title: Dist. 4, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 100 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum Christus possit dici filius Spiritus sancti.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus possit dici filius Spiritus sancti. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia Damascenus[^1] dicit: «Descendit in Virginem Verbum tanquam σπόρος, id est semen»; sed quod operatur ad alicuius generationem mediante semine habet rationem patris: si ergo hoc modo operatus est Spiritus sanctus, ut dicit Damascenus, ergo est pater eius. *(Ad oppositum.)*

2. Item, pater dicitur[^2] qui deducit rem ad esse: ergo si magis deducit rem ad esse, magis debet dici pater: ergo si Spiritus sanctus magis est operatus ad hoc, quod caro Christi produceretur in esse, quam aliquis pater respectu prolis procreandae; videtur, quod Christus sit filius Spiritus sancti, loquendo proprie.

3. Item, Spiritus sanctus cum Virgine operatus est Filii Christi conceptionem, nec minus operatus est Spiritus sanctus quam Virgo, sed multo amplius[^3]: si ergo Christus dicitur filius Virginis, et Virgo dicitur eius mater; videtur, quod multo fortius debeat Spiritus sanctus dici eius pater.

4. Item, omne quod est de aliquo per actum conceptionis, habens similitudinem substantiae cum illo, dicitur eius filius[^4]; sed Christus conceptus est de Spiritu sancto et similis est in substantia cum illo: ergo Christus est filius Spiritus sancti.

5. Item, quicumque habet gratiam Spiritus sancti, hoc ipso est filius eius; sed Christus ab instanti conceptionis habuit gratiam excellentissimam Spiritus sancti[^5]: ergo videtur, quod filiatio conveniat Christo respectu Spiritus sancti.

**Sed contra:** 1. Christus nullius est filius nisi natura; sed solius Patris, vel Matris est filius per naturam: non ergo Spiritus sancti[^6]. *(Fundamenta.)*

2. Item, filiatio respicit hypostasim; sed hypostasis Filii Dei nullo modo habet comparari ad Spiritum sanctum in habitudine filiationis, immo potius in habitudine principii[^7]: ergo simpliciter falsum est dicere, quod Christus sit filius Spiritus sancti.

3. Item, si Christus est filius Spiritus sancti, ergo Spiritus sanctus est pater Christi, et Deus Pater est pater Christi: ergo duo patres in Trinitate[^8].

4. Item, si Christus est filius Spiritus sancti, quia operatus est eius conceptionem, ergo pari ratione Christus est filius suus; sed hoc nec ratio nec fides admittit, quod eadem res se ipsam gignat[^9], quod idem sit pater et filius sibi: ergo si Christus non est filius suus, pari ratione nec Spiritus sanctus pater eius.

5. Item, ad hoc est auctoritas Augustini, quam Magister ponit in littera[^10]: «Quis dicere audebit, Christum esse filium Spiritus sancti, cum hoc ita sit absurdum, ut nullae fidelium aures hoc valeant sustinere»? Videtur igitur tanquam haereticum dicere, Spiritum sanctum esse patrem Christi.

### Conclusio
> Nullatenus admittitur locutio, quod Christus sit filius Spiritus sancti.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio ista locutio non admittitur nec est admittenda, tum propter vitandum errorem circa generationem tempo<!-- page 101 -->ralem, tum circa generationem aeternam. *(Ratio 1.)* Ad vitandum errorem circa generationem temporalem, quia, cum secundum illam dicitur Christus conceptus de Virgine et Spiritu sancto, si diceretur Spiritus sanctus eius pater, sicut Virgo eius mater, iam videretur ex hoc Christus natus esse de Maria et Spiritu sancto[^11], sicut nascitur proles de muliere et viro. Quodsi hoc falsum est — quia proles partem accipit a patre et partem accipit a matre, in qua assimilatur patri et matri in eadem forma et natura; et hoc non est reperire in Christo quantum ad eius conceptionem, immo soli Matri assimilatur in natura assumpta — non[^12] debet admitti, Christum esse filium Spiritus sancti, sed solius Virginis Matris, ad manifestandam et servandam veritatem et proprietatem *(Ratio 2.)* temporalis generationis. — Sumitur etiam ratio ex parte generationis aeternae, quare[^13] catholici talem sermonem non admittant, ne scilicet confusio fiat aeternarum relationum et proprietatum. Unde cum proprium sit personae Patris generare respectu personae Filii, nullatenus admittitur, Christum esse filium Spiritus sancti, in quo[^14] non est alia persona vel hypostasis quam illa, quam Pater ab aeterno genuit. — Ideo propter vitandos errores tam circa generationem temporalem quam circa aeternam, non recipiunt theologi praedictam locutionem. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad praedictam partem.

1. Ad illud quod primo obiicitur de Damasceno, quod Verbum Dei descendit in Virginem ad modum seminis; dicendum, quod semen in se duplicem habet proprietatem: unam in hoc, quod habet in se vim activam: alteram in hoc, quod agit producendo similem in forma et natura. Damascenus ergo assumit similitudinem seminis ad operationem Spiritus sancti ratione primae proprietatis, non secundae. Cum vero assumit[^15], quod operatio ad modum seminis facit productivum principium habere habitudinem patris, hoc intelligitur ratione secundae proprietatis.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Pater est qui producit[^16] rem ad esse; dicendum, quod ista non est tota ratio patris, quia necesse est, quod conveniat in natura et forma; sed Spiritus sanctus non convenit cum Christo in natura et forma, secundum quam producit ipsum ad esse.

3. 4. Ad duo obiecta sequentia iam patet responsio per iam dicta. Quod enim obiicit, quod Virgo dicitur mater, et quod[^17] Spiritus sanctus pater; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia Virgo conformatur Christo in natura, secundum quam conceptus est ex tempore; Spiritus autem sanctus, quamvis Christo sit similis in natura, non tamen est eius principium secundum illam; et ideo non cogit ratio tertia, nec quarta.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de gratia, dicendum, quod quamvis de aliis hominibus concedi possit, quod sint filii Spiritus sancti propter gratiam, quam ipsi suscipiunt et mediante[^18] qua in filiorum Dei adoptionem assumuntur: tamen circa Christum non habet locum propter unionem, quae non tantum facit, illum hominem esse filium Dei per gratiam, sed filium Dei per naturam. Et ideo non sic conceditur de ipso, quod sit Spiritus sancti filius, sicut conceditur de aliis hominibus.

english:
### Question II. *Whether Christ can be called the son of the Holy Spirit.*

Secondly it is asked whether Christ can be called the son of the Holy Spirit. And that he can, it seems:

1. Because the Damascene[^1] says: «The Word descended into the Virgin like σπόρος, that is, seed»; but that which works toward the generation of something by means of seed has the character of a father: if therefore the Holy Spirit worked in this way, as the Damascene says, then he is his father. *(To the contrary.)*

2. Likewise, he is called father[^2] who brings a thing into being: therefore if he brings a thing into being to a greater degree, he ought the more to be called father: therefore if the Holy Spirit worked more toward this, that the flesh of Christ should be brought into being, than any father with respect to the offspring to be procreated; it seems that Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit, speaking properly.

3. Likewise, the Holy Spirit together with the Virgin effected the conception of the Son, Christ, nor did the Holy Spirit work less than the Virgin, but much more[^3]: if therefore Christ is called the son of the Virgin, and the Virgin is called his mother; it seems that all the more strongly ought the Holy Spirit to be called his father.

4. Likewise, everything that comes from another through the act of conception, having a likeness of substance with it, is called its son[^4]; but Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit and is like it in substance: therefore Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit.

5. Likewise, whoever has the grace of the Holy Spirit is by that very fact his son; but Christ from the instant of conception had the most excellent grace of the Holy Spirit[^5]: therefore it seems that sonship belongs to Christ with respect to the Holy Spirit.

**On the contrary:** 1. Christ is the son of no one except by nature; but he is son by nature of the Father alone, or of the Mother: therefore not of the Holy Spirit[^6]. *(Foundations.)*

2. Likewise, sonship regards the hypostasis; but the hypostasis of the Son of God can in no way be compared to the Holy Spirit in a relation of sonship, but rather in a relation of principle[^7]: therefore it is simply false to say that Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit.

3. Likewise, if Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is the father of Christ, and God the Father is the father of Christ: therefore there would be two fathers in the Trinity[^8].

4. Likewise, if Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit, because he effected his conception, then by parity of reasoning Christ is his own son; but this neither reason nor faith admits, that the same thing should beget itself[^9], that the same should be father and son to itself: therefore if Christ is not his own son, by parity of reasoning neither is the Holy Spirit his father.

5. Likewise, to this there is the authority of Augustine, which the Master sets down in the text[^10]: «Who will dare to say that Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit, since this is so absurd that no ears of the faithful can bear it»? It seems therefore to be heretical to say that the Holy Spirit is the father of Christ.

### Conclusion
> In no way is the expression admitted, that Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt this expression is not admitted nor is it to be admitted, both to avoid error concerning the temporal generation, and concerning the eternal generation. *(First reason.)* To avoid error concerning the temporal generation: because, since according to that generation Christ is said to have been conceived of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit were called his father, as the Virgin is his mother, it would thereby seem that Christ was born of Mary and the Holy Spirit[^11], as offspring is born of a woman and a man. But if this is false — because offspring takes part from the father and part from the mother, in which it is made like to father and mother in the same form and nature; and this is not to be found in Christ as regards his conception, but rather he is made like only to the Mother in the nature assumed — then it must not[^12] be admitted that Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit, but of the Virgin Mother alone, in order to manifest and preserve the truth and propriety *(Second reason.)* of the temporal generation. — A reason is also drawn from the side of the eternal generation, why[^13] Catholics do not admit such language, namely lest a confusion be made of the eternal relations and properties. Hence, since it is proper to the person of the Father to beget with respect to the person of the Son, in no way is it admitted that Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit, in whom[^14] there is no other person or hypostasis than that which the Father begot from eternity. — Therefore, to avoid errors both concerning the temporal generation and concerning the eternal, theologians do not accept the aforesaid expression. — Hence the reasons for the aforesaid position must be granted.

1. To that which is first objected concerning the Damascene, that the Word of God descended into the Virgin after the manner of seed; it must be said that seed has in itself a twofold property: one in this, that it has in itself an active power: the other in this, that it acts by producing something like in form and nature. The Damascene therefore takes the likeness of seed in regard to the operation of the Holy Spirit by reason of the first property, not the second. But when he takes it[^15] that operation after the manner of seed makes a productive principle have the relation of father, this is understood by reason of the second property.

2. To that which is objected, that the Father is the one who produces[^16] a thing into being; it must be said that this is not the whole account of father, because it is necessary that he agree in nature and form; but the Holy Spirit does not agree with Christ in the nature and form according to which he produces him into being.

3. 4. To the two following objections the response is already clear from what has been said. For as to what it objects, that the Virgin is called mother, and that[^17] the Holy Spirit is father; it must be said that it is not alike, because the Virgin is conformed to Christ in the nature according to which he was conceived in time; but the Holy Spirit, although he is like Christ in nature, is nevertheless not his principle according to that nature; and therefore neither the third reason nor the fourth compels.

5. To that which is objected concerning grace, it must be said that, although of other men it may be granted that they are sons of the Holy Spirit on account of the grace which they receive and by means of[^18] which they are taken up into the adoption of the sons of God: nevertheless concerning Christ this has no place, on account of the union, which makes that man to be the son of God not only by grace, but the son of God by nature. And therefore it is not granted of him, that he is the son of the Holy Spirit, in the way it is granted of other men.

la: Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 2. Ipsa Damasc. verba habentur supra in lit. Magistri, d. III. c. I. Vat. voci *sporos*, quam Graecis litteris descriptam exhibet (σπόρος), cum originali praefigit θεός et dein post *id est* subiicit *divinum*. Codd. *sporos* mutarunt in *scopon*.

en: Book III, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 2. The very words of the Damascene are found above in the text of the Master, d. III. c. I. The Vatican edition, to the word *sporos*, which it presents written in Greek letters (σπόρος), prefixes from the original θεός and then after *id est* subjoins *divinum*. The codices changed *sporos* into *scopon*.

la: Cod. G *est*, Vat. *est vel dicitur*. Mox pro *ergo si magis* cod. aa et edd. 1, 2 *ergo qui magis*.

en: Codex G *est*, the Vatican edition *est vel dicitur*. Shortly after, for *ergo si magis* codex aa and editions 1, 2 read *ergo qui magis*.

la: Vide infra a. 3. q. 1, seq. — Paulo inferius pro *eius mater* codd. F N T *esse mater*.

en: See below a. 3. q. 1, following. — A little further down, for *eius mater* codices F N T read *esse mater*.

la: Pro *filius*, quod ex codd. M O Z bb restituimus, alii codd. cum edd. perperam *pater*. Paulo superius pro *per actum* codd. lv M O U Z et edd. 1, 2 *per modum*.

en: For *filius*, which we have restored from codices M O Z bb, the other codices with the editions wrongly read *pater*. A little above, for *per actum* codices lv M O U Z and editions 1, 2 read *per modum*.

la: Cfr. infra d. XIII. tam lit. Magistri quam Comment. — Mox pro *filiatio* codd. A G L N T U V aa *filius*.

en: Cf. below d. XIII, both the text of the Master and the Commentary. — Shortly after, for *filiatio* codices A G L N T U V aa read *filius*.

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

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

la: Vide I. Sent. d. II. 12. et 29.

en: See I Sent., d. II, 12 and 29.

la: Cfr. supra d. I. a. I. q. 4. in corp. — Post *ergo duo patres* codd. K U Z supplent *sunt*.

en: Cf. above d. I. a. I. q. 4. in the body. — After *ergo duo patres* codices K U Z supply *sunt*.

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 47. (c. 4.): *Generat autem nihil ipsum se ipsum*. Idem dicit August., I. de Trin. c. I. n. 1, insuper II. de Trin. c. 10. n. 18. ait: *Neque enim Iesus etiam Spiritus sancti filius, aut etiam suus filius credi aut intelligi potest*. — Paulo ante pro *filius suus* codd. E N habent *filius Filii*.

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 47 (c. 4): *Nothing generates its very self*. The same says Augustine, *On the Trinity* I, c. I, n. 1, and moreover in *On the Trinity* II, c. 10, n. 18 he says: *For neither can Jesus be believed or understood to be the son of the Holy Spirit, nor even his own son*. — Shortly before, for *filius suus* codices E N have *filius Filii*.

la: Hic c. 2.

en: Here c. 2.

la: Cod. T *de Maria per Spiritum sanctum*.

en: Codex T reads *de Maria per Spiritum sanctum* (of Mary through the Holy Spirit).

la: Vat. cum paucis codd. *ideo non*.

en: The Vatican edition with a few codices reads *ideo non*.

la: Cod. X *quia*, et dein pro *admittant* cum codd. K U *admittunt*.

en: Codex X reads *quia*, and then for *admittant* with codices K U reads *admittunt*.

la: Vat. supplet *Christo*. Mox cod. T *nisi illa* pro *quam illa*.

en: The Vatican edition supplies *Christo*. Shortly after, codex T reads *nisi illa* for *quam illa*.

la: Scil. obiiciens, non Damascenus, et quidem in propos. minori primi arg. (quod *minor* etiam *assumtio* vocatur, notum est). — Paulo superius pro *Damascenus ergo assumit* cod. K *clarius Damascenus vero sumit*. Pro *Cum vero assumit* Vat. *Cum vero assumitur in ratione*, quae et dein post *habitudinem* adiicit *vel similitudinem*.

en: That is, the one objecting, not the Damascene, and indeed in the minor proposition of the first argument (that the *minor* is also called the *assumption* is well known). — A little above, for *Damascenus ergo assumit* codex K reads *clarius Damascenus vero sumit*. For *Cum vero assumit* the Vatican edition reads *Cum vero assumitur in ratione*, which then after *habitudinem* adds *vel similitudinem*.

la: Vat. hic et in fine solut. *perducit*. — Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: The Vatican edition here and at the end of the solution reads *perducit*. — Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Pro *et quod* edd. *ergo et*.

en: For *et quod* the editions read *ergo et*.

la: Pro *et mediante* edd. *immediate*, posita virgula post *mediante*. — De hac solut. cfr. infra d. 10. a. 2. q. 1.

en: For *et mediante* the editions read *immediate*, placing a comma after *mediante*. — On this solution cf. below d. 10. a. 2. q. 1.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Omnes concedunt, quod ista locutio non sit admittenda, quia saltem inconvenienter et improprie dicitur. Posteriores autem theologi cum S. Thoma eandem decernunt esse simpliciter falsam; attamen in rationibus pro hac conclusione allatis non conveniunt; de quo videri potest Ægid. R., qui, reiectis quatuor opinionibus (inter quas sunt etiam quaedam rationes a S. Thoma in Commentario probatae) tandem profert et latius explicat eam rationem, quae ab eodem S. Thoma in Summa affertur. — S. Bonav. autem modo loquendi diverso usus, in afferendis rationibus sequitur magistrum suum Alexandrum.

**II.** Similia dicenda sunt circa seq. (3.) quaestionem. Negant omnes, eam locutionem posse simpliciter concedi. Tamen Alex. Hal. (loc. cit.) opinatur, quod «posset concedi cum determinatione, ut est filius Trinitatis per creationem». Sed recte S. Bonav. cum ceteris magistris sustinet, quod nec ratione creationis nec ratione sanctificationis per gratiam, immo nullo modo ista locutio concedenda sit. — Tamen quoad rationem principalem iterum a S. Bonav. discedit S. Thomas, cum eam sumat ex hoc principio, quod solum ratione aeternae generationis debeat dici Filius Dei, «quia quando in aliquo invenitur perfecta ratio alicuius nominis, nullo modo recipitur illud nomen de eo cum determinatione diminuente» (hic q. 1. a. 2.).

**III.** De utraque quaest.: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 3. a. 4. — Scoti loci collecti apud Hier. de Montefortino, l. IV. q. 32. a. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 2; S. III. q. 32. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 2. — Ægid. R., hic q. I. a. 3. — Durand., hic q. I.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** All concede that this expression is not to be admitted, because at least it is said unfittingly and improperly. But the later theologians, with St. Thomas, decide that it is simply false; yet they do not agree in the reasons brought forward for this conclusion; on which one may consult Giles of Rome, who, having rejected four opinions (among which are also certain reasons proved by St. Thomas in the Commentary), at last brings forward and more fully explains that reason which is set forth by the same St. Thomas in the Summa. — But St. Bonaventure, using a different manner of speaking, in bringing forward his reasons follows his master Alexander.

**II.** Like things are to be said concerning the following (3rd) question. All deny that this expression can simply be conceded. Yet Alexander of Hales (loc. cit.) holds the opinion that «it could be conceded with a qualification, as he is the son of the Trinity by creation». But rightly does St. Bonaventure, with the other masters, maintain that neither by reason of creation nor by reason of sanctification through grace, indeed in no way, is this expression to be conceded. — Yet as to the principal reason St. Thomas again departs from St. Bonaventure, since he draws it from this principle, that only by reason of the eternal generation ought he to be called the Son of God, «because when in something the perfect account of some name is found, that name is in no way received of it with a diminishing qualification» (here q. 1. a. 2.).

**III.** On both questions: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 3. a. 4. — Scotus's passages collected in Hier. de Montefortino, l. IV. q. 32. a. 3. — S. Thom., here q. I. a. 2; S. III. q. 32. a. 3. — B. Albert., here a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., here q. I. a. 2. 3. — Richard. of Middleton, here a. I. q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here q. I. a. 3. — Durand., here q. I.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.100–101 (PDF 122–123; offset pdf = printed + 22), per the Vol II/III override (two-column IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters the Sed contra, Respondeo, replies, and footers). OCR (raw lines 7499–7617) used as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Read Left col top→bottom then Right, body bands then footer bands, for each page.

**Alignment PASS.** QUAESTIO II header = *Utrum Christus possit dici filius Spiritus sancti* ("Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus possit dici filius Spiritus sancti", raw 7499/7502). Confirmed NOT q1 (*appropriari … personae Spiritus sancti*) and NOT q3 (*filius Trinitatis*, raw 7618). The TRACTATIO phrases this q2 as *utrum Spiritus sancti filius debeat Christus appellari* — the QUAESTIO-header form is authoritative (per resume note). No q-swap.

**Page-split map.**
- p.100 R-col top: q1's scholion §II tail (Alex. Hal. … Dionys. Carth.), then QUAESTIO II header + title.
- p.100 (L-col + R-col): args 1–5, Sed contra 1–5 (incl. Augustine auctoritas), Conclusio, opening of Respondeo. Footers 1–10 (per-page restart): markers [^1]–[^5] in the *quod sic* args, [^6]–[^10] in the Sed contra args. ([^9] is the long Aristotle/Augustine note spanning the R-col footer block.)
- p.101 (L-col + R-col): Respondeo continuation + replies 1–5 + Scholion §I–III. Footers 1–8 → [^11]–[^18] (per-page restart). [^15] is the long note that wraps from the L-col footer bottom into the R-col footer top (single footnote 5, not two).
- q2 ends entirely on p.101 (scholion §III + R-col footers). The `102 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` glyph in the raw OCR is the next page's running head; p.102 belongs to q3 (QUAESTIO III, *filius Trinitatis*), whose opener is already on p.102 L-col.

**Shared-page split with q1's scholion.** q2 begins on printed p.100 R-col, sharing p.100 with the tail of q1's scholion (which occupies the L-col top and the very top of the R-col). q1's scholion carried NO footers (verified d4-a1-q1, commit 7ca8524: p.100 = scholion only, no footer sequence). Therefore p.100's entire footer sequence (1–10) belongs to q2's body; nothing was forwarded from q1.

**Footer hand-off to d4-a1-q3.** NONE forwarded. q2 closes cleanly at the bottom of p.101. q3 opens fresh on p.102 (`Tertio quaeritur, utrum Christus possit dici filius Trinitatis`) with its own p.102 footer sequence.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`. §I treats this q2 (all concede the expression inadmissible; St. Thomas/Giles vs. Bonaventure–Alexander on the reasons). §II explicitly **forward-covers q3** ("Similia dicenda sunt circa seq. (3.) quaestionem" — the *filius Trinitatis* question), so q3 may carry no scholion of its own or only a brief one — check the sibling. §III is a shared *De utraque quaest.* parallel-authorities list covering both q2 and q3. Running heads: p.100 `100 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.101 `DIST. IV. ART. I. QUAEST. II.` / `QUAEST. II. 101`.

**[?] flags.** None. The PDF column bands fully resolved every OCR cascade-garble (e.g. `Spiritas sancli`→*Spiritus sancti*, `oTcopo?`→σπόρος, `gignat`, `Nvtlatenus`→*Nullatenus*, the spliced footer 5/[^15]).

**Marker pairing.** 18 La anchors = 18 En anchors = 18 `[^N]:` defs.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 4, Art. 1, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 102 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum Christus possit dici filius Trinitatis.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Christus possit dici filius Trinitatis, ad maiorem evidentiam praedictorum. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. *(Ad oppositum.)* Cantico Deuteronomii[^1]: *Nunquid non ipse est pater tuus, qui possedit te et fecit et creavit te?* Sed hoc totum potest dici de Christo ratione naturae assumtae; et secundum illa tria dicitur esse filius totius Trinitatis, cuius est *possidere, facere* et *creare*: ergo videtur, quod hoc Christo satis catholice possit attribui.

2. Item, ad Romanos octavo[^2]: *Ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus;* Glossa: « Secundum illud, quod *unigenitus* est, non habet fratres; secundum illud, quod *primogenitus* est, fratres dignatus est vocare omnes »: si ergo fratres sunt eiusdem Patris et sunt filii totius Trinitatis, videtur, quod et hoc Christo convenienter possit attribui.

3. Item, quandocumque aliqua se habent per indifferentiam ad aliquam operationem, secundum illam operationem communem et uniformem recipiunt denominationem; sed tota Trinitas operata est incarnationis mysterium[^3]: ergo si persona Patris dicitur esse pater Christi non solum quantum ad deitatem, sed etiam quantum ad humanitatem; videtur, quod similiter tota Trinitas possit dici pater.

4. Item, quamvis in Trinitate unus solus sit Pater propter aeternam generationem, tamen ex tempore propter effectus temporales tota Trinitas dicitur esse pater[^4], et persona Patris dicitur non solum pater Filii, sed etiam aliarum rerum, ita quod in nullo praeiudicatur proprietati Filii: ergo cum Filius ex tempore naturam sumserit, et aequalem et uniformem habet comparationem ad totam Trinitatem; videtur, quod sicut quantum ad divinam naturam dicitur esse filius Patris, ita secundum humanitatem sit filius totius Trinitatis.

5. Item, in Christo triplex est substantia[^5], scilicet suprema, media et infima: suprema, videlicet divina, *media,* scilicet anima, et *infima,* videlicet corpus; sed Christus ratione naturae *supremae* est filius alicuius, scilicet Patris Dei; ratione naturae *infimae* filius alicuius, scilicet Matris, ex qua traxit carnem: ergo et ratione *mediae* filius alicuius erit. Sed media, scilicet anima, est a tota Trinitate aequaliter: ergo videtur, quod filius totius Trinitatis dici possit.

6. Item, non est maior confusio in proprietatibus ex comparatione alicuius proprietatis ad plura, quam si de eodem dicantur duo opposita, immo multo minor; sed de Christo vere et catholice dicuntur duo opposita ratione duplicis naturae, mortalis et immortalis, passibilis et impassibilis[^6]: ergo multo fortius ratione naturae assumentis potest dici filius Patris, et ratione naturae assumtae filius totius Trinitatis.

**Sed contra:** *(Fundamenta.)*
1. Augustinus in libro de Trinitate, secundo[^7]: « Iesus neque suus neque Trinitatis filius dici potest: » ergo non potest dici filius Trinitatis.

2. Item, filiatio est proprietas personalis, unde respicit hypostasim[^8]; sed in Christo est una sola persona et hypostasis, quae non potest distingui a tota Trinitate secundum illius relationis habitudinem: ergo non videtur, quod dici possit filius Trinitatis.

3. Item, Christus non tantum est filius, sed filius unigenitus, secundum quod dicitur Ioannis primo[^9]: *Vidimus gloriam eius quasi Unigeniti a Patre;* sed Trinitas non habet aliquem filium unigenitum, cum aequaliter comparetur ad omnes: ergo non videtur, quod Christus possit dici Trinitatis filius.

4. Item, filiatio praesupponit generationem, generatio autem dicit convenientiam in natura et distinctionem in supposito[^10]; sed hoc impossibile est reperire in Christo, nec secundum divinam naturam nec secundum humanam: ergo nullatenus est concedenda locutio praedicta.

### Conclusio.

> *(Conclusio.)* Non conceditur, quod Christus sit filius Trinitatis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod apud theologos secundum communem usum non admittitur: Christus est Trinitatis filius. Sed huius rationem diversi assignant diversimode.

<!-- page 103 -->

*(Ratio secundum opinionem 1.)* Quidam enim dicere voluerunt, quod hoc est propter *proprietatem filiationis,* quae respicit personam et hypostasim: et quoniam hypostasis Filii Dei sive persona aeterna est nec habet originem a tota Trinitate, sed solum a persona Patris: hinc est, quod quamvis in Christo sit reperire humanam naturam a tota Trinitate creatam, non est[^11] concedendum, Christum esse filium totius Trinitatis propter repugnantiam, quae reperta est in hypostasi, hoc est persona, quae est aeterna. — *(An placet.)* Sed si ratio ista interius consideretur, non videtur magnae efficaciae, quia, quamvis hypostasis Christi sit aeterna, nihil tamen impedit, ipsum dici filium Virginis ratione naturae assumtae. Si ergo illi hypostasi innasci potest filiationis habitudo in comparatione ad Matrem, ex qua *natura* illa tracta est; quare non potest innasci respectu totius Trinitatis, a qua facta est? Et ideo ex parte *proprietatis filiationis* et *aeternitatis hypostasis* non videtur efficax ratio posse sumi ad repudiationem praedictae locutionis.

*(Secundum opinionem 2.)* Et ideo est alius modus dicendi, quod praedictus sermo non recipitur, quia *appropinquat errori.* Nam Christus, cum sit Filius unigenitus Dei Patris, non recipitur, quod sit filius Trinitatis *simpliciter,* propter hoc quod talis locutio appropinquat errori *(Error Sabellii.)* Sabellii, qui posuit, proprietatem patris cuilibet trium personarum convenienter posse attribui. Non recipitur etiam, quod sit filius totius Trinitatis *per creationem,* quia talis locutio appropinquat errori *(Error Arii.)* Arii, qui posuit, Christum esse puram creaturam. Non recipitur etiam, quod sit filius totius Trinitatis *per gratiam;* quia talis locutio appropinquat errori *(Error Nestorii.)* Nestorii, qui posuit in Christo duas naturas et duas personas, divinam scilicet et humanam; et quantum ad humanam personam dixit Christum Filium Dei per gratiam. Ergo sermo praedictus omni modo erroris impietati[^12] appropinquat: et ideo respuitur ab his qui periti sunt in sacra Scriptura. — *(Notandum.)* Unde rationes ad hanc partem concedendae sunt, quamvis non multum cogant.

*(Solutio oppositorum.)* 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tota Trinitas possedit et fecit et creavit secundum humanam naturam; dicendum, quod Trinitas[^13] alios homines *simpliciter* fecit secundum *omnem* sui naturam; Christum autem non *simpliciter* secundum *omnem* naturam fecit, quia secundum divinam naturam eum solus Pater genuit; et ideo non est simile de Christo et aliis hominibus. Quamvis enim alii homines possint dici creaturae Dei, hoc tamen de Christo non recipitur, sicut infra[^14] melius videbitur.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nos sumus fratres Christi; dicendum, quod ex hoc non sequitur, quod Christus sit filius totius Trinitatis, sed quod nos dicamur filii Dei Patris per eum, quamvis « nos per gratiam, ipse vero per naturam », sicut dicit Gregorius super illud: *Ascendo ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum,* Ioannis vigesimo[^15].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tres personae se habent ad naturam[^16] assumtam per indifferentiam; dicendum, quod verum est; sed non sic se habent per indifferentiam respectu personae assumentis, quia aliam habitudinem habet ad personam Patris, aliam ad personam Spiritus sancti. Cum autem dicitur Christus Filius esse Dei Patris, hoc magis dicitur respectu naturae assumentis quam assumtae; quod patet, quia dicitur Filius Patris unigenitus et naturalis. Et ideo ratio illa non cogit, quia ab insufficienti procedit.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Pater non dicitur pater tantum respectu Filii, sed etiam aliorum, quorum est causa et principium ex tempore; dicendum, quod sicut Pater ex hoc, quod temporaliter aliquos adoptat, dicitur eorum pater ex tempore, sic etiam Christus per generationem temporalem potest dici filius Virginis; non tamen potest concludi quod sit filius totius Trinitatis. Non enim est simile. Nulla enim confusio proprietatum incurritur, nec aliquod veritati fit praeiudicium, aut errori in aliquo appropinquatur, si dicatur Pater esse pater Filii solum per generationem, et aliorum per creationem; non sic autem, cum[^17] dicitur Christus esse filius totius Trinitatis. Nam si intelligatur per generationem, incurrimus in errorem Sabellii; si per creationem, appropinquamus errori Arii; si solum per adoptionis gratificationem, errori Nestorii.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de natura suprema, media et infima, iam patet responsio per praedicta, quia, cum illa[^18] sit creata, non recipitur circa Christum filiatio alicuius ratione illa. — *(Aliter.)* Potest tamen dici, quod non est simile de substantiis *extremis* ad *mediam,* quia tum ratione substantiae divinae tum ratione carnis genitus est et assimilatur suo principio producenti, scilicet Patri et Matri: Patri in deitate, et Matri in humanitate; non sic autem est ratione animae; et ideo non est simile.

6. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur de proprie-

<!-- page 104 -->

tatibus absolutis, quod non faciunt confusionem; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia *illae proprietates* principaliter respiciunt *naturam,* utpote esse passibilem et immortalem[^19]; sed *filiatio* respicit ipsam *hypostasim,* circa quam multi fuerunt errores, quibus praedicta locutio videtur appropinquare; et ideo, quamvis illae recipiantur a viris catholicis tanquam catholicae, haec respuitur tanquam adversaria fidei christianae[^20].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether Christ can be called the Son of the Trinity.*

Thirdly it is asked whether Christ can be called the Son of the Trinity, for the greater clarity of the foregoing. And that he can, it seems.

1. *(To the contrary.)* In the Canticle of Deuteronomy[^1]: *Is he not thy father, who possessed thee and made and created thee?* But all this can be said of Christ by reason of the assumed nature; and according to those three things he is said to be the Son of the whole Trinity, whose it is *to possess, to make,* and *to create*: therefore it seems that this can be quite catholically attributed to Christ.

2. Likewise, to the Romans, chapter eight[^2]: *That he might be the firstborn among many brethren;* the Gloss: « According to that whereby he is *only-begotten,* he has no brothers; according to that whereby he is *firstborn,* he has deigned to call all men brothers »: if therefore the brothers are of the same Father and are sons of the whole Trinity, it seems that this too can fittingly be attributed to Christ.

3. Likewise, whenever certain things are related indifferently to some operation, according to that common and uniform operation they receive a denomination; but the whole Trinity wrought the mystery of the incarnation[^3]: therefore if the person of the Father is said to be the father of Christ not only as regards the deity, but also as regards the humanity, it seems that likewise the whole Trinity can be called father.

4. Likewise, although in the Trinity there is one alone who is Father on account of the eternal generation, nevertheless in time, on account of temporal effects, the whole Trinity is said to be father[^4], and the person of the Father is said to be the father not only of the Son, but also of other things, in such a way that the proper character of the Son is in no way prejudiced: therefore since the Son in time took on a nature, and has an equal and uniform comparison to the whole Trinity, it seems that just as, as regards the divine nature, he is said to be the Son of the Father, so according to the humanity he is the Son of the whole Trinity.

5. Likewise, in Christ there is a threefold substance[^5], namely the supreme, the middle, and the lowest: the supreme, namely the divine; the *middle,* namely the soul; and the *lowest,* namely the body; but Christ by reason of the *supreme* nature is the son of someone, namely of God the Father; by reason of the *lowest* nature the son of someone, namely of the Mother, from whom he drew his flesh: therefore also by reason of the *middle* he will be the son of someone. But the middle, namely the soul, is from the whole Trinity equally: therefore it seems that he can be called the Son of the whole Trinity.

6. Likewise, there is not a greater confusion in properties from the comparison of some property to many things than if two opposites are said of the same thing, indeed much less; but of Christ truly and catholically two opposites are said by reason of the twofold nature, mortal and immortal, passible and impassible[^6]: therefore much more strongly, by reason of the assuming nature, he can be called the Son of the Father, and by reason of the assumed nature the Son of the whole Trinity.

**On the contrary:** *(Foundations.)*
1. Augustine, in the book *On the Trinity,* book two[^7]: « Jesus can be called neither his own son nor the son of the Trinity »: therefore he cannot be called the Son of the Trinity.

2. Likewise, filiation is a personal property, whence it regards the hypostasis[^8]; but in Christ there is one sole person and hypostasis, which cannot be distinguished from the whole Trinity according to the relation of that respect: therefore it does not seem that he can be called the Son of the Trinity.

3. Likewise, Christ is not only a son, but the only-begotten Son, according to what is said in John, chapter one[^9]: *We saw his glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father;* but the Trinity has no only-begotten son, since it is compared equally to all: therefore it does not seem that Christ can be called the Son of the Trinity.

4. Likewise, filiation presupposes generation, and generation implies an agreement in nature and a distinction in supposit[^10]; but this is impossible to find in Christ, neither according to the divine nature nor according to the human: therefore the aforesaid expression is in no way to be conceded.

### Conclusion.

> *(Conclusion.)* It is not conceded that Christ is the Son of the Trinity.

**I respond:** It must be said that among theologians, according to common usage, it is not admitted that Christ is the Son of the Trinity. But of this different men assign the reason in different ways.

*(Reason according to opinion 1.)* For some have wished to say that this is on account of the *property of filiation,* which regards the person and the hypostasis: and since the hypostasis of the Son of God, or his eternal person, neither has nor draws its origin from the whole Trinity, but only from the person of the Father: hence it is that, although in Christ a human nature created by the whole Trinity is to be found, it is not[^11] to be conceded that Christ is the Son of the whole Trinity, on account of the repugnance which is found in the hypostasis, that is, the person, which is eternal. — *(Does it satisfy?)* But if this reason be considered inwardly, it does not seem of great efficacy, because, although the hypostasis of Christ is eternal, nothing nevertheless prevents him from being called the Son of the Virgin by reason of the assumed nature. If therefore the respect of filiation can arise in that hypostasis in comparison to the Mother, from whom that *nature* was drawn, why can it not arise with respect to the whole Trinity, by which it was made? And therefore from the side of the *property of filiation* and of the *eternity of the hypostasis* it does not seem that an efficacious reason can be taken for the repudiation of the aforesaid expression.

*(According to opinion 2.)* And therefore there is another manner of speaking, namely that the aforesaid expression is not received, because it *approaches an error.* For since Christ is the only-begotten Son of God the Father, it is not received that he is the Son of the Trinity *simply,* on account of the fact that such an expression approaches the error of *(The error of Sabellius.)* Sabellius, who held that the property of fatherhood can fittingly be attributed to any one of the three persons. Nor is it received that he is the Son of the whole Trinity *by creation,* because such an expression approaches the error of *(The error of Arius.)* Arius, who held that Christ is a pure creature. Nor is it received that he is the Son of the whole Trinity *by grace;* because such an expression approaches the error of *(The error of Nestorius.)* Nestorius, who held in Christ two natures and two persons, namely the divine and the human; and as regards the human person he called Christ the Son of God by grace. Therefore the aforesaid expression in every way approaches the impiety of error[^12]: and therefore it is rejected by those who are skilled in sacred Scripture. — *(To be noted.)* Hence the reasons for this side are to be conceded, although they do not greatly compel.

*(Solution of the opposing arguments.)* 1. To that which is objected, that the whole Trinity possessed and made and created according to the human nature; it must be said that the Trinity[^13] made other men *simply* according to *all* their nature; but Christ it did not make *simply* according to *all* his nature, because according to the divine nature the Father alone begot him; and therefore it is not alike in the case of Christ and other men. For although other men can be called creatures of God, this nevertheless is not received concerning Christ, as will be seen better below[^14].

2. To that which is objected, that we are brothers of Christ; it must be said that from this it does not follow that Christ is the Son of the whole Trinity, but that we are called sons of God the Father through him, although « we by grace, but he by nature », as Gregory says upon that text: *I ascend to my Father and your Father,* John, chapter twenty[^15].

3. To that which is objected, that the three persons are related to the assumed nature[^16] indifferently; it must be said that this is true; but they are not so related indifferently with respect to the assuming person, because it has one respect to the person of the Father and another to the person of the Holy Spirit. But when Christ is said to be the Son of God the Father, this is said more with respect to the assuming nature than to the assumed; which is clear, because he is called the only-begotten and natural Son of the Father. And therefore that reasoning does not compel, because it proceeds from an insufficient ground.

4. To that which is objected, that the Father is not called father only with respect to the Son, but also of others, of which he is the cause and principle in time; it must be said that just as the Father, from the fact that he adopts certain ones in time, is called their father in time, so also Christ by temporal generation can be called the son of the Virgin; nevertheless it cannot be concluded that he is the Son of the whole Trinity. For it is not alike. For no confusion of properties is incurred, nor is any prejudice done to the truth, nor is any error approached, if the Father is said to be the father of the Son only by generation, and of others by creation; but it is not so when[^17] Christ is said to be the Son of the whole Trinity. For if it be understood by generation, we fall into the error of Sabellius; if by creation, we approach the error of Arius; if only by the gratification of adoption, the error of Nestorius.

5. To that which is objected concerning the supreme, the middle, and the lowest nature, the response is already clear through the foregoing, because, since that one[^18] is created, no filiation of anyone is received concerning Christ by reason of it. — *(Otherwise.)* It can nevertheless be said that it is not alike concerning the *extreme* substances and the *middle,* because both by reason of the divine substance and by reason of the flesh he is begotten and is assimilated to his producing principle, namely to the Father and to the Mother: to the Father in deity, and to the Mother in humanity; but it is not so by reason of the soul; and therefore it is not alike.

6. To that which is objected last concerning absolute properties,

that they do not make a confusion; it must be said that it is not alike, because *those properties* principally regard *nature,* such as to be passible and immortal[^19]; but *filiation* regards the *hypostasis* itself, around which there have been many errors, which the aforesaid expression seems to approach; and therefore, although those are received by catholic men as catholic, this is rejected as contrary to the Christian faith[^20].

---

la: Cap. 32, 6. — Verba *ad maiorem evidentiam praedictorum* desunt in edd.

en: Chapter 32, 6. — The words *for the greater clarity of the foregoing* are wanting in the editions.

la: Vers. 29. — Glossa, quae est *ordinaria* et secundum August., Expos. quarundam propos. ex Epist. ad Rom. propos. 56, habetur apud Petr. Lombard. et apud Lyran. in hunc loc. — In Glossa pro *unigenitus,* quae est lectio originalis, plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 *divinitus,* codd. P Q *deitatis,* Vat. *Deus.*

en: Verse 29. — The Gloss, which is the *Ordinary* and is from Augustine, *Exposition of Certain Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans,* proposition 56, is found in Peter Lombard and in Lyra on this passage. — In the Gloss, for *only-begotten,* which is the original reading, very many codices with editions 1, 2 read *divinely,* codices P Q *of the deity,* the Vatican edition *God.*

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 3. — In fine arg. codd. omittunt *pater.*

en: Cf. above, the letter of the Master, d. I, c. 3. — At the end of the argument the codices omit *father.*

la: Cfr. Eph. 4, 6. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 26. enarrat. 2. n. 18: *Pater est, quia condidit, quia vocat, quia iubet, quia regit.* — Paulo inferius post *naturam* cod. U addit *humanam.*

en: Cf. Eph. 4, 6. Augustine, *Enarration on Psalm 26,* enarration 2, n. 18: *He is Father, because he founded, because he calls, because he commands, because he rules.* — A little below, after *nature,* codex U adds *human.*

la: Cfr. supra pag. 19, nota 4.

en: Cf. above, p. 19, note 4.

la: Vide supra pag. 14, nota 3.

en: See above, p. 14, note 3.

la: Cap. 10. n. 18. Verba integra habes supra pag. 100, nota 9, ubi pro *Trinitatis filius* legitur *Spiritus sancti filius,* quae lectio pro nostro arg. ceu clarior praeferenda esset.

en: Chapter 10, n. 18. You have the words in full above, p. 100, note 9, where for *son of the Trinity* is read *son of the Holy Spirit,* which reading, as clearer, ought to be preferred for our argument.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 26. q. 1. seqq. — De minori vide infra d. 5. a. 2. q. 2. et d. 6. a. 1. q. 2.

en: Cf. I Sent., d. 26, q. 1 ff. — On the minor [premise] see below, d. 5, a. 2, q. 2, and d. 6, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Vers. 14.

en: Verse 14.

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 479, nota 1. — Paulo inferius post *secundum humanam* Vat. supplet *respectu totius Trinitatis.*

en: See vol. II, p. 479, note 1. — A little below, after *according to the human,* the Vatican edition supplies *with respect to the whole Trinity.*

la: Cod. K (a secunda manu) et edd. subdunt *tamen.*

en: Codex K (by a second hand) and the editions add below *however.*

la: Vat. *praedictus omnino errori impietatis.* Paulo inferius post *ad hanc partem* cod. A adiungit *inductae.*

en: The Vatican edition reads *the aforesaid [expression] wholly [approaches] the error of impiety.* A little below, after *for this side,* codex A adds *adduced.*

la: Codd. K U Z *tota Trinitas.*

en: Codices K U Z read *the whole Trinity.*

en: Distinction 11, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Libr. II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 25. n. 6. Locus e vigesimo cap. Evang. Ioan. allegatus est vers. 17. Cfr. infra d. 10. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Paulo superius pro *sed quod* cod. T *secundum quod.*

en: Book II of the *Homilies on the Gospels,* homily 25, n. 6. The passage adduced from the twentieth chapter of the Gospel of John is verse 17. Cf. below, d. 10, a. 2, q. 1 ff. — A little above, for *but that* codex T reads *according to that.*

la: Plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 perperam *personam.* Paulo inferius pro *Cum autem* cod. N *Cum ergo.* Subinde post *quia dicitur* codd. E F N T U V X subiiciunt *esse.*

en: Very many codices with editions 1, 2 wrongly read *person.* A little below, for *But when* codex N reads *When therefore.* Then after *because it is said* codices E F N T U V X add *to be.*

la: In edd. et nonnullis codd. desideratur *cum.*

en: In the editions and some codices *when* is wanting.

la: Scil. natura media i. e. anima. — Mox pro *alicuius,* nempe totius Trinitatis, edd. aliqua, et in fine solut. *de ratione animae* pro *ratione animae.* Paulo superius sola Vat. *extremis ei media* pro *extremis ad mediam.*

en: Namely the middle nature, i.e. the soul. — Soon, for *of anyone,* namely of the whole Trinity, some editions, and at the end of the solution *of the account of the soul* for *by reason of the soul.* A little above, the Vatican edition alone reads *to the extremes and the middle* for *the extremes to the middle.*

la: Cod. K et edd. 1, 2 *mortalem.* Paulo inferius pro *viris catholicis* Vat. *viris theologis.*

en: Codex K and editions 1, 2 read *mortal.* A little below, for *catholic men* the Vatican edition reads *theological men.*

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.102–104 (PDF 124–126; offset pdf = printed + 22), read Left column top→bottom then Right, cross-checked against raw OCR lines 7618–7757. Fresh literal English. Running heads: p.102 `102 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` (verso); p.103 `DIST. IV. ART. I. QUAEST. III.` / `QUAEST. III. 103` (recto); p.104 `104 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` (verso).

**Page-split map (apparatus).** p.102 footer = notes 1–10 → `[^1]`–`[^10]` (note 4 is the shared footer note that begins in the L-col footer and continues into the R-col footer; notes 5–10 in R col). p.103 footer = notes 1–8 → `[^11]`–`[^18]` (L col 1–5, R col 6–8). p.104 footer = notes 1–2 → `[^19]`–`[^20]`; the remaining p.104 footer notes 3–5 belong to the next chunk (`bon-sent-III-d4-a2-q1`, *merita Ecclesiae* arguments) and are NOT captured here.

**Footer hand-off (forwarded to d4-a2-q1).** q3's body ends mid-p.104 R-col at `...adversaria fidei christianae².`, immediately followed by `ARTICULUS II.` Of p.104's L-col footer sequence (notes 1–5), **notes 1–2 belong to q3 (reply 6: `immortalem¹`, `christianae²`) and are captured here as `[^19]`–`[^20]`**; **notes 3, 4, 5 belong to ARTICULUS II, QUAESTIO I** (`vers. 4 seq.` Glossa interlinearis; the *ordinaria* Glossa from Cassiodorus; `Cfr. Act. 4,12; Rom. 5,11 seqq.; Coloss. 1,20`) and must be picked up by d4-a2-q1.

**Marginal labels.** Quaracchi's italic margin labels are rendered inline in parentheses, not as footnote anchors: *Ad oppositum* (arg. 1), *Fundamenta* (Sed contra), *Conclusio* (the conclusion + Respondeo), *Ratio secundum opinionem 1* / *An placet* / *Secundum opinionem 2*, *Error Sabellii* / *Error Arii* / *Error Nestorii*, *Notandum*, *Solutio oppositorum* (reply 1), *Aliter* (reply 5).

**Scholion disposition (`has_scholion: false`).** q3 carries NO scholion of its own. This is expected: q2's scholion §II explicitly forward-covers q3 ("Similia dicenda sunt circa seq. (3.) quaestionem") and §III is a shared *De utraque quaest.* authorities list. It is confirmed independently by p.104 nota 2 (`[^20]`), whose printed text is literally *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* ("See the scholion on the preceding question"). The next SCHOLION block in the raw (after ARTICULUS II) belongs to ARTICULUS II, not to q3.

**`[?]` flags.** None.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 4, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 104 -->

### Articulus II. *De conceptione Christi in comparatione ad gratiam intervenientem.*

Consequenter quaeritur de conceptione Christi in comparatione ad gratiam intervenientem. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur de gratia illa in comparatione ad merita Ecclesiae.

Secundo, in comparatione ad meritum Virginis Mariae.

Tertio, in comparatione ad dignitatem naturae assumtae.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum Christi incarnatio fuerit ex mera gratia, an eam impetrarunt merita sanctorum Patrum.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum Christi conceptio vel incarnatio fuerit ex mera gratia, an hoc impetraverunt sanctorum Patrum merita. Et quod fuerit ex *mera gratia,* videtur.

1. (*Fundamenta.*) Ad Titum tertio[^1]: *Apparuit benignitas et humanitas Salvatoris nostri non ex operibus iustitiae;* sed apparitio illa benignitatis et humanitatis est Filii Dei humanatione, sicut in Glossa dicitur: « Cum benignus et humanatus Deus noster apparuit »: ergo videtur, quod Filii Dei humanatio non fuerit mediantibus nostris meritis.

2. Item, super illud Psalmi 4: *Respice in testamentum sanctum tuum;* Glossa: « Meminit promissionis, quia merita deficiunt »[^2]; et loquitur de promissione incarnationis: ergo etc.

3. Item, de eo quod per merita acquiritur, non tantum tenemur ad gratiarum actiones, sicut pro eo quod gratis datur; sed de Christi donatione tenemur ad omnimodas gratiarum actiones: ergo videtur, quod illam non impetraverint merita Ecclesiae.

4. Item, quod est fundamentum totius meriti Ecclesiae meritis eius non potest reddi; sed Christi incarnatio est fundamentum totius meriti Ecclesiae, quia per ipsum, quotquot sunt, reconciliati sunt Deo et Patri, nec aliquis salvatur nisi per eum[^3]: ergo non videtur, quod incarnatio Christi per merita Patrum sive ipsius Ecclesiae poterit impetrari.

**Sed contra:** (*Ad oppositum.*) 1. super illud Psalmi 6: *Propter miseriam inopum et gemitum pauperum;* Glossa, ibi: « Exsurgam, id est mittam Filium, propter gemitum pauperum, qui pro malis gemunt et peccatis conteruntur; nam aliter non essent digni auxilio »[^4]: ergo si propter gemitum facti sunt digni missione Filii Dei, videtur, quod incarnatio sive Filii Dei conceptio eorum meritis impetrata fuerit.

2. Item, qui meretur principale meretur et accessorium[^5]; sed incarnatio Filii Dei fuit ordinata ad nostram glorificationem; sed nostram glorificationem potuerunt Sancti mereri: ergo et conceptionem Christi.

3. Item, qui meretur quod maius est, mereri potest et quod minus est[^6]; sed maius est nostra beatificatio, quam sit Filii Dei incarnatio, quia illud est finis istius: ergo cum meruerunt sancti Patres suam beatitudinem, meruerunt ergo Filii Dei conceptionem.

4. Item, qui petit aliquid in oratione *ex caritate, perseveranter, pie* et *ad salutem,* meretur illud quod petit, maxime cum talis rei petitio Deo placet; sed antiqui Patres maximo desiderio petebant Filii Dei incarnationem, et hoc perseveranter, pie et ad salutem, et Deo placebat, quod tale quid peterent[^7]: ergo videtur, quod meruerunt Filii Dei incarnationem.

<!-- page 105 -->

> ### Conclusio
> Incarnatio Christi quoad essentiam non cadit sub merito; quoad circumstantiam temporis aliquo modo cadit sub merito sanctorum Patrum; quoad efficaciam quodam modo cadit sub merito, quodam modo non.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod de beneficio incarnationis, sicut de aliis beneficiis divinis, est (*Distinctio.*) tripliciter loqui; videlicet quantum ad *substantiam* vel *essentiam,* et quantum ad *efficaciam,* et quantum ad *circumstantiam*[^8]. Si loquamur de ipso quantum (*Conclusio 1.*) ad essentiam, sic dicendum, quod illud beneficium erat supra sanctorum Patrum merita, propterea quia non est iustae retributionis, sed dignationis eminentissimae; et non sequitur merita hominis lapsi, sed potius est fundamentum omnis meriti, quia nullus Deo placere potuit post lapsum absque fide istius beneficii, vel in generali, vel in speciali[^9]. (*Notandum.*) Secundum hanc viam procedunt rationes et auctoritates ad primam partem adductae.

Si vero loquamur de beneficio incarnationis (*Subdistinctio.*) quantum ad *efficaciam;* sic, cum eius efficacia esset duplex, videlicet quod ordinabatur ad liberationem *a servitute culpae,* et *a reatu carentiae visionis Dei,* quodam modo cadit sub merito, quodam modo non. — (*Conclusio 2. duplex.*) Quantum ad liberationem *a reatu carentiae divinae visionis* et captivationis diaboli, hoc meruerunt sancti Patres, et cadit sub merito; quantum vero ad ereptionem de *statu culpae,* non cadit sub merito, nisi quis large sumat meritum ad meritum congrui et condigni[^10].

Si vero loquamur de beneficio incarnationis (*Conclusio 3.*) quantum ad *temporis circumstantiam;* potest concedi absque calumnia, quod cadit sub merito praecedentis Ecclesiae. Sancti enim Patres flagrantissimis desideriis meruerunt incarnationis accelerationem; in quorum persona dicit Isaias, sexagesimo quarto[^11]: *Utinam dirumperes caelos et descenderes* etc. — Et sic patet, quod incarnationis beneficium quantum ad *essentiam* non cadit sub merito; quantum vero ad *temporis circumstantiam* cadit sub merito sanctorum Patrum; quantum vero ad *efficaciam* mediam quodam modo cadit sub merito, quodam modo non. — Et quoniam rationes inductae ad primam partem currunt quantum ad illud *quod est* sive quantum ad excellentiam sui in se, ostendunt ipsum non cadere sub merito praecedentis Ecclesiae; ideo sunt concedendae.

**Ad ea quae obiiciuntur in contrarium:**

(*Solutio oppositorum.*) 1. Ad illud quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de Glossa Psalmi: *Propter miseriam inopum et gemitum pauperum;* dicendum, quod Glossa illa intelligitur de beneficio incarnationis quantum ad *efficaciam* nostrae liberationis a poena, sicut patet ex ipsa Glossa; vel quantum ad *accelerationem temporis,* sicut colligitur ex ipsa littera[^12]. *Si tu obiicias,* quod Deus non citius incarnatus est, quam disposuerat ab aeterno, propter merita Patrum; dicendum quod propter merita Patrum Deus praeviderat, se acceleraturum; et sic fecit, sicut praeviderat.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui meretur principale meretur et accessorium; dicendum, quod (*Notandum.*) illud habet instantiam, quando illud accessorium non solummodo praeparat ad *praemium,* sed etiam praeparat ad *meritum.* Et quoniam Christi incarnatio praebebat sanctis Patribus viam merendi per fidem ipsius, hinc est, quod illa propositio non habet veritatem in proposito. — Potest etiam alio modo (*Alia instantia.*) praedictae locutioni instari. Non enim habet veritatem, quando illud accessorium non necessario adhaeret principali; et tale est incarnatio Filii Dei. Potuit enim Deus alio modo genus humanum glorificare et salvare quam per Filii incarnationem: propter hoc non sequitur, quodsi sancti Patres meruerunt sui glorificationem, quod[^13] Christi incarnationem. — Posset tamen concedi, quod quantum ad *efficaciam* liberationis potuerunt sancti Patres mereri beneficium incarnationis, non tamen *simpliciter,* sicut prius ostensum est.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui meretur quod maius est, meretur et quod minus; dicendum, quod (*Notandum.*) praedicta propositio instantiam habet in gratia et gloria; quia gloria cadit sub merito, gratia vero non[^14]; sic et instantiam potest habere in proposito. — Posset etiam responderi per (*Alia solutio.*) *interemptionem assumtionis*[^15]. Cum enim assumit, quod maior est glorificatio quam incarnatio; dicendum, quod falsum est, nisi *glorificatio* intelligatur cum praesuppositione incarnationis, vel nisi intelligatur *respectu alicuius personae specialis,* utpote respectu Petri vel Pauli — melius enim est Petro videre Deum in gloria, quam humanam naturam a Verbo esse assumtam — *simpliciter* tamen loquendo, melius est, Filium Dei incarnari, quam Petrum glorificari; quia Filii Dei incarnatio valet toti generi humano, Petri

<!-- page 106 -->

glorificatio sibi soli. Et ideo non sequitur, quodsi aliquis potest sibi mereri suam glorificationem, quod mereatur Christi conceptionem.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui petit perseveranter, pie et ad salutem, meretur[^16]; dicendum, quod verum est, si petat *pro se;* sed nullus petiit, quod Filius Dei assumeret *se,* et ideo nullus hoc meruit; petendo tamen *aliis* merebantur vitam aeternam sibi; et ideo non infructuose orabant. — Posset etiam dici, quod adhuc habet illud (*Aliter.*) instantiam: quando quis quaereret a Deo excellentiam gloriae Petri, qui esset parvae caritatis, non hoc meretur, quia hoc quod petit, merita sua excedit. Per hunc modum et in proposito potest instantia inferri.

english:
### Article II. *On the conception of Christ in comparison to the intervening grace.*

Consequently it is asked concerning the conception of Christ in comparison to the intervening grace. And concerning this three things are asked.

First, it is asked concerning that grace in comparison to the merits of the Church.

Second, in comparison to the merit of the Virgin Mary.

Third, in comparison to the dignity of the assumed nature.

### Question I. *Whether Christ's incarnation was from pure grace, or whether the merits of the holy Fathers obtained it.*

Concerning the first the procedure is thus, and it is asked whether Christ's conception or incarnation was from pure grace, or whether the merits of the holy Fathers obtained this. And that it was from *pure grace,* it seems.

1. (*Foundations.*) To Titus, chapter three[^1]: *The kindness and humanity of our Savior appeared, not from works of righteousness;* but that appearing of kindness and humanity is the becoming-human of the Son of God, as is said in the Gloss: « When our God, kind and made-human, appeared »: therefore it seems that the becoming-human of the Son of God was not through the mediation of our merits.

2. Likewise, upon that of Psalm 4: *Look upon thy holy testament;* the Gloss: « He calls to mind the promise, because merits fail »[^2]; and it speaks of the promise of the incarnation: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, for that which is acquired through merits, we are not bound to thanksgivings as much as for that which is given freely; but for the gift of Christ we are bound to thanksgivings of every kind: therefore it seems that the merits of the Church did not obtain it.

4. Likewise, that which is the foundation of the whole merit of the Church cannot be rendered by its merits; but Christ's incarnation is the foundation of the whole merit of the Church, because through him, however many there are, they have been reconciled to God and the Father, nor is anyone saved except through him[^3]: therefore it does not seem that the incarnation of Christ could be obtained through the merits of the Fathers or of the Church itself.

**On the contrary:** (*To the opposite.*) 1. upon that of Psalm 6: *Because of the misery of the needy and the groaning of the poor;* the Gloss, there: « I will arise, that is, I will send the Son, because of the groaning of the poor, who groan over evils and are contrite for sins; for otherwise they would not be worthy of help »[^4]: therefore if because of their groaning they were made worthy of the sending of the Son of God, it seems that the incarnation or conception of the Son of God was obtained by their merits.

2. Likewise, he who merits the principal merits also the accessory[^5]; but the incarnation of the Son of God was ordered to our glorification; but the Saints were able to merit our glorification: therefore also the conception of Christ.

3. Likewise, he who merits what is greater can also merit what is lesser[^6]; but our beatification is greater than the incarnation of the Son of God, because the latter is the end of it: therefore since the holy Fathers merited their own beatitude, they therefore merited the conception of the Son of God.

4. Likewise, he who asks for something in prayer *from charity, perseveringly, piously,* and *unto salvation,* merits that which he asks, especially when the asking of such a thing pleases God; but the ancient Fathers asked for the incarnation of the Son of God with the greatest desire, and this perseveringly, piously, and unto salvation, and it was pleasing to God that they should ask for such a thing[^7]: therefore it seems that they merited the incarnation of the Son of God.

> ### Conclusion
> The incarnation of Christ, as to its essence, does not fall under merit; as to the circumstance of time it in some way falls under the merit of the holy Fathers; as to its efficacy it in one way falls under merit, in another way it does not.

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning the benefit of the incarnation, as concerning the other divine benefits, one may speak (*Distinction.*) in three ways; namely as to its *substance* or *essence,* and as to its *efficacy,* and as to its *circumstance*[^8]. If we speak of it as to (*Conclusion 1.*) its essence, then it must be said that that benefit was above the merits of the holy Fathers, for the reason that it is not of just retribution, but of a most eminent condescension; and it does not follow upon the merits of fallen man, but rather is the foundation of all merit, because no one was able to please God after the fall without faith in this benefit, either in general or in particular[^9]. (*Note.*) Along this way proceed the reasons and authorities adduced for the first side.

But if we speak of the benefit of the incarnation (*Subdistinction.*) as to its *efficacy;* then, since its efficacy was twofold, namely that it was ordered to liberation *from the servitude of sin,* and *from the guilt of the lack of the vision of God,* it in one way falls under merit, in another way it does not. — (*Conclusion 2, twofold.*) As to liberation *from the guilt of the lack of the divine vision* and from the captivity of the devil, the holy Fathers merited this, and it falls under merit; but as to deliverance from the *state of sin,* it does not fall under merit, unless one takes merit broadly for the merit of congruity and of condignity[^10].

But if we speak of the benefit of the incarnation (*Conclusion 3.*) as to the *circumstance of time;* it can be granted without cavil that it falls under the merit of the preceding Church. For the holy Fathers by their most ardent desires merited the hastening of the incarnation; in whose person Isaiah says, in the sixty-fourth [chapter][^11]: *Would that thou wouldst rend the heavens and come down* etc. — And thus it is clear that the benefit of the incarnation, as to its *essence,* does not fall under merit; but as to the *circumstance of time* it falls under the merit of the holy Fathers; but as to its *efficacy,* the middle one, it in one way falls under merit, in another way it does not. — And since the reasons brought forward for the first side run as to that *which is* or as to its excellence in itself, they show that it does not fall under the merit of the preceding Church; therefore they are to be granted.

**To the things which are objected to the contrary:**

(*Solution of the objections.*) 1. To that which is first objected to the contrary from the Gloss on the Psalm: *Because of the misery of the needy and the groaning of the poor;* it must be said that that Gloss is understood of the benefit of the incarnation as to the *efficacy* of our liberation from punishment, as is clear from the Gloss itself; or as to the *hastening of the time,* as is gathered from the text itself[^12]. *If thou objectest* that God was not incarnated sooner than he had disposed from eternity, on account of the merits of the Fathers; it must be said that on account of the merits of the Fathers God had foreseen that he would hasten; and thus he did, as he had foreseen.

2. To that which is objected, that he who merits the principal merits also the accessory; it must be said that (*Note.*) this has an instance, when that accessory not only prepares for the *reward,* but also prepares for *merit.* And since Christ's incarnation provided for the holy Fathers a way of meriting through faith in it, hence it is that that proposition does not hold true in the matter at hand. — One can also in another way (*Another instance.*) make an instance against the aforesaid statement. For it does not hold true when that accessory does not necessarily adhere to the principal; and such is the incarnation of the Son of God. For God could have glorified and saved the human race in another way than through the incarnation of the Son: on account of this it does not follow that if the holy Fathers merited their own glorification, they therefore merited[^13] the incarnation of Christ. — It could however be granted that as to the *efficacy* of liberation the holy Fathers were able to merit the benefit of the incarnation, yet not *simply,* as was shown before.

3. To that which is objected, that he who merits what is greater merits also what is lesser; it must be said that (*Note.*) the aforesaid proposition has an instance in grace and glory; because glory falls under merit, but grace does not[^14]; so too it can have an instance in the matter at hand. — One could also reply through (*Another solution.*) the *destruction of the assumption*[^15]. For when one assumes that glorification is greater than the incarnation; it must be said that it is false, unless *glorification* be understood with the presupposition of the incarnation, or unless it be understood *with respect to some particular person,* as with respect to Peter or Paul — for it is better for Peter to see God in glory than that the human nature be assumed by the Word — yet speaking *simply,* it is better that the Son of God be incarnated than that Peter be glorified; because the incarnation of the Son of God avails for the whole human race, but Peter's

glorification for himself alone. And therefore it does not follow that if someone can merit for himself his own glorification, he therefore merits the conception of Christ.

4. To that which is objected, that he who asks perseveringly, piously, and unto salvation, merits[^16]; it must be said that it is true, if he asks *for himself;* but no one asked that the Son of God should assume *himself,* and therefore no one merited this; yet by asking *for others* they were meriting eternal life for themselves; and therefore they did not pray fruitlessly. — It could also be said that that [proposition] still has (*Otherwise.*) an instance: when someone should ask of God the excellence of the glory of Peter, being of little charity, he does not merit this, because what he asks exceeds his merits. In this manner too an instance can be inferred in the matter at hand.

la: Vers. 4. seq. — Glossa habetur apud Lyranum ut interlinearis. — In *minori* ante *Filii Dei humanatione* [edd. *humanatio*] codd. K P Q R interserunt *in.*

en: Verse 4 f. — The Gloss is found in Lyra as interlinear. — In the minor [premise], before *the becoming-human of the Son of God* [editions: *becoming-human*], codices K P Q R insert *in.*

la: Psalm. 73, 20. — Glossa, quae est *ordinaria,* habetur apud Strabum et Lyranum ac sumta videtur e Cassiodoro, qui dicit: Quia non erant bona, quae delinquentis populi commemorare potuisset, meminit promissionis dominicae, quae semper impletur.

en: Psalm 73, 20. — The Gloss, which is the *Ordinary,* is found in Strabo and Lyra and seems to be taken from Cassiodorus, who says: Since there were no good things which he could call to mind of the offending people, he calls to mind the Lord's promise, which is always fulfilled.

la: Psalm. 11, 6. — Glossam exhibet Petr. Lombard. in hunc loc. — In fine Glossae cod. Q supplet *gratiae.*

en: Psalm 11, 6. — Peter Lombard presents the Gloss on this passage. — At the end of the Gloss codex Q supplies *of grace.*

la: Nam, ut in 42. regula iuris (VI. Decret. libr. V. in fine) praedicatur: *Accessorium naturam sequi congruit principalis.* — Mox pro *sed nostram glorificationem potuerunt* cod. T *quam poterant.*

en: For, as is laid down in the 42nd rule of law (Sext of the Decretals, book V, at the end): *It is fitting that the accessory follow the nature of the principal.* — Soon, for *but the Saints were able [to merit] our glorification* codex T reads *than they were able.*

la: Regula iuris 35: *Plus semper in se continet quod minus est.*

en: Rule of law 35: *What is greater always contains within itself what is lesser.*

la: Cfr. illud Isai. 64, 1. seqq.: *Utinam dirumperes caelos* etc. — De conditionibus orationem efficacem reddentibus, quae hic insinuantur, cfr. II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. I. arg. 1. ad oppos. et q. 2. fundam. 5, et Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 26. m. 5. a. 3. § 1.

en: Cf. that of Isaiah 64, 1 ff.: *Would that thou wouldst rend the heavens* etc. — On the conditions which render prayer efficacious, which are here intimated, cf. II Sent., d. 27, a. 2, q. I, arg. 1 to the opposite, and q. 2, foundation 5, and Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV, q. 26, m. 5, a. 3, § 1.

la: Vat. cum cod. U et nonnullis aliis supplet *temporis.*

en: The Vatican edition with codex U and some others supplies *of time.*

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. I, ubi similis argumentatio fere eadem occurrit. — Paulo inferius pro *eius efficacia* cod. U *eius effectus.*

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 27, a. 2, q. I, where a similar argumentation, almost the same, occurs. — A little below, for *its efficacy* codex U reads *its effect.*

la: Vide quaest. seq. in corp., et II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. — Paulo superius pro *ad ereptionem* cod. Z *ad redemptionem,* cod. bb *ad exemptionem.*

en: See the following question in the body, and II Sent., d. 27, a. 2, q. 2, in the body. — A little above, for *to deliverance* codex Z reads *to redemption,* codex bb *to exemption.*

la: Vers. 1. — Paulo ante codd. K Z bb voci *flagrantissimis* praefigunt *suis.*

en: Verse 1. — A little before, codices K Z bb prefix to the word *most ardent* the word *their own.*

la: Psalm. 11, 6: *Propter miseriam inopum et gemitum pauperum nunc exsurgam,* dicit Dominus.

en: Psalm 11, 6: *Because of the misery of the needy and the groaning of the poor I will now arise,* says the Lord.

la: Supple cum Vat. *meruerint.* — Quod finis etiam alio modo genus humanum salvare potuisset, ostenditur infra d. 20. q. 6.

en: Supply with the Vatican edition *they merited.* — That the end could also in another way have saved the human race is shown below, d. 20, q. 6.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. l. (ad 3. ibid. similis obiectio solvitur) et 3.

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 27, a. 2, q. l (at the reply to 3 there a similar objection is solved) and 3.

la: Sive per negationem minoris. Cfr. I. Sent. pag. 87, nota 4.

en: Or through the negation of the minor [premise]. Cf. I Sent., p. 87, note 4.

la: Codd. et edd. 1, 2 ante *meretur* repetunt *quod.* Mox pro *assumeret se* cod. U *assumeret carnem pro se tantum.* In fine solut. pro *inferri* cod. K *ferri.*

en: Codices and editions 1, 2 repeat *that* before *merits.* Soon, for *should assume himself* codex U reads *should assume flesh for himself only.* At the end of the solution, for *be inferred* codex K reads *be borne.*

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quoad hanc et seq. quaestionem evidens est communis sententia, quod humana Christi natura nullatenus potuerit mereri unionem hypostaticam, et quod nec Sancti veteris Testamenti nec ipsa B. Virgo potuerint eandem mereri merito proprie dicto i. e. merito condigni, sive incarnatio consideretur in ordine *intentionis* vel praedefinitionis divinae, sive in ordine *exsecutionis.* Loquendo autem de merito *congrui* et de antiquis Patribus et sanctissima Matre Dei, Scholastici communiter distinguunt ipsam incarnationem *in se* et quoad *circumstantias,* « videlicet temporis, generis et personae » (Aegid. II., hic q. 3. a. 1.), et concedunt, quod istae circumstantiae, praesertim acceleratio temporis, potuerint aliquo modo cadere sub rationem meriti. Addit autem S. Bonaventura tertium distinctionis membrum, scilicet quoad *efficaciam,* de quo hic proprie non est quaestio. — A nonnullis recentioribus hic adhibetur distinctio inter ordinem *intentionis* et *exsecutionis* (quam etiam Richard. a Med. hic innuit); unde etiam paulo aliter quaestionem resolvunt, de quo cfr. Suarez in p. III. Summae t. I. disp. 10. sect. 5-8.

**II.** Quoad B. V. Mariam, de qua agitur in seq. quaestione, nonnulli posteriores Scholastici affirmare voluerunt, eandem meruisse de condigno esse Matrem Dei sive ipsam dignitatem maternitatis divinae; quod ceteri communiter negant, cum non nisi de congruo hoc meruerit. Addunt autem iidem, quod ipsa dispositionem ad talem dignitatem, id est tam eminentem sanctitatis gradum, ut congrue potuerit esse Mater Dei, praevenientibus singularibus gratiis, etiam de condigno meruerit. — Nec aliud in re S. Bonav. sentit, dum praeter meritum de congruo, quod eadem habuit ante annuntiationem, etiam meritum digni (non autem condigni) post consensum eidem attribuit. — De triplici distinctione meriti, qua utitur hic S. Bonav., cfr. II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 2. 3. Richard. a Med. (hic a. 3. q. I.) ad rem dicit: « Illud meritum, quo B. Virgo meruit fieri Mater Dei, potest vocari meritum decentiae, vel congruitatis, vel secundum aliquos meritum dignitatis ».

**III.** Alii Scholastici de utraque quaestione simul tractare solent: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 3. a. 2. — Scot., III. Report. d. 7. q. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1; S. III. q. 2. a. 11. — B. Albert., hic a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. 3. — Aegid. II., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. — Biel de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** As to this question and the following, it is the evident common opinion that the human nature of Christ in no way could merit the hypostatic union, and that neither the Saints of the Old Testament nor the Blessed Virgin herself could merit the same by merit properly so called, i.e. by the merit of condignity, whether the incarnation be considered in the order of *intention* or of divine predefinition, or in the order of *execution.* But speaking of the merit of *congruity* and of the ancient Fathers and the most holy Mother of God, the Scholastics commonly distinguish the incarnation itself *in itself* and as to its *circumstances,* « namely of time, of kind, and of person » (Aegidius II, here q. 3, a. 1), and grant that these circumstances, especially the hastening of the time, could in some way fall under the account of merit. But St. Bonaventure adds a third member of the distinction, namely as to its *efficacy,* of which there is properly no question here. — By some more recent [writers] a distinction is here employed between the order of *intention* and of *execution* (which Richard of Mediavilla also here intimates); whence also they resolve the question somewhat differently, on which cf. Suarez in p. III of the Summa, t. I, disp. 10, sect. 5-8.

**II.** As to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is treated in the following question, some later Scholastics wished to affirm that she merited de condigno to be the Mother of God, or the dignity of the divine maternity itself; which the rest commonly deny, since she merited this only de congruo. But the same add that she merited even de condigno the disposition to such a dignity, that is, so eminent a degree of holiness that she could fittingly be the Mother of God, by singular graces going before. — Nor does St. Bonaventure in substance think otherwise, when besides the merit de congruo, which she had before the annunciation, he attributes to her also a merit of worth (but not of condignity) after her consent. — On the threefold distinction of merit which St. Bonaventure uses here, cf. II Sent., d. 27, a. 2, q. 2, 3. Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 3, q. I) says to the point: « That merit, by which the Blessed Virgin merited to become the Mother of God, may be called a merit of fittingness, or of congruity, or according to some a merit of dignity ».

**III.** Other Scholastics are accustomed to treat both questions together: Alexander of Hales, S. p. III, q. 8, m. 3, a. 2. — Scotus, III Report., d. 7, q. 4. — St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 1; S. III, q. 2, a. 11. — Blessed Albert, here a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2, 3. — Aegidius II, here q. 3, a. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2. — Biel on this and the following questions, here in a single question.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{104,105,106}-{L,R}-*.png`) per the Vol II/III PDF-priority inversion; the IA djvu OCR (raw 7758–7913) was the cross-check for footnote-marker spacing only. Fresh literal English. Offset pdf = printed + 22 (printed 104–106 = PDF 126–128).

**Page-split map.**
- **p.104** (verso head `104 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`): the chunk opens mid-page in the L-col — the short ARTICULUS II opener (`Consequenter quaeritur … Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria`) folds into q1 per the locked chunking convention. L-col carries q1's opener + fundamenta 1–4; R-col head `QUAESTIO I.` carries the title and *Sed contra* args 1–4. **Footer split with a1-q3:** p.104 prints footers 1–9. a1-q3 (commit 06420f8) consumed notes **1–2** as its `[^19]`–`[^20]` (note 1 = `mortalem` variant on q3's body; note 2 = `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`). This q1 takes notes **3, 4, 5** (L-col footer) + **6, 7, 8, 9** (R-col footer) = 7 entries, rendered `[^1]`–`[^7]`.
- **p.105** (recto head `DIST. IV. ART. II. QUAEST. I.` / `QUAEST. I. 105`; running-head digits OCR-mangled to `103`/`105` — trust the +22 offset and head text): CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (L-col) + the four replies (R-col). Footers 1–8 → `[^8]`–`[^15]`. The TOM. III gathering signature `14` prints at the foot.
- **p.106** (verso head `106 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`): tail of reply 3 + reply 4 (L-col), then the SCHOLION (L-col §I, R-col §II–III). Only one q1 footer here: note 1 (reply-4 *meretur* variant) → `[^16]`. p.106 note 2 onward begins q2's fresh footer sequence (and q2's body — Fundamenta 1–2 — already prints at the foot of p.106 R-col).

**Footer hand-off to d4-a2-q2.** q2 (`Utrum beata Virgo Maria meruerit Christum concipere…`, raw 7914, opener `Secundo quaeritur de conceptione Christi in comparatione ad meritum beatae Virginis Mariae…`) begins on **p.106 R-col**, sharing p.106 with this q1's scholion §II–III. **p.106's footer note 2** (`Vers. 45. — Superius pro solum ex codd. K P Q Z bb ex solo.`) is the FIRST footer of q2 — forward it to q2 as its `[^1]`. q2 then continues onto p.107+ with a fresh sequence.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`. The SCHOLION prints physically on p.106 after q1's replies. §I explicitly forward-covers q2 (`Quoad hanc et seq. quaestionem…`); §II treats the B. V. Maria question of q2 (`Quoad B. V. Mariam, de qua agitur in seq. quaestione…`); §III is a shared *De utraque quaestione* authorities list (Alex. Hal., Scotus, S. Thom., B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Aegid. II, Dionys. Carth., Biel). Therefore **q2 will carry NO scholion of its own** (mirror of the q1→q2→q3 pattern in Art. I).

**Alignment PASS.** QUAESTIO header `…fuerit ex mera gratia, an eam impetrarunt merita sanctorum Patrum` = TRACTATIO q1 (*in comparatione ad merita Ecclesiae*); opener `Circa primum sic procedilur et quaeritur, utrum Christi conceptio vel incarnatio fuerit ex mera gratia…` (raw 7773). NOT q2 (*meritum Virginis Mariae*) and NOT q3 (*dignitatem naturae assumtae*).

**`[?]` flags.** None. All readings recovered cleanly from the 450 dpi column bands.