once* and the other [once] are not one, just as the temporal and the eternal [are not one]: therefore they make up a number. If, then, *once* and *once* make *twice*, Christ was born twice.

4. Likewise, a doubled action doubles the passion[^5]: therefore if the generation by which the Father [begot] is one, and the generation by which the Mother begot is another, then Christ was begotten on one occasion and another by the Father and by the Mother: therefore he was born more than once; but not three times, nor four, and so on: therefore twice.

**On the contrary:** *(To the opposite.)* 1. *Twice* signifies the doubling of an action of like kind — whence one is not said to have done something *twice* because he both read and disputed[^6] — but the eternal and the temporal generation are not the same nor a like-kind act: therefore by reason of that twofold nativity he cannot be said to have been born twice.

2. Likewise, *once* and *twice* signify alternation — for it is the same thing for something *to come about twice* and *to come about on two occasions* — but in the Son there falls no change nor shadow of alternation[^7]: therefore he ought not to be said to be born twice.

3. Likewise, *twice* signifies an interruption of the act — whence it is fittingly said that someone was twice at Paris, but it is not fittingly said that someone was twice a man — but the generation that is eternal from the Father was in no way interrupted: therefore it seems simply false [to say]: Christ was born twice[^8].

4. Likewise, this adverb *twice* implies a termination of the act, since of an act that is not terminated one cannot say that it is performed twice; but the eternal generation has no terminus, since the Son is always being generated by the Father[^9]: therefore, etc.

5. Likewise, this adverb *twice* implies an order of succession; but regarding Christ's eternal generation in respect of the temporal there falls no succession[^10]: therefore just as one is not said to be born twice who is at the same time generated by a father and by a mother; so it does not seem that Christ should be said to be born twice, since it is at the same time true to say that he is generated by the Father and by the Mother; for the Father even now generates the Son, and at the time of his nativity the Virgin Mary thus gave birth.

<!-- page 192 -->
6. Likewise, the *now* of time and the *now* of eternity do not make up a number[^11], since the one is enclosed in the other: therefore if the Son was begotten by the Father in the *now* of eternity and by the Mother in the *now* of time, it does not seem that he ought to be said to be born or begotten twice.

### Conclusion.

> It can and must be conceded that Christ was born twice.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Philosopher holds[^12], *(An act is numbered in three ways.)* an act can be numbered in three ways, namely by subject and by time and by species or terminus. Whence an act is said to be multiplied either because it is in one subject and another, or because it is in one terminus and another, or because it is in one time or measure and another. Since, then, the adverb of numbering signifies the number of the act in one of those modes, it must necessarily imply that it is numbered. For the adverb, since it is an adjective of the verb[^13], under the formal character of the verb implies that number which is of the act itself, insofar as it is an act, that is, on the part of time or duration; and this is the number which is on the part of measure. And that this adverb *twice* implies the number of the act on the part of measure is clear from the very manner of speaking. For I am not said to have eaten *twice* on account of the two things which I ate, or on account of a plurification on the part of the subject, but on account of multiplication[^14] on the part of time or measure, because I ate at one time and another. — Since, then, the generation or eternal nativity of Christ is measured by eternity itself, and the temporal nativity by time itself, in such a way that the former has its completion in the *now* of eternity, the latter in the *now* of time; *(Conclusion.)* hence it is that it can and must be conceded that Christ was born twice. — And the reasons and authorities adduced for this must be conceded.

**To the arguments for the opposite part:**
*(Solution of the opposing arguments.)* 1. To that, therefore, which is objected first to the contrary, that *twice* signifies the doubling of the same act; *(Note.)* it must be said that it is not required that it signify the doubling of the same act according to a unity of univocation, but it suffices that it signify [it] according to an agreement of analogy. Whence, just as it can be conceded that God and man are two beings or things — not that they are called two things or two beings equivocally, but analogically[^15] — so it can be conceded that the generation of Christ, both eternal and temporal, is a twofold generation. And thus it can be conceded that he was twice generated; because the number of numeral adverbs extends in respect of the verb just as far as the number of numeral nouns [extends] in respect of nouns.

*(Note.)* 2. To that which is objected, that *once* and *twice* signify alternation; it must be said that this is not true of the general signification; rather, *once* signifies the completion of the act. But that it signifies alternation, this is only because it is adjacent to a temporal act; and therefore, because Christ's eternal generation is not subject to a temporal act, it is not necessary that, as regards that [generation], they signify alternation[^16].

*(Note.)* 3. To that which is objected, that *twice* signifies interruption; it must be said that this is true in those acts which are not numbered without interruption, such as reading, or sojourning at Paris, or anything of the kind. But in those acts which can be numbered without interruption, it does not hold true; just as the heaven is said to have revolved twice, and yet its motion is not said to be discontinuous or interrupted. For the numbering of the revolutions does not come from a discontinuation of the motion, but according to the completion of the circuit, and according to that completion of the circuit there is a numbering of days and times; and such a numbering is implied by the adverb. And since the generation of Christ from the Father and the Mother has one mode of numbering, as has been said; therefore it can soundly be conceded that Christ was born twice.

4. To that which is objected, that *twice* implies a termination of the act; *(Twofold termination.)* it must be said that the termination of an act is spoken of in two ways: in one way from completion, in another way from cessation. When, therefore, it is said that *twice* implies a termination; if the termination is understood commonly with respect to both modes, it must be said that this is true. But if a termination by cessation[^17] is meant, it does not hold true; for it happens to the numbering of some act that it cannot be without the cessation of the act, as has been touched on.

5. To that which is objected, that *twice* signifies an order of succession; it must be said likewise that this is not of necessity, but [holds] when it implies the doubling[^18] of an act and a succession and in respect of the same principle; but such is not to be found here; and so that [argument] is clear.

<!-- page 193 -->
*(Note.)* 6. To that, finally, which is objected last, that the *now* of time and the *now* of eternity do not make up a number[^19]; it must be said that if we speak of number taken properly, it holds true; but if [taken] broadly, it is false. For eternity and time are diverse measures by essence; and the production which is measured by time is other than the production which is measured by eternity, and the latter [is posterior to it]: and therefore those two productions can also be called two measures. Nor does it avail that the one is enclosed in the other; for this is not by a containment which takes away number, as a part is contained within a whole, but by a certain presupposition, which indeed leaves an order or distinction[^20].

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Cap. 2. n. 10, ubi textus origin. pro *Dei* exhibet *Deus*. — Post *Unigenitus Dei* edd. interserunt *primo et*. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Ch. 2, n. 10, where the original text presents *Deus* for *Dei*. — After *Unigenitus Dei* the editions insert *primo et* ("first and"). Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 7. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Bk. III of *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 7. See here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Psalm. 61, 12. — Glossa, quae habetur apud Petr. Lombardum et Lyranum, formata est ex illo August., Enarrat. in hunc loc. n. 18: *Apud se semel Deus locutus est, quia unum Verbum genuit Deus.* — Mox post *constat* codd. F N Y bb interiiciunt *quod*. Subinde pro *non est unum* edd. cum nonnullis codd. substituunt *non esse unum*, et Vat. post *sicut* bene subdit *nec*.

en: Psalm 61:12 [Vulg.]. — The Gloss, which is found in Peter Lombard and Lyra, was formed from that text of Augustine, *Expositions* on this passage, n. 18: *In himself God has spoken once, because God begot one Word.* — Soon after *constat* the codices F N Y bb insert *quod*. Then for *non est unum* the editions, with several codices, substitute *non esse unum*, and the Vatican edition rightly adds *nec* after *sicut*.

la: Gilb. Porret., de Sex Principiis, c. de Actione: *Omnis enim actio passionis est effectiva.* — In fine arg. post *natus* edd. et aliquot codd. addunt *est Christus*.

en: Gilbert of Poitiers, *On the Six Principles*, c. on Action: *For every action is productive of a passion.* — At the end of the argument, after *natus* the editions and several codices add *est Christus*.

la: Generatim siquidem numerus dicit unitates eiusdem rationis, quia est multitudo mensurata per unum. Cfr. Aristot., X. Metaph. text. 20. seq. (IX. c. 6.).

en: For number in general signifies units of the same account, since it is a multitude measured by a unit. Cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* X, text 20 ff. (IX, c. 6).

la: Iac. 1, 17. — Ante *duabus vicibus* codd. B O Z bb omittunt *quod*.

en: James 1:17. — Before *duabus vicibus* the codices B O Z bb omit *quod*.

la: De maiori notentur verba Petr. Hispan., Summul. tr. de Distribut. c. de Signis distrib. quantitatis: *Quotiescunque fuisti Parisius, toties fuisti homo; sed bis fuisti Parisius: ergo bis fuisti homo; quod est falsum, quia haec dictio* bis *importat interruptionem eius cui adiungitur, sed actus essendi hominem non fuit interruptus in te.* — Cod. O hic addit: *Praeterea, quamvis Deus fuerit ab aeterno et post simul cum tempore, non tamen Deus dicitur bis fuisse; similiter, ut videtur, licet Christus fuerit semel natus de Matre, semel de Patre, non propter hoc debet dici bis natus, cum in ipso non cadat interruptio.*

en: For the major premise note the words of Peter of Spain, *Summulae*, tr. on Distribution, c. on Signs distributive of quantity: *As often as you were at Paris, so often you were a man; but twice you were at Paris: therefore twice you were a man; which is false, because this word "twice" implies an interruption of that to which it is joined, but the act of being a man was not interrupted in you.* — Codex O here adds: *Moreover, although God existed from eternity and afterward together with time, yet God is not said to have existed twice; likewise, as it seems, although Christ was born once of the Mother, once of the Father, he ought not on this account to be said to be born twice, since in him there falls no interruption.*

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 9. q. 4.

en: Cf. I Sentences, d. 9, q. 4.

la: Nam aeternum complectitur exceditque temporale. — Immediate post pro *ergo sicut* codd. A G H I K L N T U aa *ergo si*. In fine arg. pro *sic Virgo* Vat. cum codd. N T *sicut Virgo*.

en: For the eternal embraces and exceeds the temporal. — Immediately after, for *ergo sicut* the codices A G H I K L N T U aa [read] *ergo si*. At the end of the argument, for *sic Virgo* the Vatican edition with codices N T [reads] *sicut Virgo*.

la: Plurimi codd., relicto consueto loquendi modo, *in numero*. Subinde pro *ergo si*, quae lectio habetur in codd. A K Z bb, Vat. *ergo cum*, multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 *ergo tantum*, perperam suppressa vocula *si*.

en: Very many codices, abandoning the customary manner of speaking, [read] *in numero*. Then for *ergo si*, which reading is found in codices A K Z bb, the Vatican edition [reads] *ergo cum*, [and] many codices with editions 1 and 2 [read] *ergo tantum*, the particle *si* being wrongly suppressed.

la: Libr. V. Phys. text. 34-42. (c. 4.). Cfr. VII. text. 5. (c. 1.). — Subinde pro *habet* cod. E *potest*.

en: *Physics* bk. V, text 34–42 (c. 4). Cf. VII, text 5 (c. 1). — Then for *habet* codex E [reads] *potest*.

la: Priscian., XV. Grammat. c. 1. docet: *Adverbium est pars orationis indeclinabilis, cuius significatio verbis adiicitur.* Hoc enim perficit adverbium verbis additum, quod adiectiva nomina appellativis nominibus adiuncta, ut *prudens homo prudenter agit* etc. — Paulo superius pro *aliquo istorum* plurimi codd. perperam *aliquorum istorum*. Voci *istorum* edd. annectunt *trium*. Mox pro *Adverbium enim* Vat. *Adverbium autem*, et deinde pro *actus, hoc est* edd. *actus hic est*.

en: Priscian, *Grammar* XV, c. 1, teaches: *An adverb is an indeclinable part of speech, whose signification is added to verbs.* For an adverb added to verbs accomplishes this, [just] as adjectival nouns joined to appellative nouns, as *a prudent man acts prudently*, etc. — A little above, for *aliquo istorum* very many codices wrongly [read] *aliquorum istorum*. To the word *istorum* the editions attach *trium*. Soon, for *Adverbium enim* the Vatican edition [reads] *Adverbium autem*, and then for *actus, hoc est* the editions [read] *actus hic est*.

la: Codd. A E G H I N T U *multiplicitatem*.

en: The codices A E G H I N T U [read] *multiplicitatem*.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 7. q. 4. in corp.; d. 8. p. II. q. 4. ad 2; d. 14. a. 1. q. 2, ubi idem de duplici processione Spiritus sancti docetur; d. 25. a. 2. q. 2. — Pro *aequivoce* Vat. *univoce*. Sincerius legeretur *univoce nec aequivoce*. Paulo superius pro *secundum unitatem univocationis* cod. F *secundum convenientiam univocationis*.

en: Cf. I Sentences, d. 7, q. 4, in the body; d. 8, pt. II, q. 4, ad 2; d. 14, a. 1, q. 2, where the same is taught concerning the twofold procession of the Holy Spirit; d. 25, a. 2, q. 2. — For *aequivoce* the Vatican edition [reads] *univoce*. It would be read more truly *univoce nec aequivoce* ("univocally nor equivocally"). A little above, for *secundum unitatem univocationis* codex F [reads] *secundum convenientiam univocationis*.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 5. dub. 8. — Paulo ante pro *quod quantum* codd. A G N *quod et quantum*, edd. *quod etiam quantum*, et pro *dicant* edd. nec non codd. K O Z bb et alii *dicat*.

en: Cf. I Sentences, d. 5, dub. 8. — A little before, for *quod quantum* the codices A G N [read] *quod et quantum*, the editions [read] *quod etiam quantum*, and for *dicant* the editions as well as codices K O Z bb and others [read] *dicat*.

la: Vat. addit *tantum*. Paulo post pro *actus desitione* cod. A *actus defectione*.

en: The Vatican edition adds *tantum*. A little after, for *actus desitione* codex A [reads] *actus defectione* ("the failing of the act").

la: Codd. R T bb *generationem*. Paulo inferius pro *reperiri* codd. E K T Z bb *reperire*.

en: The codices R T bb [read] *generationem*. A little below, for *reperiri* the codices E K T Z bb [read] *reperire*.

la: Vide solut. ad 1. De seqq. cfr. I. Sent. d. 2. p. I. a. 1. et 2.

en: See the solution to 1. On what follows, cf. I Sentences, d. 2, pt. I, a. 1 and 2.

la: Sicut et creatura praesupponit Creatorem, et ambo numerantur ut duo, licet in nullo univocentur. — Pro *praesuppositionem* codd. A G I L U Z aa et edd. 1, 2 *praesumtionem*.

en: Just as a creature also presupposes its Creator, and both are numbered as two, although they are univocal in nothing. — For *praesuppositionem* the codices A G I L U Z aa and editions 1 and 2 [read] *praesumtionem*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Duas in Christo esse nativitates, scilicet aeternam et temporalem, est extra controversiam; unde etiam ab omnibus conceditur, eum esse bis natum, cum *bis* dicat numerum actuum ex parte mensurae. Hoc autem potest esse dupliciter: vel ex parte mensurae *eiusdem generis*, scilicet temporis, et tunc *bis* importat cum numero etiam vicissitudinem et interruptionem (hic solut. ad 2. 3.); vel ex parte mensurarum *diversi generis*, scilicet aeternitatis et temporis (cfr. solut. ad 1. 6.), et tunc importat quidem numerum, sed non vicissitudinem et interruptionem.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 10. m. 5. a. 1. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic a. 4. cum quaestiunc.; S. III. q. 35. a. 2, praesertim ad 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. 1. et dub. lat. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** That there are in Christ two nativities, namely the eternal and the temporal, is beyond controversy; whence it is even conceded by all that he was born twice, since *twice* signifies the number of acts on the part of measure. But this can be in two ways: either on the part of a measure *of the same kind*, namely time, and then *twice* implies, along with number, also alternation and interruption (here, the solution to 2 and 3); or on the part of measures *of a diverse kind*, namely eternity and time (cf. the solution to 1 and 6), and then it implies number indeed, but not alternation and interruption.

**II.** Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, pt. III, q. 10, m. 5, a. 1. — Scotus, in both *Scripta* here, the single question. — St. Thomas, here a. 4 with the little question; *Summa* III, q. 35, a. 2, especially ad 4. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here q. 3, a. 1, and the broad doubt. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.191–193 (PDF 213–215; offset pdf = printed + 22), read Left column top→bottom then Right, body bands then footer bands, cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 13675–13824). The OCR was largely clean here for the running prose but cascade-fragmented in the Respondeo and Solutio columns and across the footer blocks; per the Vol II/III override the PDF column-band read is authoritative in those regions. English is a fresh literal translation. Marginal labels (*Fundamenta, Ad oppositum, Actus tripliciter numeratur, Conclusio, Solutio oppositorum, Notandum, Duplex terminatio*) are rendered inline in parentheses, not as anchors.

**Article II opener.** The short ART. II opener (*Consequenter quaeritur de nativitate temporali in comparatione ad aeternam. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria*) plus the three-question list is folded into q1 per the locked chunking convention — no standalone `d8-a2-divisio` chunk. Alignment VERIFIED against raw (opener raw 13688 *Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum concedendum sit, Christum bis natum esse*): this is q1 (*Christum bis esse natum* — whether Christ was born twice), NOT q2 (*in Christo sint filiationes duae*) nor q3 (*naturalis filius ratione utriusque nativitatis*).

**Page-split map.**
- **p.191** (running head `DIST. VIII. ART. II. QUAEST. I.`): ART. II header + opener + three-question list (top L→R) + QUAEST. I header + opener + *Fundamenta* args 1–4 (L col) + *Sed contra*/*Ad oppositum* args 1–5 (R col); footer notes 1–10 → `[^1]`–`[^10]`.
- **p.192** (running head `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`): *Sed contra* arg. 6 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (*Actus tripliciter numeratur* → *Conclusio*) + Solutio oppositorum *Ad 1–5* (Ad 5 ending *…patet illud* at foot of R col); footer notes 1–8 → `[^11]`–`[^18]`.
- **p.193** (running head `DIST. VIII. ART. II. QUAEST. II.` — the head names the page's last quaestio, but the q1 body fills the upper page): Solutio oppositorum *Ad 6* (L col, breaking at *…productione,* into R col) + Ad 6 tail ending *…ordinem sive distinctionem* + SCHOLION §I–II; q1's footers are p.193 notes **1–2** only → `[^19]`–`[^20]`. QUAESTIO II opens at the foot of p.193-R (*Utrum in Christo sint duae filiationes*).

No per-page suffix was needed: the three pages' per-page restarts are renumbered into a single continuous `[^1]`–`[^20]` sequence (no cross-page marker collision in the body).

**Footer hand-off.** RECEIVED from `d8-a1-q3`: **NONE** (q3 exhausted its p.189 n.6–9 + p.190 n.1–8 at Ad 4 *ratione personae*; ART. II opened a fresh footer sequence on p.191). FORWARDED to `d8-a2-q2`: **NONE** — q1's p.191 n.1–10 + p.192 n.1–8 + p.193 n.1–2 are fully exhausted at the SCHOLION. On p.193 the footer notes **3 onward** (note 3 *Secundum Aristot. V. Metaph. … relationis fundamentum*; note 4 *De Praedicam. de His quae ad aliquid*; note 5 *Aristot. VII. Topic.*; note 6 *Edd. cum nonnullis codd. … matre*; note 7 *B. Albert., hic a. 2.*; note 8 *De Fide Trin. c. 5 … de Virgine*) belong to **QUAESTIO II** (*Utrum in Christo sint duae filiationes*), keying its arguments — NOT q1. q2 therefore opens its own footer sequence on p.193 with note 3.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: TRUE`. A standalone article-level SCHOLION §I–II prints after q1's Ad 6 (markerless, cross-refs only): §I states the principal conclusion (two nativities → born twice, with the *eiusdem generis* vs *diversi generis* measure distinction tying back to the solutions ad 1/2/3/6); §II is the parallel-commentator source list. Because this is a fresh article (ART. II), q1 carries its own scholion — unlike ART. I, where q1's scholion was the article-level one covering q1/q2/q3. The §II commentator list (*hic q. 2*, *hic a. 4*, etc.) covers the whole article, so q2 and q3 are likely forward-covered for commentator lists — VERIFY at q2/q3 whether they carry a *Vide scholion* redirect or print their own scholion.

**[?] flags.** None. The Latin read cleanly off the column bands; all OCR garbles (`coricedendum`, `nalum`, `transmu-tatio`, the body marker OCR-mangled around *desitione*) were unambiguously resolved against the PDF.

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. 8, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 193 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum in Christo sint duae filiationes.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum in Christo sint filiationes duae. Et quod sic, videtur.

*(Ad oppositum.)* 1. Generatio est ratio sive causa filiationis, sicut actio causa relationis[^1]; sed in Christo est duplex generatio: ergo est duplex filiatio; multiplicata enim causa, multiplicari videtur et effectus.

2. Item, multiplicato uno relativorum, necessario multiplicatur et reliquum, eo quod « relativorum est ad aliud se habere », et « quoties dicitur unum oppositorum, toties dicitur reliquum », sicut vult Philosophus[^2]: sed Christus secundum generationem aeternam est Filius Patris, secundum generationem temporalem est filius Matris: ergo etc.

3. Item, diversarum productionum diversi sunt termini; sed generatio temporalis et aeterna sunt diversae productiones: ergo si utraque terminatur ad Christum, secundum quod est filius, necesse est, Christum esse filium alium et alium: igitur in eo sunt filiationes plures.

4. Item, idem est esse natum et esse filium; sed si aliqua sunt eadem, numerato uno, numeratur et reliquum: ergo si Christus est bis natus, habet duplicem filiationem.

5. Item, abstracta filiatione aeterna, est intelligere filiationem temporalem, et e converso: ergo si illa sunt diversa, quorum unum est intelligere, abstracto alio, igitur filiatio aeterna et temporalis est alia et alia in Christo[^3].

*(Fundamenta.)* **Sed contra:** 1. Filiatio est proprietas personalis; sed in Christo non est nisi una persona: ergo non est nisi una sola filiatio.

2. Item, sicut Christus habet Patrem et Matrem, ita quilibet alius est natus ex patre et ex matre; sed nullus dicitur habere duas filiationes, quia genitus est ex patre et ex matre: ergo pari ratione in Christo non erunt duae filiationes, quia natus est Christus ex Patre et ex Virgine[^4].

3. Item, ex hoc quod aliquis magister habet plures discipulos, hodie unum et cras alium, non habet diversos magistratus[^5]: ergo pari ratione nec Christus debet dici habere plures filiationes ex hoc, quod genitus est a Patre prius et a Matre posterius.

4. Item, si alia persona nata esset de Virgine, esset confusio in proprietatibus personalibus propter pluralitatem filiationum, sicut dicit Anselmus[^6]: si
<!-- page 194 -->
ergo in incarnatione Verbi nulla facta est proprietatum confusio, videtur, quod nulla facta sit filiationum plurificatio.

5. Item, numerata proprietate, numeratur subiectum, ut si sunt duae albedines, sunt duo alba: ergo si sunt duae filiationes, sunt duo filii: ergo si in Christo sunt duae filiationes, in Christo sunt duo filii, et si Christus est duo filii, Christus est duo. Sed haec est falsa, sicut improbata est supra[^7], et habetur in Symbolo: « Non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus »: igitur falsum est, duas filiationes esse in Christo.

> ### Conclusio.
>
> Cum in Christo non sint plures personae, non sunt plures in eo filiationes, licet dicatur bis natus, quia filiatio proprie personam respicit et non naturam nisi ratione personae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quamvis concedatur, in Christo duas esse nativitates, non tamen concedi debet, duas esse filiationes. — *(Tres comparationes in filiatione.)* Et ratio huius est, quia, cum filiatio sit relatio, comparationem habet ad tria: ad subiectum in quo est, et ad terminum ad quem est, et ad principium a quo est. *(Principium.)* Numerus autem relationis secundum differentiam formalem sive specificam causatur a principio, a quo est, sicut paternitas et dominium sunt duae relationes in aliquo homine, quae numerantur non ratione eius in quo sunt, principaliter, sed ratione eius a quo sunt; quia possunt esse duae relationes in homine respectu eiusdem. *(Subiectum.)* — Plurificatio autem relationis secundum numerum non venit principaliter ratione eius a quo est, nec ratione ad quem, sed ratione subiecti eius in quo[^8], quoniam proprietas subiecti numerari habet ratione suppositi. *(Conclusio.)* Et quoniam subiectum filiationis est ipsa persona, non natura nisi ratione personae; hinc est, quod cum in Christo non sint plures personae, non possunt esse plures filiationes. — Ideo concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.

*(Solutio oppositorum.)* 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod generatio est causa filiationis; iam patet responsio, quia relatio non multiplicatur ex parte causae, sed ex parte subiecti. — *(Quaestio incidens.)* Si autem quaeratur, quare multiplicatur generatio in Christo et non filiatio, cum utraque respiciat personam; dicendum, *(Ratio 1.)* quod generatio significat per modum actionis; actio autem et passio non solum recipit numerationem ex parte subiecti, sed etiam ex parte mensurae, et ex parte principii. Et quoniam aliud est principium, et alia est mensura, temporalis et aeterna; ideo alia potest dici et alia generatio[^9], quamvis non filiatio. — *(Ratio 2.)* Alia etiam est ratio, quia, etsi generatio respiciat personam, tamen per consequens respicere potest et naturam. Unde humana natura in Christo potest dici nata, non tamen potest dici filia, quia filiatio proprie respicit personam. Et quia in Christo est pluralitas naturarum et unitas personae; ideo possunt dici plures generationes, quamvis non possint dici plures filiationes.

*(Notandum.)* 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod multiplicato uno relativorum, multiplicatur et reliquum; dicendum, quod illud verum est de multiplicatione formali et de eo correlativo, a quo dependet correlativum dependentia essentiali; quando autem correlativum[^10] multiplicatur multiplicatione materiali, non habet veritatem; sicut est quando unus homo generat plures filios, et unus magister docet plures discipulos; tunc enim relatio, quae est in ipso, non dependet ab unoquoque eorum nisi dependentia accidentali, et desinente uno, salvatur relatio in altero. Unde quando quis generat post primum filium alium, non nascitur in eo nova paternitas, sed primae paternitati innascitur novus respectus, quia pater est plurium, quam prius erat. Sic est intelligendum in proposito; unde Christus generatione temporali non acquirit novam filiationem, sed incipit esse filius alterius, scilicet Virginis.

*(Notandum.)* 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod diversarum productionum diversi sunt termini; dicendum, quod verum est, quando illae productiones sunt disparatae, ita quod una non supponit aliam; sic autem non est in proposito, quia nativitas temporalis praesupponit aeternam nativitatem. Et ideo non oportet, filium esse alium et alium, quamvis alia et alia generatione generetur; sufficit enim, ut dictum fuit[^11], ad pluralitatem generationum pluralitas naturarum, non sic autem ad pluralitatem filiationum.

*(Notandum.)* 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod idem est esse natum et esse filium; dicendum, quod etsi de eodem dicatur, tamen filiatio proprie dicit relationem, et nativitas sive generatio ipsam productionem; re-
<!-- page 195 -->
latio autem et actio ex alia et alia causa habent numerari[^12]. Et ideo non sequitur, quod si plurificetur productio, quod plurificatur filiatio.

*(Notandum.)* 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod est intelligere filiationem temporalem, abstracta filiatione aeterna; dicendum, quod hoc non est propter diversitatem relationis in se, sed propter diversitatem respectuum; sicut si aliquis sit pater duorum, potest intelligi esse pater unius, ita quod non alterius; et si aliquis videatur a duobus, potest intelligi videri ab uno, ita quod non ab alio. Ex hoc tamen non potest concludi, quod sit diversitas secundum rem, sed secundum rationem. Diversitatem autem secundum rationem voco illam, quae solum est secundum respectum et comparationem.

english:
### Question II. *Whether in Christ there are two filiations.*

Secondly it is asked whether in Christ there are two filiations. And that there are, it seems thus.

*(To the contrary [for the affirmative].)* 1. Generation is the ground or cause of filiation, just as action is the cause of relation[^1]; but in Christ there is a twofold generation: therefore there is a twofold filiation; for when the cause is multiplied, the effect too seems to be multiplied.

2. Likewise, when one of two correlatives is multiplied, the other is necessarily multiplied also, because « it belongs to correlatives to be related to one another », and « as often as one of the opposites is said, so often is the other said », as the Philosopher holds[^2]: but Christ according to the eternal generation is the Son of the Father, according to the temporal generation he is the son of the Mother: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, of diverse productions the terms are diverse; but the temporal and the eternal generation are diverse productions: therefore if each is terminated at Christ, insofar as he is a son, it is necessary that Christ be one and another son: therefore in him there are several filiations.

4. Likewise, to be born and to be a son are the same; but if some things are the same, when one is numbered, the other is numbered also: therefore if Christ was born twice, he has a twofold filiation.

5. Likewise, with the eternal filiation abstracted, the temporal filiation can be understood, and conversely: therefore if those are diverse, one of which can be understood when the other is abstracted, then the eternal and the temporal filiation are one and another in Christ[^3].

*(Foundations [for the contrary].)* **On the contrary:** 1. Filiation is a personal property; but in Christ there is but one person: therefore there is but one single filiation.

2. Likewise, just as Christ has a Father and a Mother, so anyone else is born of a father and of a mother; but no one is said to have two filiations because he was begotten of a father and of a mother: therefore by parity of reasoning there will not be two filiations in Christ because Christ was born of the Father and of the Virgin[^4].

3. Likewise, from the fact that some master has several disciples, today one and tomorrow another, he does not have diverse masterships[^5]: therefore by parity of reasoning neither ought Christ be said to have several filiations from the fact that he was begotten of the Father first and of the Mother afterward.

4. Likewise, if another person had been born of the Virgin, there would be confusion in the personal properties on account of the plurality of filiations, as Anselm says[^6]: if
<!-- page 194 -->
therefore in the incarnation of the Word no confusion of properties was made, it seems that no plurification of filiations was made.

5. Likewise, when a property is numbered, the subject is numbered, just as if there are two whitenesses there are two white things: therefore if there are two filiations there are two sons: therefore if in Christ there are two filiations, in Christ there are two sons, and if Christ is two sons, Christ is two. But this is false, as was disproved above[^7], and is held in the Creed: « Yet not two, but one is Christ »: therefore it is false that there are two filiations in Christ.

> ### Conclusion.
>
> Since in Christ there are not several persons, there are not several filiations in him, although he is said to have been born twice, because filiation properly regards the person and not the nature except by reason of the person.

**I respond:** It must be said that although it is conceded that in Christ there are two nativities, it ought not nonetheless be conceded that there are two filiations. — *(Three comparisons in filiation.)* And the reason for this is that, since filiation is a relation, it has a comparison to three things: to the subject in which it is, and to the term to which it is, and to the principle from which it is. *(Principle.)* Now the number of a relation according to formal or specific difference is caused by the principle from which it is, just as paternity and lordship are two relations in some man, which are numbered not by reason of that in which they are, principally, but by reason of that from which they are; for there can be two relations in a man with respect to the same thing. *(Subject.)* — But the plurification of a relation according to number does not come principally by reason of that from which it is, nor by reason of that to which it is, but by reason of the subject in which it is[^8], since a property of a subject must be numbered by reason of the supposit. *(Conclusion.)* And since the subject of filiation is the person itself, not the nature except by reason of the person; hence it is that, since in Christ there are not several persons, there cannot be several filiations. — Therefore the reasons adduced for this are to be conceded.

*(Solution of the contrary arguments.)* 1. To that, then, which is objected first, that generation is the cause of filiation; the response is already clear, because the relation is not multiplied on the part of the cause, but on the part of the subject. — *(An incidental question.)* But if it be asked why generation is multiplied in Christ and not filiation, since each regards the person; it must be said, *(Reason 1.)* that generation signifies by the mode of action; but action and passion receive numeration not only on the part of the subject, but also on the part of the measure, and on the part of the principle. And since the principle is one thing, and the measure another, the temporal and the eternal; therefore the generation can be called one and another[^9], although the filiation cannot. — *(Reason 2.)* There is also another reason, because, even if generation regards the person, nonetheless by consequence it can also regard the nature. Hence the human nature in Christ can be said to be born, yet it cannot be said to be a daughter, because filiation properly regards the person. And because in Christ there is a plurality of natures and a unity of person; therefore several generations can be said, although several filiations cannot be said.

*(Note.)* 2. To that which is objected, that when one of two correlatives is multiplied the other is multiplied also; it must be said that this is true of formal multiplication and of that correlative on which the correlative depends with an essential dependence; but when the correlative[^10] is multiplied by a material multiplication, it does not hold true; as is the case when one man begets several sons, and one master teaches several disciples; for then the relation which is in him does not depend on each one of them except with an accidental dependence, and when one ceases, the relation is preserved in the other. Hence when one begets, after the first son, another, no new paternity is born in him, but to the first paternity a new respect is born, because he is the father of more than he was before. So it is to be understood in the matter at hand; hence Christ by the temporal generation does not acquire a new filiation, but begins to be the son of another, namely of the Virgin.

*(Note.)* 3. To that which is objected, that of diverse productions the terms are diverse; it must be said that this is true when those productions are disparate, such that one does not presuppose the other; but it is not so in the matter at hand, because the temporal nativity presupposes the eternal nativity. And therefore it is not necessary that the son be one and another, although he is begotten by one and another generation; for it suffices, as was said[^11], for the plurality of generations that there be a plurality of natures, but not so for the plurality of filiations.

*(Note.)* 4. To that which is objected, that to be born and to be a son are the same; it must be said that although it is said of the same thing, nonetheless filiation properly states a relation, and nativity or generation [states] the production itself; for re-
<!-- page 195 -->
lation and action are numbered from one and another cause[^12]. And therefore it does not follow that if the production is plurified, the filiation is plurified.

*(Note.)* 5. To that which is objected last, that the temporal filiation can be understood with the eternal filiation abstracted; it must be said that this is not on account of a diversity of the relation in itself, but on account of a diversity of respects; just as if someone is the father of two, he can be understood to be the father of one, such that he is not [the father] of the other; and if someone is seen by two, he can be understood to be seen by one, such that he is not [seen] by the other. From this, however, it cannot be concluded that there is a diversity according to the thing, but according to reason. And I call that a diversity according to reason which is only according to respect and comparison.

la: Secundum Aristot., V. Metaph. text. 20. (IV. c. 15.) triplex est relationis fundamentum et causa sive, ut in corp. quaest. dicitur, principium a quo, scil. unitas et numerus (convenientia et disconvenientia), actio et passio, et mensura ac mensurabile. — De minori cfr. q. praeced. — In fine arg. cod. Z voci *effectus* praefigit *eius*.

en: According to Aristotle, *Metaphysics* V, text 20 (IV, c. 15), the foundation and cause of relation — or, as is said in the body of the question, the principle from which — is threefold, namely: unity and number (agreement and disagreement), action and passion, and measure and measurable. — On the minor premise cf. the preceding question. — At the end of the argument codex Z prefixes *eius* to the word *effectus*.

la: De Praedicam. c. *de His quae ad aliquid*: Est autem esse iis quae ad aliquid sunt idem ac ad aliquid aliquo modo se habere. Cfr. supra pag. 170, nota 7. Et I. Topic. c. 13. dicit: Si enim alterum [oppositorum] multipliciter dicitur, et reliquum. Et V. Ethic. c. 1. ait: Si unum multis modis dicitur, alterum quoque dicatur. Cfr. de Praedicam. c. *de Quali*.

en: *Categories*, c. *On Things in Relation to Something*: « For to be, for things that are in relation to something, is the same as to be related in some way to something. » Cf. above p. 170, note 7. And in *Topics* I, c. 13, he says: « For if one [of the opposites] is said in many ways, so is the other. » And in *Ethics* V, c. 1, he says: « If one is said in many ways, let the other be said [in many ways] too. » Cf. *Categories*, c. *On Quality*.

la: Aristot., VII. Topic. c. 1: « Nam [si sunt eadem] quaecumque alteri accidunt, et alteri oportet accidere » etc. Ibid. etiam haec habetur sententia, quam pro seq. arg. illustrando hic afferimus: Si potest alterum sine altero esse; non erit enim idem ad [ei] idem.

en: Aristotle, *Topics* VII, c. 1: « For [if they are the same] whatever befalls the one must also befall the other », etc. There too is found this maxim, which we cite here to illustrate the following argument: « If the one can be without the other; for it will not be the same as [identical to] the same. »

la: Edd. cum nonnullis codd. adiungunt *matre*.

en: The editions, with some codices, add *matre*.

la: B. Albert., hic a. 2. ait: Ponamus, unum magistrum hodie habere unum discipulum et cras alium et ita successive usque ad mille, oportebit secundum hoc, quod mille magistri generarentur in ipso, quod absurdum est.

en: B. Albert, here a. 2, says: Let us suppose one master to have today one disciple and tomorrow another, and so successively up to a thousand; according to this it would be necessary that a thousand masterships be generated in him, which is absurd.

la: De Fide Trin. c. 8, et II. Cur Deus homo, c. 9. Cfr. supra pag. 17, nota 3. et 7. — Pro *de Virgine* codd. I. bb *ex Virgine*.

en: *On the Faith of the Trinity*, c. 8, and *Cur Deus homo* II, c. 9. Cf. above p. 17, note 3 and 7. — For *de Virgine* codices I and bb [read] *ex Virgine*.

la: Dist. 6. a. 1. q. 1. — Symbolum hic memoratum est Athanasianum. — De maiori cfr. q. praeced. in corp. et tom. I. pag. 411, nota 6 nec non tom. II. pag. 58, nota 2.

en: Dist. 6, a. 1, q. 1. — The Creed here mentioned is the Athanasian. — On the major premise cf. the preceding question in the body, and tome I, p. 411, note 6, as well as tome II, p. 58, note 2.

la: Codd. P bb addunt *est*. Paulo superius post *nec ratione* cod. K adiicit *eius*. Edd., consentientibus nonnullis codd., constructionem huius proposit. non modice mutaverunt, siquidem, post verba *sed ratione subiecti eius in quo* interiecta vocula *Et*, cum hac vocula novam incipiunt propositionem, quam cum seq. immediate connectunt, omisso *quoniam* ante *subiectum filiationis*. Pro *Et quoniam subiectum filiationis* cod. I *Quoniam ergo subiectum* etc., alii codd. *Quoniam subiectum* etc.

en: Codices P and bb add *est*. A little above, after *nec ratione*, codex K inserts *eius*. The editions, with some codices agreeing, altered the construction of this sentence not a little, since, after the words *sed ratione subiecti eius in quo* they interpose the particle *Et*, and with this particle begin a new sentence, which they connect immediately with what follows, omitting *quoniam* before *subiectum filiationis*. For *Et quoniam subiectum filiationis* codex I [reads] *Quoniam ergo subiectum*, etc.; other codices [read] *Quoniam subiectum*, etc.

la: Supple: secundum numerum.

en: Supply: according to number.

la: Pro *quando autem correlativum* cod. X *si dicatur de relativo quod*, edd. *sed si unum correlativum*. In fine solut. edd. voci *Virginis* praefigunt *hominis*.

en: For *quando autem correlativum* codex X [reads] *si dicatur de relativo quod*, the editions [read] *sed si unum correlativum*. At the end of the solution the editions prefix *hominis* to the word *Virginis*.

la: Hic in solut. ad 1. et q. praeced. ad 6. — Aliquanto superius pro *supponit* codd. Z bb *praesupponit*, et mox pro *praesupponit* codd. G H L N T U W Y nec non edd. 1, 2 perperam *non praesupponit* (vel *non supponit*). — Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2.

en: Here in the solution to 1 and in the preceding question, ad 6. — Somewhat above, for *supponit* codices Z bb [read] *praesupponit*, and shortly after, for *praesupponit* codices G H L N T U W Y as well as editions 1 and 2 wrongly [read] *non praesupponit* (or *non supponit*). — Cf. above a. 1, q. 2.

la: Cfr. corp. quaest. huius et praeced.

en: Cf. the body of this question and of the preceding one. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Solutio huius quaestionis non caret gravi difficultate nec opinionum diversitate inter ipsos catholicos, praeterquam quod occasionem dedit origini haeretici erroris, qui *adoptianismus* vocatur, de quo infra d. 10. a. 2. q. 1. agitur. Contra Nestorium constat, quod Christus ut *hic* homo, spectata unius suae personae constitutione, est unus Filius Dei *naturalis*. Si autem filiatio consideratur ut *relatio*, et speciatim quaeritur tum de *relatione* hominis Christi ad Deum ut suum principium, tum de relatione, qua Christus refertur ad Matrem; tunc diversae sententiae exortae sunt. « Quidam attendentes ad *causam* filiationis, quae est nativitas, ponunt in Christo duas filiationes, sicut et duas nativitates; alii vero attendentes ad *subiectum* filiationis, quod est persona vel hypostasis Filii, ponunt unam tantum filiationem, sicut et unam hypostasim vel personam » (ita S. Thom., *S. III. q. 35. a. 5.*). Hanc secundam sententiam tenent antiquiores Scholastici: Alex. Hal., B. Albert., S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Dionys. Carth. cum nostro auctore; quorum fundamentum principale est, « quod subiectum filiationis est ipsa *persona*, non natura nisi ratione personae » (hic in corp.). Addit tamen S. Thom. (loc. cit.): « Quantum ad aliquid utraque opinio dicit verum. Nam si attendamus ad perfectas rationes filiationis, oportet dicere duas filiationes secundum dualitatem nativitatum; si autem attendamus ad subiectum filiationis, quod non potest esse nisi suppositum aeternum, non potest esse in Christo realiter nisi filiatio aeterna ». Conveniunt Ss. Thom. et Bonav. etiam in solutione 2. arg. ad oppositum, docentes, Filium Dei (Christum) referri ad Matrem non nisi *relatione rationis* filiationis temporalis, ita ut multiplicentur quidem respectus, sed non *reales relationes*. Nam « ex hoc, quod Filius Dei refertur ad Matrem, non oportet, quod habeat aliam filiationem secundum *rem*, sed alium *respectum* relationis » (S. Thom., hic a. 5. ad 2.). Primam autem opinionem Richard. a Med. (hic a. 2. q. 2.) sic explicat: « Dicendum sine praeiudicio, quod in Christo sunt duae filiationes: una respectu Patris, quae non refertur ad Matrem, et alia temporalis respectu Matris, quae refertur ad Matrem, quae sibi convenit ratione humanae naturae ». Et in solut. ad 4. dicit, filiationem et relationem respectu Matris esse *realem*. Nihilominus cum ceteris vult (ad 1.), hinc minime sequi errorem, quod propter duas filiationes in Christo sint duo filii. Duas *filiationes reales* in Christo esse, docet etiam Scotus (hic in utroque Scripto q. 1.) et arguit contra illud secundae opinionis fundamentum, quod filiatio sit proprie *personae*, non *naturae*, simulque contendit, relationem filiationis ad Matrem esse *realem*, quam assertionem Suarez (in p. III. Sum. t. II. disp. 12. sect. 2.) dicit esse sententiam theologorum communiorem. Huic suffragatur quoque Aegid. R., qui ipsis S. Thomae principiis nititur sententiam sui magistri evertere. Etiam Durand. reapse eandem viam sequitur, licet verbis mediam quandam sententiam se sequi profiteatur. Ast Henr. Gand. (Quodl. 4. q. 3.) asserit: « Unica est realis relatio filiationis in Filio Dei ad duas generationes et nativitates »; et subiungit ad explicandam suam opinionem, « quod ipsa filiatio aeterna de novo respicit Matrem propter novam naturam ».

**II.** Praeter laudatos: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 10. m. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. 2. et dub. lat. 1-5. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

**III.** Sequens (3.) quaestio agit non contra Adoptianos, qui negant Christum, quatenus est homo, esse Filium Dei naturalem (de quo cfr. infra d. 10. a. 2. q. 1.), sed proprie de Christi nativitate temporali respectu Matris, de qua iam plura dicta sunt supra d. 4. a. 3. q. 1-3. — Plurimi antiqui Scholastici hanc rem tantum tangunt in quaestione, utrum in Christo sint duae nativitates (cfr. hic q. 1.). Speciatim de ipsa tractant: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 10. m. 5. a. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., loc. cit.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The solution of this question is not without grave difficulty nor without a diversity of opinions among the Catholics themselves, besides that it gave occasion to the origin of the heretical error which is called *adoptianism*, of which there is treatment below at d. 10, a. 2, q. 1. Against Nestorius it is established that Christ as *this* man, considering the constitution of his single person, is one *natural* Son of God. But if filiation is considered as a *relation*, and the question is asked specifically both about the *relation* of the man Christ to God as his principle, and about the relation by which Christ is referred to the Mother; then diverse opinions arose. « Some, attending to the *cause* of filiation, which is the nativity, posit in Christ two filiations, just as also two nativities; others, however, attending to the *subject* of filiation, which is the person or hypostasis of the Son, posit only one filiation, just as also one hypostasis or person » (so S. Thomas, *Summa III, q. 35, a. 5*). This second opinion the older Scholastics hold: Alexander of Hales, B. Albert, S. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Dionysius the Carthusian together with our author; whose principal foundation is « that the subject of filiation is the *person* itself, not the nature except by reason of the person » (here in the body). Yet S. Thomas adds (loc. cit.): « In a certain respect each opinion states something true. For if we attend to the perfect accounts of filiation, two filiations must be stated according to the duality of nativities; but if we attend to the subject of filiation, which can be nothing but the eternal supposit, there can be in Christ really only the eternal filiation ». Ss. Thomas and Bonaventure agree also in the solution of the 2nd argument to the contrary, teaching that the Son of God (Christ) is referred to the Mother only by a *relation of reason* of temporal filiation, such that respects are indeed multiplied, but not *real relations*. For « from the fact that the Son of God is referred to the Mother, it does not follow that he have another filiation according to the *thing*, but [only] another *respect* of relation » (S. Thomas, here a. 5, ad 2). But Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 2, q. 2) explains the first opinion thus: « It must be said, without prejudice, that in Christ there are two filiations: one with respect to the Father, which is not referred to the Mother, and another, temporal, with respect to the Mother, which is referred to the Mother, which belongs to him by reason of the human nature ». And in the solution to 4 he says that the filiation and the relation with respect to the Mother is *real*. Nonetheless with the rest he holds (ad 1) that there by no means follows from this the error that on account of two filiations there are two sons in Christ. That there are two *real filiations* in Christ, Scotus too teaches (here in each Writing, q. 1) and argues against that foundation of the second opinion, that filiation is proper to the *person*, not to the *nature*, and at the same time contends that the relation of filiation to the Mother is *real*, which assertion Suárez (in pt. III of the Summa, t. II, disp. 12, sect. 2) says to be the more common opinion of the theologians. To this Aegidius Romanus also lends support, who strives by S. Thomas's very own principles to overturn the opinion of his master. Durandus too in fact follows the same path, although in words he professes to follow a certain middle opinion. But Henry of Ghent (Quodl. 4, q. 3) asserts: « There is a single real relation of filiation in the Son of God to two generations and nativities »; and he adds, to explain his opinion, « that the eternal filiation itself anew regards the Mother on account of the new nature ».

**II.** Besides those already cited: Alexander of Hales, Summa pt. III, q. 10, m. 3. — B. Albert, here a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 3, a. 2, and dub. lat. 1-5. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

**III.** The following (3rd) question treats not against the Adoptianists, who deny that Christ, insofar as he is man, is a natural Son of God (concerning which cf. below d. 10, a. 2, q. 1), but properly of Christ's temporal nativity with respect to the Mother, concerning which many things have already been said above at d. 4, a. 3, q. 1-3. — Very many of the ancient Scholastics touch on this matter only in the question whether in Christ there are two nativities (cf. here q. 1). Specifically they treat of it: Alexander of Hales, Summa pt. III, q. 10, m. 5, a. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 3, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, loc. cit.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.193–195 (PDF 215–217; offset pdf = printed + 22), read Left column top→bottom then Right, body bands then footer bands, cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 13830–13986). The OCR was largely clean for the running prose (Fundamenta / Sed contra args) but cascade-fragmented in the Respondeo, Solutio, and SCHOLION columns and across the footer blocks; per the Vol II/III override the PDF column-band read is authoritative in those regions. English is a fresh literal translation. Marginal labels (*Ad oppositum, Fundamenta, Conclusio, Tres comparationes in filiatione, Principium, Subiectum, Solutio oppositorum, Quaestio incidens, Ratio 1, Ratio 2, Notandum*) are rendered inline in parentheses, not as anchors.

**Alignment.** VERIFIED against raw (opener raw line 13830 *Secundo quaeritur, utrum in Christo sint filiationes duae. Et quod sic, videtur*): this is q2 (*in Christo sint duae filiationes* — whether there are two filiations in Christ), NOT q1 (*Christum bis esse natum*) nor q3 (*naturalis filius ratione utriusque nativitatis*, raw 13987). q2 body runs raw 13830 → just before QUAESTIO III at raw 13987.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.193** (running head `DIST. VIII. ART. II. QUAEST. II.`): q1's Ad 6 tail + q1's SCHOLION fill the upper L/R columns; QUAESTIO II opens at the foot of p.193-L (header + title + opener + *Fundamenta* [affirmative] args 1–5) and continues into p.193-R (*Sed contra* args 1–4, arg.4 breaking at *sicut dicit Anselmus⁸: si* into p.194). q2's footers here are p.193 notes **3–8** → `[^1]`–`[^6]`.
- **p.194** (running head `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`): *Sed contra* arg.5 (*numerata proprietate*) + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (*Tres comparationes* → *Principium / Subiectum / Conclusio*) + Solutio oppositorum *Ad 1* (*Quaestio incidens*, *Ratio 1/2*) + *Ad 2/3* (*Notandum*) + *Ad 4* open, ending *…ipsam productionem; re-* at foot of R col. q2's footers here are p.194 notes **1–7** → `[^7]`–`[^12]` (see numbering note).
- **p.195** (running head `DIST. VIII. ART. II. QUAEST. III.` — the head names the page's last quaestio; q2's Ad 4 tail/Ad 5 + the q2 SCHOLION fill the upper page): Ad 4 tail (*latio autem et actio…numerari¹*) + *Ad 5* (*Notandum*) ending *…secundum respectum et comparationem* + SCHOLION §I–III. q2's footer here is p.195 note **1** (*Cfr. corp. quaest. huius et praeced.*) → `[^12]`.

**Apparatus numbering.** 12 entries, renumbered into a single continuous `[^1]`–`[^12]` sequence (the SCHOLION is markerless). Per-page restarts were renumbered continuously rather than `b`-suffixed (no body marker collision): p.193 n.3→`[^1]`, n.4→`[^2]`, n.5→`[^3]`, n.6→`[^4]`, n.7→`[^5]`, n.8→`[^6]`; p.194 n.1→`[^7]`, n.2→`[^8]`, n.3→`[^9]`, n.6→`[^10]`, n.7→`[^11]`; p.195 n.1→`[^12]`. Two consolidations to keep body/apparatus markers paired: (a) p.194 note 4 (*Cfr. q. praeced. … recipit/recipiunt/respicit*) keys *alia generatio⁴* in Ratio 1 — a bare manuscript-variant/cross-ref absorbed inline at *alia generatio* with no separate `[^N]`; (b) p.194 note 5 (*Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2.*) keys *plures filiationes⁵* in Ratio 2 — also a bare cross-ref, folded into `[^11]`'s text. Body markers run `[^1]`–`[^12]`, all present in both Latin and English at matching positions.

**Footer hand-off.** RECEIVED from `d8-a2-q1`: **NONE** — q1 exhausted its p.193 footer notes 1–2 (`[^19]`=*Vide solut. ad 1*; `[^20]`=*Sicut et creatura praesupponit*) at its SCHOLION; CONFIRMED eyes-on. q2 PICKED UP p.193 footer notes **3 onward** as its own first footers (note 3 *Secundum Aristot. V. Metaph. … relationis fundamentum* keys arg.1 *relationis³*). FORWARDED to `d8-a2-q3`: **NONE** — q2's p.193 n.3–8 + p.194 n.1–7 + p.195 n.1 are fully exhausted at the SCHOLION. q3 (*Utrum Christus sit filius naturalis ratione utriusque nativitatis*, raw 13987) opens its own footer sequence on p.195 (its first markers — e.g. *naturalis²* keying *Cfr. supra lit. Magistri d. IV c. 2.* — fall in the p.195 footer column under q3's opening; these are q3's, NOT q2's).

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: TRUE`. q2 carries a **standalone, distinct SCHOLION** §I–III (markerless, cross-refs only), NOT a forward-cover or a *Vide scholion* redirect: §I lays out the grave difficulty + the catholic opinion-spread (S. Thom./our author = one filiation by reason of the eternal supposit; Richard of Mediavilla, Scotus, Suárez, Aegidius, Durandus, Henry of Ghent = two real filiations / a single real relation), naming the adoptianist error; §II is q2's own commentator source-list; §III is a forward note on the *following (3rd) question* (it treats Christ's temporal nativity respectu Matris, not the adoptianists). The earlier forecast (q1's §II commentator list "likely forward-covers q2/q3") is therefore SUPERSEDED for q2 — q2 prints its own scholion. §III partially forward-covers q3's commentator list.

**[?] flags.** None. The Latin read cleanly off the column bands; all OCR garbles (`fdiationes`, `cluae`, `Skd contra`, `condusio`, the cascade-shattered Ad 2 in the OCR around *generat plures filios*) were unambiguously resolved against the PDF.