title: Dist. 1, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 28 -->

### Quaestio III. *Quae trium personarum fuerit ad incarnationem magis idonea.*

Tertio quaeritur, quae trium personarum fuerit ad incarnationem magis idonea. Et ostenditur primo, quod persona *Patris*.

*Quoad Patrem.*

1. Illius enim est recreare, cuius est creare[^1]; sed creatio maxime attribuitur et convenit potentiae Patris, ergo et recreatio: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod et incarnatio.

2. Item, illius est filios adoptare, cuius est generare; sed incarnatio ordinatur ad adoptionem, sicut dicitur ad Galatas quarto[^2]: ergo videtur, quod maxime competit ei, cui convenit generare: ergo maxime convenit Patri incarnari.

3. Item, Filius totum, quod habet, habet a Patre[^3]: ergo magis decet Patrem habere aliquid, quod non habeat Filius, quam Filium, quod non habeat Pater: si igitur incarnatio facit, humanam naturam haberi a persona, quae incarnatur, videtur, quod hoc magis competat personae Patris quam personae Filii.

<!-- page 29 -->

Quod autem magis competat personae *Spiritus sancti*, ostenditur:

4. Quia quod maxime habet rationem gratiae maxime competit missioni Spiritus sancti; sed quod Deus factus est homo, hoc est summa gratia, sicut vult Augustinus decimo tertio de Trinitate[^4]: ergo videtur, quod hoc magis debuerit esse in persona Spiritus sancti quam in persona Filii.

5. Item, Spiritus amoris facit nos filios Dei adoptivos, secundum illud ad Romanos octavo[^5]: *Non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, sed spiritum* etc.: ergo si incarnatio est, ut fiamus filii Dei adoptivi; videtur, quod incarnatio maxime debuerit esse in persona Spiritus sancti.

6. Item, mitti dicit subauctoritatem in misso[^6], ergo ei magis convenit mitti, in quo magis reperitur ratio subauctoritatis; sed ratio subauctoritatis magis reperitur in persona Spiritus sancti quam Filii: ergo si incarnatio est in carnem missio, videtur, quod magis conveniat Spiritui sancto quam Filio.

Quod autem magis competat *Filio*, videtur.

*Quoad Filium. Fundamenta.*

1. Magis decet personam mediam tenere rationem mediatoris quam aliam; sed incarnatio est ordinata ad effectum mediatoris[^7], persona autem media in Trinitate est persona Verbi: ergo etc.

2. Item, magis decet Filium Dei esse hominis[^8] filium quam aliam personam; sed per incarnationem ille qui incarnatur, efficitur Virginis filius: ergo videtur, quod personam Filii incarnari sit magis decens et congruum.

3. Item, convenientius est, Filium supplicare Patri[^9] quam aliam personam; sed incarnatio ad hoc ordinatur, ut sit aliquis mediator, qui pro hominibus intercedat ad Deum: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> Convenientius fuit, Filium incarnari quam aliam personam divinam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod persona Verbi ad incarnationem inter ceteras personas fuit magis idonea, sive loquamur de ipsa incarnatione in se, sive prout ordinata est ad humani generis redemptionem.

*Ratio 1. triplex.* Si enim loquamur de ipsa incarnatione in se, magis congruum fuit, personam Filii incarnari, et in quantum est *Imago*, et in quantum est *Verbum*, et in quantum est *Filius*. In quantum est *Imago*, quia homo assumtibilis erat ratione dignitatis imaginis; et quia Filius est Imago Patris, ideo magis conveniens erat, Filii personam assumere creaturam[^10]. — *Rursus*, quia Filius Dei Verbum est Patris, sic procedit ab ipso, ut Pater se manifestet per ipsum; et ideo, sicut ad intentionis manifestationem verbum intelligibile copulatur voci sensibili, sic ad divinitatis revelationem Verbum Patris congruum fuit uniri carni[^11]. — *Postremo*, quia Filius est semel genitus ab aeterno, et sic congruebat, Deum carnem assumere, ut esset de genere hominum, et ita hominis filium; et ideo decebat ipsum magis incarnari quam Patrem vel Spiritum sanctum. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus in libro de Trinitate, et Magister in littera[^12], quod Dei Filius « non quaesivit nisi matrem in terris, quia iam habebat Patrem in caelis ». — Magis igitur decens fuit, Filium incarnari quam aliam personam, si loquamur de ipsa incarnatione in se.

*Ratio 2. triplex.* Fuit etiam magis congruum, si loquamur de ipsa incarnatione per comparationem ad generis humani redemptionem; et hoc apparet, si consideremus hominis lapsum, et reparandi modum, et reparationis fructum. Si consideremus hominis lapsum, videbimus, quod lapsus fuit appetendo falsam Dei similitudinem et aequalitatem; et quia Filio primo attribuitur aequalitas, hinc est, quod quasi ex ipso sumsit homo lapsus occasionem; et ideo inde sumere debuit reparationem. Et hoc dicit Bernardus[^13] explanans illud quod dicitur Ionae primo: *Propter me orta est haec tempestas; tollite me et mittite in mare.* Aut certe in hoc, quod homo praesumserat Dei similitudinem, directe contra Filium peccavit; et ideo Filio magis competebat vindicta et indulgentia.

<!-- page 30 -->

Et hoc est quod dicit Anselmus in libro *Cur Deus homo*[^14]: « Homo, pro quo erat oraturus, et diabolus, quem erat expugnaturus, ambo falsam Dei similitudinem praesumserant. Unde specialius adversus Filium peccaverunt. Illi itaque, cui specialiter fit iniuria, convenientius attribuitur culpae vindicta et indulgentia ». — *Rursus*, si consideremus modum reparationis, magis competit Filio. Reparati enim sumus per mediatoris obedientiam et supplicationem; et quia magis competit, filium supplicare patri et obedire: hinc est, quod magis competit personae Filii incarnari quam alii. Unde Anselmus in libro *Cur Deus homo*[^15]: « Convenientius sonat, Filium supplicare Patri quam aliam personam ». — *Postremo*, si consideremus reparationis fructum vel effectum, magis competebat Filio incarnari: quia incarnatio ad hoc ordinatur, ut simus filii Dei: si ergo posterius per illud habet reduci, quod est prius in eodem genere[^16], congruum fuit, ut filii Dei efficeremur per eum qui est Filius naturalis. Unde Augustinus in quarto de Trinitate[^17]: « Ut homo ex Deo nasceretur, primo ex ipsis natus est Deus. Oportuit enim, ut per eum efficeremur filii adoptivi, qui est Filius naturalis ».

Et sic patet per omnem modum, quod convenientius fuit, Filium incarnari quam alium. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes, quae ad hoc inducebantur.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Patri magis convenit opus recreationis, sicut creationis; dicendum, quod Pater sic est auctor recreationis, sicut et creationis; et sicut per Verbum omnia fecit, sic et per Verbum omnia refecit[^18]. Sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod Pater magis debuerit incarnari, quia incarnatio non respicit personam auctoris, sed mediatoris. Et quia ratio mediationis non convenit Patri, sed potius Filio; hinc est, quod non sequitur, quod incarnatio magis conveniat Patri quam Filio; immo potius e converso.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de adoptione, dicendum, quod verum est, quod adoptio convenit Patri tanquam principali auctori; sed hoc non debet facere nisi per Filium, cuius tota est hereditas, et per quem alii ad hereditatem debent admitti[^19].

3. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod Filius habet a Patre quidquid habet; dicendum, quod Filius dicitur aliquid habere per naturalem originem[^20], *Distinctio.* aliquid per gratuitam unionem. Et si primo modo intelligatur, quidquid habet, habet a Patre, ita quod idem, quod est in Filio a Patre, est in Patre a se ipso, in essentialibus loquendo. Si autem loquamur de eo quod habet per gratuitam unionem, sic habet a Patre tanquam a principio effectivo, non tanquam a generante; quia secundum illud Filius est minor Patre, et quia magis decet, Filium secundum humanam naturam esse minorem Patre; hinc est, quod isto modo magis competit, Filium habere aliquid, quod non habeat Pater, quam e converso[^21].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magis convenit Spiritui sancto, quia haec est summa gratia; dicendum, quod per illam rationem non concluditur, quod incarnatio debeat fieri in persona Spiritus sancti, sed quod opus incarnationis debeat attribui Spiritui sancto; et hoc melius videbitur infra[^22]. Et similiter respondendum est ad hoc quod sequitur de adoptione.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de missione, dicendum, quod missio in carnem fuit ad redimendum a servitute; et quia oportet, prius hominem liberari a servitute quam adoptari in filium; hinc est, quod missio in carnem ei personae competebat, cui primo

<!-- page 31 -->

competebat mitti; et quia persona Filii habet mitti solum a Patre, persona Spiritus sancti habet mitti ab utroque: hinc est, quod primo decebat Filium mitti in carnem, ut, redemptione facta, idem ipse cum Patre mitteret Spiritum sanctum in mentem. Et hoc est quod dicit Apostolus ad Galatas quarto: *Cum venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum* etc.; et post: *Ut adoptionem filiorum Dei* etc.; et post: *Quoniam autem estis filii Dei, misit Deus Spiritum Filii sui in corda vestra.* Propterea non sequitur, quod si maior ratio subauctoritatis est in Spiritu sancto quam in Filio, quod propterea debuerit in carnem mitti; immo potest inferri contrarium. Pater enim, quia a nullo est, non debuit mitti. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus quarto de Trinitate[^23]: *Conveniens non erat, ut Pater ab alio mitteretur, quia ab alio non erat. Conveniens autem fuit, ut primo Filius mitteretur, quia a solo Patre est, deinde Spiritus sanctus, qui est a Patre et a Filio. Primo Filius venit, ut homines liberarentur; deinde Spiritus sanctus, ut homines beatificarentur.*

english:
### Question III. *Which of the three persons was more fitting for the incarnation.*

Thirdly it is asked, which of the three persons was more fitting for the incarnation. And it is shown first, that the person of the *Father* [was].

*Concerning the Father.*

1. For to recreate belongs to him to whom it belongs to create[^1]; but creation is most attributed and proper to the power of the Father, therefore also recreation: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems that the incarnation [belongs to him] as well.

2. Likewise, to adopt sons belongs to him to whom it belongs to beget; but the incarnation is ordered to adoption, as is said in Galatians 4[^2]: therefore it seems that it most belongs to him to whom it belongs to beget: therefore it most belongs to the Father to be incarnate.

3. Likewise, the Son has the whole of what he has from the Father[^3]: therefore it is more fitting for the Father to have something which the Son does not have, than for the Son to have something which the Father does not have: if therefore the incarnation makes human nature be had by the person who is incarnate, it seems that this more belongs to the person of the Father than to the person of the Son.

That it more belongs to the person of the *Holy Spirit* is shown:

4. Because that which most has the character of grace most belongs to the mission of the Holy Spirit; but that God became man is the highest grace, as Augustine holds in the thirteenth book of *On the Trinity*[^4]: therefore it seems that this ought rather to be in the person of the Holy Spirit than in the person of the Son.

5. Likewise, the Spirit of love makes us adoptive sons of God, according to that text of Romans 8[^5]: *You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear, but the spirit* etc.: therefore if the incarnation exists in order that we may become adoptive sons of God, it seems that the incarnation ought most to be in the person of the Holy Spirit.

6. Likewise, to be sent expresses a subordinate authority in the one sent[^6], therefore being sent more belongs to him in whom the character of subordinate authority is more found; but the character of subordinate authority is more found in the person of the Holy Spirit than of the Son: therefore if the incarnation is a being-sent into flesh, it seems that it more befits the Holy Spirit than the Son.

That it more befits the *Son* is seen as follows.

*Concerning the Son. The arguments.*

1. It more befits the middle person to hold the role of mediator than another; but the incarnation is ordered to the effect of a mediator[^7], and the middle person in the Trinity is the person of the Word: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it more befits the Son of God to be the son of a man[^8] than another person; but through the incarnation the one who is incarnate is made the son of the Virgin: therefore it seems that for the person of the Son to be incarnate is more becoming and fitting.

3. Likewise, it is more fitting for the Son to supplicate the Father[^9] than another person; but the incarnation is ordered to this, that there be some mediator who intercedes with God on behalf of men: therefore etc.

### Conclusio.

> It was more fitting for the Son to be incarnate than another divine person.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that the person of the Word, among the other persons, was more fitting for the incarnation, whether we speak of the incarnation in itself, or insofar as it is ordered to the redemption of the human race.

*First, threefold reason.* For if we speak of the incarnation in itself, it was more congruous for the person of the Son to be incarnate, both insofar as he is *Image*, and insofar as he is *Word*, and insofar as he is *Son*. Insofar as he is *Image*, because man was assumable by reason of the dignity of the image; and because the Son is the Image of the Father, therefore it was more fitting that the person of the Son should assume the creature[^10]. — *Again*, because the Son of God is the Word of the Father, he proceeds from him in such a way that the Father manifests himself through him; and therefore, just as for the manifestation of an intention the intelligible word is joined to a sensible voice, so for the revelation of the divinity it was congruous that the Word of the Father be united to flesh[^11]. — *Lastly*, because the Son is once begotten from eternity, and thus it was congruous that God should assume flesh, so as to be of the race of men, and so the son of a man; and therefore it became him to be incarnate rather than the Father or the Holy Spirit. And this is what Augustine says in the book *On the Trinity*, and the Master in the text[^12], that the Son of God « sought nothing but a mother on earth, because he already had a Father in heaven ». — It was therefore more becoming for the Son to be incarnate than another person, if we speak of the incarnation in itself.

*Second, threefold reason.* It was also more congruous, if we speak of the incarnation by comparison to the redemption of the human race; and this appears if we consider man's fall, and the manner of his repair, and the fruit of the repair. If we consider man's fall, we shall see that the fall was by seeking a false likeness and equality with God; and because equality is first attributed to the Son, hence it is that, as it were from him, fallen man took the occasion [of his fall]; and therefore from thence he ought to take his repair. And this Bernard says[^13] in expounding that which is said in Jonah 1: *On account of me this tempest has arisen; take me up and cast me into the sea.* Or certainly in this, that man had presumed the likeness of God, he sinned directly against the Son; and therefore vengeance and pardon more befitted the Son.

And this is what Anselm says in the book *Why God Became Man*[^14]: « The man, for whom he was to pray, and the devil, whom he was to overcome, had both presumed a false likeness of God. Whence they sinned more especially against the Son. To him, therefore, to whom the injury is especially done, the vengeance and pardon of the fault is more fittingly attributed ». — *Again*, if we consider the manner of the repair, it more befits the Son. For we have been repaired through the obedience and supplication of the mediator; and because it more befits the son to supplicate and obey the father: hence it is that it more befits the person of the Son to be incarnate than another. Whence Anselm in the book *Why God Became Man*[^15]: « It sounds more fitting that the Son supplicate the Father than another person ». — *Lastly*, if we consider the fruit or effect of the repair, it more befitted the Son to be incarnate: because the incarnation is ordered to this, that we be sons of God: if therefore the latter must be brought back through that which is prior in the same genus[^16], it was congruous that we should be made sons of God through him who is the natural Son. Whence Augustine in the fourth book of *On the Trinity*[^17]: « That man might be born of God, first God was born of those very ones. For it was necessary that we be made adoptive sons through him who is the natural Son ».

And thus it is clear in every way that it was more fitting for the Son to be incarnate than another. — Whence the arguments which were brought forward for this are to be granted.

*Solution of the opposing arguments.* 1. To that which is objected, that the work of recreation more befits the Father, as does that of creation; it must be said that the Father is the author of recreation just as of creation; and just as he made all things through the Word, so also he remade all things through the Word[^18]. But from this it does not follow that the Father ought rather to be incarnate, because the incarnation does not regard the person of the author, but of the mediator. And because the character of mediation does not befit the Father, but rather the Son; hence it is that it does not follow that the incarnation more befits the Father than the Son; rather the contrary.

2. To that which is objected concerning adoption, it must be said that it is true that adoption befits the Father as the principal author; but he ought to do this only through the Son, whose the whole inheritance is, and through whom others must be admitted to the inheritance[^19].

3. To that which is objected, that the Son has from the Father whatever he has; it must be said that the Son is said to have something by natural origin[^20], *Distinction.* something by gratuitous union. And if it be understood in the first way, whatever he has, he has from the Father, in such a way that the same thing which is in the Son from the Father is in the Father from himself, speaking of essentials. But if we speak of that which he has by gratuitous union, then he has it from the Father as from an effective principle, not as from a begetter; because according to this the Son is less than the Father, and because it more befits that the Son according to human nature be less than the Father; hence it is that in this way it more befits the Son to have something which the Father does not have, than the contrary[^21].

4. To that which is objected, that it more befits the Holy Spirit, because this is the highest grace; it must be said that by that reason it is not concluded that the incarnation ought to be done in the person of the Holy Spirit, but that the work of the incarnation ought to be attributed to the Holy Spirit; and this will be better seen below[^22]. And similarly an answer is to be given to that which follows concerning adoption.

5. To that which is objected concerning the mission, it must be said that the mission into flesh was for redeeming from bondage; and because it is necessary that man first be freed from bondage before being adopted into sonship; hence it is that the mission into flesh befitted that person to whom it first

befitted to be sent; and because the person of the Son has being-sent only from the Father, the person of the Holy Spirit has being-sent from both: hence it is that it first became the Son to be sent into flesh, so that, the redemption accomplished, he himself together with the Father might send the Holy Spirit into the mind. And this is what the Apostle says in Galatians 4: *When the fullness of time came, God sent his Son* etc.; and after: *That we might receive the adoption of the sons of God* etc.; and after: *But because you are sons of God, God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts.* Therefore it does not follow that if a greater character of subordinate authority is in the Holy Spirit than in the Son, that for that reason he ought to be sent into flesh; rather the contrary can be inferred. For the Father, because he is from no one, ought not to be sent. And this is what Augustine says in the fourth book of *On the Trinity*[^23]: *It was not fitting that the Father be sent by another, because he was not from another. But it was fitting that first the Son be sent, because he is from the Father alone, then the Holy Spirit, who is from the Father and the Son. First the Son came, that men might be freed; then the Holy Spirit, that men might be beatified.*

la: August., de Verbis Apostoli, serm. 176. (alias 20.) c. 5. n. 5: *Nemo recreat, nisi qui creat; nemo reficit, nisi qui fecit.* Cfr. tom. II. pag. 633, nota 3. — Quod in minori proponitur, Symbol. Apost. exprimit verbis: *Credo in Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem* etc. — Proxime post pro *sed creatio* cod. Z *sed creare*.

en: Augustine, *On the Words of the Apostle*, serm. 176 (alias 20), c. 5, n. 5: *No one recreates except him who creates; no one remakes except him who made.* Cf. tom. II, p. 633, note 3. — What is proposed in the minor premise the Apostles' Creed expresses in the words: *I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator* etc. — Just after, for *sed creatio* codex Z reads *sed creare*.

la: Vers. 5: *Ut eos... redimeret, ut adoptionem filiorum reciperemus.*

en: Verse 5: *That he might redeem them... that we might receive the adoption of sons.*

la: Cfr. Ioan. 5, 19. seqq. — Paulo inferius post *quam Filium* edd. supplent *habere*.

en: Cf. John 5, 19 ff. — A little below, after *quam Filium* the editions supply *habere*.

la: Cap. 19. n. 24: *In rebus enim per tempus ortis illa summa gratia est, quod homo in unitate personae coniunctus est Deo.* — In maiori cod. Z inter *missioni* et *Spiritus sancti* interserit *personae*.

en: C. 19, n. 24: *For among things that arise through time, this is the highest grace, that man is conjoined to God in unity of person.* — In the major premise codex Z inserts *personae* between *missioni* and *Spiritus sancti*.

la: Vers. 15. — Ante *filios Dei* codd. A N supplent *esse*, pro quo non pauci alii codd. cum edd. 1, 2 substituunt *et*.

en: Verse 15. — Before *filios Dei* codices A N supply *esse*, in place of which not a few other codices, with editions 1, 2, substitute *et*.

la: Cfr. 1. Sent. d. 15. p. I. q. 1. 3. et dub. 5, ubi etiam de minori subsumta videsis, in qua codd. Z bb pro *quam Filii* substituunt *quam in persona Filii*. — Quod incarnatio sit missio in carnem, August. exponit, ut videre est supra pag. 17, nota 4.

en: Cf. 1 Sent. d. 15, p. I, q. 1, 3, and dub. 5, where you may also see concerning the minor premise assumed, in which codices Z bb substitute *quam in persona Filii* for *quam Filii*. — That the incarnation is a mission into flesh, Augustine explains, as can be seen above, p. 17, note 4.

la: Vide supra pag. 19, nota 6.

en: See above, p. 19, note 6.

la: Multi codd. et edd. 1, 2 omittunt *hominis*, Vat. addit *vel Virginis*. — De hoc et seq. arg. cfr. hic corp. quaest.

en: Many codices and editions 1, 2 omit *hominis*, the Vatican edition adds *vel Virginis*. — On this and the following argument cf. here the body of the question.

la: Respicitur Hebr. 5, 7. Cfr. ibid. 7, 25. et Rom. 8, 34.

en: Hebrews 5, 7 is referred to. Cf. ibid. 7, 25 and Rom. 8, 34.

la: Tertull., de Resurrect. carnis, c. 6. ait: » *Quodcumque enim limus exprimebatur, Christus cogitabatur homo futurus, quod et limus et caro Sermo* [Verbum], *quod et terra tunc. Sic enim praefatio Patris ad Filium: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Et fecit hominem Deus. Id utique quod finxit, ad imaginem Dei fecit illum, scilicet Christi... Ita limus ille, iam tunc imaginem induens Christi futuri in carne, non tantum Dei opus erat, sed et pignus* ». Iren. V. contra Haeres. c. 16. n. 2. ait: *In praeteritis enim temporibus dicebatur quidem secundum imaginem Dei factum esse hominem, non autem ostendebatur. Adhuc enim invisibile erat Verbum, cuius secundum imaginem homo factus fuerat. Propter hoc autem et similitudinem facile amisit. Quando autem caro Verbum Dei factum est, utraque confirmavit: et imaginem enim ostendit veram, ipse hoc fiens, quod erat imago eius; et similitudinem firmans restituit, consimilem faciens hominem invisibili Patri per visibile Verbum.* Cfr. Rom. 5, 14; 8, 29; II. Cor. 4, 4; Coloss. 1, 18. et supra a. 1. q. 1. fundam. 3. nec non infra d. 2. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Pro *creaturam* in edd. habetur *carnem*.

en: Tertullian, *On the Resurrection of the Flesh*, c. 6, says: » *For whatever clay was being expressed, Christ was being thought of as the man to come, who is both clay and flesh — the Word* [Word], *who is also earth then. For thus is the Father's preface to the Son: Let us make man to our image and likeness. And God made man. That very thing which he fashioned, he made to the image of God, namely of Christ... Thus that clay, already then putting on the image of the Christ to come in the flesh, was not only God's work but also a pledge* ». Irenaeus, *Against Heresies* V, c. 16, n. 2, says: *For in past times it was indeed said that man had been made according to the image of God, but it was not shown. For the Word, according to whose image man had been made, was still invisible. And on this account he also easily lost the likeness. But when the flesh became the Word of God, it confirmed both: for it showed the image to be true, becoming himself that which was his image; and confirming the likeness it restored it, making man like to the invisible Father through the visible Word.* Cf. Rom. 5, 14; 8, 29; 2 Cor. 4, 4; Col. 1, 18, and above a. 1. q. 1. fund. 3, and also below d. 2. a. 1. q. 1 f. — For *creaturam* the editions have *carnem*.

la: Cfr. August., XV. de Trin. c. 11. n. 20. Cfr. etiam 1. Sent. d. 27. p. II. q. 4. — Paulo superius pro *intelligibile* edd. atque aliqui codd. *intellectuale*. Paulo inferius pro *congruebat, Deum* edd. *congruebat, eum*.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Trinity* XV, c. 11, n. 20. Cf. also 1 Sent. d. 27, p. II, q. 4. — A little above, for *intelligibile* the editions and some codices read *intellectuale*. A little below, for *congruebat, Deum* the editions read *congruebat, eum*.

la: Non ad verbum quidem, sed sententialiter August., II. de Trin. c. 5. n. 8; IV. c. 20. n. 27. seq., et hic in lit. Magistri c. 1; ad verbum autem illa sententia expressa habetur in August., tr. 2. in Ioan. Evang. n. 15.

en: Not indeed word for word, but in sense, Augustine, *On the Trinity* II, c. 5, n. 8; IV, c. 20, n. 27 f., and here in the text of the Master, c. 1; word for word that statement is found expressed in Augustine, *Tract.* 2 *on John's Gospel*, n. 15.

la: Serm. 1. de Adventu Domini, n. 4: *Revera enim principes nostri Adam et Eva... inobedientes et socii furum; qui quod Filii Dei est... surripere tentant. Nec dissimulat iniuriam Filii Pater... Quid agat Filius, videns pro se zelare Patrem et nulli penitus parcere creaturae? Ecce, inquit, occasione mei creaturas suas Pater amittit. Altitudinem meam primus angelus affectavit... Scientiam quoque, quae nihilominus mea est, surripere voluit homo... ecce, propter me angelos perdidit multos, homines universos. Ergo ut sciant, quia et ego diligo Patrem, per me recipiat quos quodam modo propter me amisisse videtur. Si propter me tempestas haec orta est, ait Ionas* (1, 12.), *tollite me et mittite in mare.*

en: Sermon 1 *On the Advent of the Lord*, n. 4: *For truly our first parents Adam and Eve... were disobedient and companions of thieves; who tried to steal what belongs to the Son of God... Nor does the Father conceal the injury done to the Son... What is the Son to do, seeing the Father zealous on his behalf and sparing no creature at all? Behold, he says, on my account the Father loses his creatures. The first angel coveted my loftiness... My knowledge likewise, which is no less mine, man wished to steal... behold, on my account he lost many angels and all men. Therefore, that they may know that I too love the Father, let him receive back through me those whom in a certain way he seems to have lost on my account. If on my account this tempest has arisen, says Jonah* (1, 12), *take me up and cast me into the sea.*

la: Libr. II. c. 9, quem locum textus originalis sic exhibet: *Homo... similitudinem Dei per propriam voluntatem praesumserant. Unde quasi specialius adversus personam Filii peccaverunt, qui vera Patris similitudo creditur. Illi itaque, cui specialius fit... vindicta aut indulgentia.* — In initio testimonii edd. verbum *oraturus* commutarunt in *moriturus*.

en: Bk. II, c. 9, which passage the original text presents thus: *Man... had presumed the likeness of God by his own will. Whence they sinned, as it were, more especially against the person of the Son, who is believed to be the true likeness of the Father. To him, therefore, to whom the injury is more especially done... vengeance or pardon.* — At the beginning of the testimony the editions changed the word *oraturus* into *moriturus*.

la: Libr. II. c. 9. Cfr. de Fide Trinit. c. 5.

en: Bk. II, c. 9. Cf. *On the Faith of the Trinity*, c. 5.

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. Metaph. text. 4. (l. brevior c. 1.) et tom. II. pag. 94, nota 4.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* II, text 4 (in the shorter book, c. 1) and tom. II, p. 94, note 4.

la: Cap. 20. n. 27. seq., sed sententialiter tantum (de quo vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.). Cfr. etiam II. de Trin. c. 5. n. 7. seqq. et XIII. c. 19. n. 24. Codd. et edd. hic et in fine quaest. lectorem delegant ad libr. III. de Trin., ubi neque haec neque similis sententia reperit; at in S. August., tr. 2. in Ioan. Evang. n. 15. habetur fere ad verbum. Legitur enim ibi: *Ut autem homines nascerentur ex Deo, primo ex ipsis natus est Deus. Christus enim Deus et Christus natus ex hominibus... natus ex Deo, per quem efficeremur, et natus ex femina, per quem reficeremur. Noli ergo mirari, o homo, quia efficeris filius per gratiam, quia nasceris ex Deo secundum Verbum eius. Prius ipsum Verbum voluit nasci ex homine, ut tu securus nascereris ex Deo* etc.

en: C. 20, n. 27 f., but only in sense (on which see here the text of the Master, c. 1). Cf. also *On the Trinity* II, c. 5, n. 7 ff. and XIII, c. 19, n. 24. The codices and editions here and at the end of the question refer the reader to bk. III *On the Trinity*, where neither this nor a similar statement is found; but in St. Augustine, *Tract.* 2 *on John's Gospel*, n. 15, it is had almost word for word. For there one reads: *But that men might be born of God, first God was born of those very ones. For Christ is God and Christ was born of men... born of God, through whom we might be made, and born of a woman, through whom we might be remade. Do not wonder, therefore, O man, that you are made a son through grace, because you are born of God according to his Word. First the Word itself willed to be born of man, that you, made secure, might be born of God* etc.

la: August., Enarrat. in Ps. 142. n. 17: *Tu es Deus meus, qui Creator meus, qui creasti me per Verbum tuum, et recreasti me per Verbum. Sed creasti me per Verbum Deum manentem apud te; recreasti per Verbum carnem factum propter nos.* Cfr. Enarrat. in Ps. 45. n. 14. — Paulo inferius pro *mediationis* edd. et nonnulli codd. *mediatoris*, ubi prosequitur cod. cc *non convenit magis Patri quam Filio; hinc est*. Circa finem solut. non pauci codd. *convenit* pro *conveniat*.

en: Augustine, *Enarrat. on Ps. 142*, n. 17: *You are my God, who are my Creator, who created me through your Word, and recreated me through the Word. But you created me through the Word remaining God with you; you recreated me through the Word made flesh for our sake.* Cf. *Enarrat. on Ps. 45*, n. 14. — A little below, for *mediationis* the editions and some codices read *mediatoris*, where codex cc continues *non convenit magis Patri quam Filio; hinc est*. Toward the end of the solution not a few codices read *convenit* for *conveniat*.

la: Rom. 8, 17: *Si autem filii, et heredes; heredes quidem Dei, coheredes autem Christi.* — Pro *debent admitti* codd. M O *admittuntur*, et paulo ante pro *alii* cod. bb *filii*.

en: Rom. 8, 17: *But if sons, also heirs; heirs indeed of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.* — For *debent admitti* codices M O read *admittuntur*, and a little before, for *alii* codex bb reads *filii*.

la: Plurimi codd. et edd. 1, 2 *ordinem*, quae lectio explicari poterit textu 1. Sent. d. 20. a. 2. q. 2, ubi *ordo naturae* in divinis admitti posse docetur, quatenus non dicat nisi ordinem naturalis originis.

en: Very many codices and editions 1, 2 read *ordinem*, which reading can be explained by the text of 1 Sent. d. 20, a. 2, q. 2, where it is taught that an *order of nature* can be admitted in the divine [persons], insofar as it expresses nothing but the order of natural origin.

la: Cfr. August., IV. de Trin. c. 19. n. 26. seqq.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Trinity* IV, c. 19, n. 26 ff.

la: Dist. 4. a. 1. q. 1. — Paulo inferius pro *quod sequitur* cod. K *quod non sequitur*.

en: Dist. 4. a. 1. q. 1. — A little below, for *quod sequitur* codex K reads *quod non sequitur*.

la: Cap. 20. n. 27. seqq. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Paulo inferius pro *quia a solo* codd. A N P Q T U V et edd. 1, 2 *qui a solo*; dein codd. A V bis *demum* pro *deinde*; denique in fine solut. cod. V post *Spiritus sanctus* addit *qui est a Patre et a Filio*.

en: C. 20, n. 27 ff. See here the text of the Master, c. 1. — A little below, for *quia a solo* codices A N P Q T U V and editions 1, 2 read *qui a solo*; then codices A V twice read *demum* for *deinde*; finally at the end of the solution codex V adds after *Spiritus sanctus* the words *qui est a Patre et a Filio*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** In hac et seq. (4.) quaestione afferuntur rationes congruentiae, pro modulo nostrae cognitionis satis aptae, ut divina sapientia in modo incarnationis peragendae agnoscatur et laudetur. Ad rationes, quas auctor noster affert, reduci possunt quaedam ab aliis Scholasticis notatae, v. g. ea quae respectu 3. quaestionis profert Alex. Hal. de duplici convenientia secundum *appropriata* et *propria* divinarum personarum, quae divisio etiam a S. Thom. in Coment. repetitur.

De hac 3. quaestione tractant: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 2. m. 5. a. 1. — Scoti loci collecti in Sum. Hier. de Montefortino, l. IV. q. 3. a. 8. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; S. III. q. 3. a. 8; S. c. Gen. IV. c. 42. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. — Ægid. R., hic q. 2. a. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3. — Biel, hic q. 2.

**II.** De 4. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 8. m. 1. — Scoti loci collecti ibid. q. 1. a. 5. 6. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4; S. III. q. 1. a. 5. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 5. — Ægid. R., hic q. 2. a. 5. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 8.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** In this and the following (4th) question are brought forward reasons of congruity, sufficiently apt for the measure of our knowledge, so that the divine wisdom in the manner of carrying out the incarnation may be recognized and praised. To the reasons which our author brings forward can be reduced certain ones noted by other Scholastics, e.g. those which, with respect to the 3rd question, Alexander of Hales adduces concerning the twofold congruity according to what is *appropriated* and what is *proper* to the divine persons, which division is also repeated by St. Thomas in his Commentary.

On this 3rd question treat: Alex. of Hales, S. p. III. q. 2. m. 5. a. 1. — Scotus's passages collected in the Summa of Hieronymus de Montefortino, bk. IV. q. 3. a. 8. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2; S. III. q. 3. a. 8; S. against the Gentiles IV. c. 42. — Bl. Albert, here a. 7. 8. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 3. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 3. — Giles of Rome, here q. 2. a. 4. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 3. — Biel, here q. 2.

**II.** On the 4th question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. q. 8. m. 1. — Scotus's passages collected ibid. q. 1. a. 5. 6. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 4; S. III. q. 1. a. 5. 6. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 2. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 5. — Giles of Rome, here q. 2. a. 5. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 8.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 28–31 (PDF 50–53; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 2596–2785). Per the VOL II/III OVERRIDE in CLAUDE.md, the column-band PDF read is authoritative for the cascade-shattered Respondeo, replies, and all footers; the OCR is the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing.

**Alignment result: PASS.** Opener reads `Tertio quaeritur, quae trium personarum fuerit ad incarnationem magis idonea. Et ostenditur primo, quod persona Patris.` = ART. II TRACTATIO q3. No q-swap.

**Marginal labels (NOT footnotes).** The Quaracchi margin carries topic side-notes — `Quoad Patrem`, `Ad oppositum` (p.28), `Quoad Filium`, `Fundamenta`, `Ratio 1. triplex`, `Ratio 2. triplex`, `Conclusio` (p.29), `Solutio oppositorum`, `Distinctio` (p.30) — rendered inline in italics where they fall; they are NOT footnote anchors.

**Page span.** Briefing estimated pp. 28–30; the chunk in fact runs onto **p.31**: q3's reply-5 tail (`...non debuit mitti. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus quarto de Trinitate²:...beatificarentur`) and the SCHOLION I–II both print on p.31 before QUAESTIO IV's body — the same "final-page spill" pattern as q1/q2. Corrected to `printed_pages [28,29,30,31]`, `pdf_pages [50,51,52,53]`. Running heads verified: p.28 R `...IARUM LIB. III.`; p.29 `DIST. I. ART. II. QUAEST. III. 29`; p.30 `30 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.31 `DIST. I. ART. II. QUAEST. IV. 31` (q4 dominates p.31, but q3's tail + scholion print first).

**Per-page footer split (23 entries, continuous unique slugs 1–23):**
- **p.28 footers 2–4 INHERITED from a2-q2** (q2 consumed p.28 footer 1 = its `[^50]`, Rom 5,8) = `[^1]`–`[^3]`: f.2 `August. serm. 176` → fund-1 `creare²`; f.3 `Vers. 5 (Gal 4)` → fund-2 `ad Galatas quarto³`; f.4 `Cfr. Ioan. 5,19 seqq.` → fund-3 `a Patre⁴`. Readings verified on the p.28 L/R crops.
- **p.29 footers 1–10** = `[^4]`–`[^13]`: ⁴`de Trinitate¹`(Aug. XIII, summa gratia); ⁵`ad Romanos octavo²`(Vers.15); ⁶`in misso³`(I Sent d.15); ⁷`effectum mediatoris⁴`(supra p.19); ⁸`hominis⁵`(Vat. vel Virginis); ⁹`supplicare Patri⁶`(Hebr 5,7); ¹⁰`assumere creaturam⁷`(long Tertull. + Iren. note, wraps L→R foot); ¹¹`uniri carni⁸`(Aug. XV de Trin); ¹²`Magister in littera⁹`(Aug. II/IV de Trin); ¹³`dicit Bernardus¹⁰`(long Serm.1 de Adventu, wraps L→R foot).
- **p.30 footers 1–9** = `[^14]`–`[^22]`: ¹⁴`Anselmus Cur Deus homo¹`(Libr.II c.9, long, oraturus→moriturus); ¹⁵`Cur Deus homo²`(2nd Anselm); ¹⁶`in eodem genere³`(Aristot. II Metaph); ¹⁷`in quarto de Trinitate⁴`(Cap.20 n.27, long Aug. tr.2 in Ioan note); ¹⁸reply-1 `per Verbum omnia refecit⁵`(Aug. Enarr.Ps.142); ¹⁹reply-2 `debent admitti⁶`(Rom 8,17); ²⁰reply-3 `naturalem originem⁷`(I Sent d.20); ²¹reply-3 `e converso⁸`(Aug. IV de Trin); ²²reply-4 `videbitur infra⁹`(Dist.4 a.1 q.1).
- **p.31 footer 2 ONLY** = `[^23]`: reply-5 tail `Augustinus quarto de Trinitate²` (printed marker is **2**, OCR misread as `5`; footer text `Cap. 20. n. 27. seqq. Vide hic lit. Magistri... in fine solut. cod. V post Spiritus sanctus addit qui est a Patre et a Filio` confirms it annotates the end of q3's solution). **p.31 footers 1, 3, 4** (`Vers. 4`=Gen, `Vers. 2`, `Eph 2,4`) anchor QUAESTIO IV body markers — FORWARDED to a2-q4, OMITTED here (not rendered anchorless).

**Scholion disposition (PDF eyes-on, p.31): has_scholion: true.** The SCHOLION block prints after q3's reply-5 tail on p.31, before QUAESTIO IV's body. Two sections: **I.** treats the present (3rd) question — reduces other Scholastics' reasons to the Seraphic's three, cites Alex. Hal.'s twofold-congruity division, ends with the q3 parallel-treatments list (`...Biel, hic q. 2.`); **II.** is the parallel-treatments list for the **4th** question (`De 4. quaestione:...Dionys. Carth., hic q. 8.`). §II forward-references q4's authorities; it does NOT contain q4's body and is correctly held here with q3 (the scholion physically prints on q3's last page). a2-q4 thus carries no scholion of its own — confirm when building q4.

**Cascade-merge / boundary check:** q3's scholion §II ends grammatically complete at `...Dionys. Carth., hic q. 8.` (p.31, raw 2785). `QUAESTIO IV` (`Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, quo tempore fuerit magis congruum, Filium Dei incarnari`) begins raw 2786 on p.31 L-col — NOT included; belongs to d1-a2-q4. Tail + q4 opener continuous, no splice.

**Forward hand-off to d1-a2-q4** (raw 2786–~2898, printed p.31+): inherits **p.31 footers 1, 3, 4** (f.1 `Vers. 4 (Gen.)` → q4 fund-1 `Genesis secundo`; f.3 `Vers. 2` → q4; f.4 `Eph. 2, 4` → q4) plus the fresh p.32+ footer sequences. q4 opener `Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, quo tempore fuerit magis congruum, Filium Dei incarnari. Et videtur, quod in primordio temporum.` q4 is the LAST question of ART. II; after it the d.1 DUBIA block begins at raw 2899 / printed p.33 with `Dub. I.` **q4 has no scholion of its own** (this q3 scholion §II already covers q4's parallel treatments).

**`[?]` flags:** none. (The only OCR garble was the body marker `5` for the reply-5-tail de Trinitate ref, resolved to `2` by PDF eyes-on + footer-text match.)

**Marker pairing:** 23 La = 23 En = 23 defs; 0 anchorless defs, 0 defless anchors (verified programmatically before commit).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 31 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Quo tempore fuerit magis congruum, Filium Dei incarnari.*

Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, quo tempore fuerit magis congruum, Filium Dei incarnari. Et videtur, quod in primordio temporum:

**Ad oppositum:**
1. Primo per illud quod dicitur Genesis secundo[^1]: *Consummavit Deus sexto die opus suum;* sed consummatio operum maxime competit in opere incarnationis, sicut superius tactum est: ergo videtur, quod incarnari debuerit in aliquo illorum sex dierum.

2. Item, magnitudo amoris non tantum facit dona multiplicari, sed accelerari; sed Deus propter nimiam caritatem suam misit Filium suum in similitudinem carnis peccati[^2]: ergo videtur, quod congruum fuerit, Filium Dei incarnari statim, cum homo indiguit. Sed homo statim indiguit, cum lapsus fuit: ergo etc.

3. Item, si Christus ab initio temporis venisset, multi ad viam veritatis venissent, sicut dicitur Matthaei undecimo[^3]: *Olim si in Tyro et Sidone* etc.; sed ad divinae benignitatis magnitudinem spectat, quod velit omnes homines salvos fieri: ergo multo magis videtur, quod congruum fuerit, Filium Dei incarnari in primordio temporum.

4. Item, aegro in periculo mortis succurri debet sine mora; sed homo cum peccavit, periculosissime aegrotavit: si ergo homini aegrotanti succurritur per Filii incarnationem[^4], videtur, quod statim debuit incarnari.

**Sed contra:**
1. Ecclesiastis tertio[^5]: *Omnia tempus habent;* et hoc ipsum dicitur Ecclesiastici trigesimo nono: *Omnia tempore suo comprobabuntur:* ergo si nullum tempus est adeo congruum beneficio plenissimo sicut tempus plenitudinis; videtur, quod Filius Dei debuerit tunc incarnari, cum venit plenitudo temporis: non ergo in primordio temporis.

2. Item, Deus in omnibus operibus suis maxime servat ordinem; et sicut est ordo et gradus in profectu aetatis, sic est gradus et ordo in profectu mundi[^6]: ergo sicut homo magis dispositus est ad sapientiam in aetate provecta quam in aetate iuvenili,

<!-- page 32 -->
quia *in antiquis est sapientia, et in multo tempore prudentia*[^7], videtur, quod maior sit congruitas, quod divina sapientia incarnetur et de caelis mittatur missione perfecta in plenitudine temporum quam in principio.

3. Item, opus incarnationis et redemptionis magis se tenent cum opere glorificationis quam cum opere primae conditionis; sed opus glorificationis habet esse in fine temporis, opus conditionis habet esse in principio: ergo videtur, quod opus incarnationis magis debuerit perfici in approximatione ad finem temporum quam in initio[^8].

4. Item, beneficium incarnationis nulli est utile, nisi ei qui illud recognoscit et pro illo est gratus; sed dilatio beneficii facit ad eius cognitionem et acceptionem[^9]: ergo videtur, quod Dei Filius non debuerit statim a primordio temporum incarnari, sed post longa tempora, in quibus posset exspectari et desiderari.

### Conclusio.

> Magis congruum fuit, Filium Dei incarnari quasi in fine temporum quam in principio.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut rationes ostendunt, et ipsa divina operatio comprobat, magis congruum fuit, Filium Dei incarnari quasi in fine saeculorum quam in principio. Potest autem huius quadruplex ratio assignari, quare tantum[^10] incarnari distulerit.

*Ratio 1.* Prima est propter *peccatum hominis puniendum.* In hoc enim manifestatur divinae ultionis severitas, quae tantos clamores et luctus hominum tanto tempore sustinuit, antequam vellet descendere; et ipse Adam cum posteritate sua tanto tempore exspectavit in limbo exulans a paradiso; et hoc propter manifestationem divinae iustitiae, quae nihil inultum dimittit.

*Ratio 2.* Secunda ratio fuit propter *morbum melius curandum.* Morbus enim spiritualis non curatur debite, nisi infirmus prius eum cognoscat et pro curatione eius gratus existat. Plus enim homo aegrotat per ingratitudinem pro curatione quam per culpae commissionem; et ideo debuit Deus beneficium incarnationis differre, ut homo convinceretur de impotentia et ignorantia — antequam incarnaretur[^11] — et in Lege indita et in Lege scripta; et sic convictus confugeret ad divinam gratiam, et confugiens curaretur efficaciter.

*Ratio 3.* Tertia ratio est propter *ordinem universi servandum.* Quia enim hoc erat plenum et maximum beneficium, differri debuit usque ad plenitudinem dierum. Et propter hoc dicit Apostolus ad Galatas quarto[^12]: *At ubi venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium* etc.

*Ratio 4.* Quarta ratio fuit propter *incarnationis beneficium amplius commendandum.* Quod enim amplius differtur et diutius desideratur, pretiosius reputatur; et ideo beneficium incarnationis, quod est inter Dei beneficia pretiosissimum, prius debuit esse desideratum et exspectatum quam exhibitum.

Et propterea magis congruum fuit, Filium Dei incarnari in fine temporum. — Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.

**Solutio oppositorum.**
*Ad 1.* Ad illud vero quod obiicitur primo in contrarium de consummatione divinorum operum, dicendum, quod in opere incarnationis non attenditur consummatio, quae quidem sit[^13] de opere primo universi, sed consummatio omnem consummationem superexcedens; et ideo non spectat ad opera sex dierum, in quibus universum conditum est et fabricatum, quantum ad ea quae spectant ad complementum primarium.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magnitudo amoris facit beneficia accelerari; dicendum, quod verum est, quando acceleratio doni prodest ei quem amat; sed quando dilatio magis prodest quam acceleratio, tunc amor potius facit differre quam accelerare. — *Alia ratio.* Praeterea, amor divinus non operatur secundum impetum, sed secundum dispositionem et regulam sapientiae; et ideo dona non accelerat, nisi servato debito et congruo ordine. Et propter hoc, quia ordinis congruitas exigebat dilationem, ideo amoris immensitas non faciebat accelerationem.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod multi salvati essent, si Deus venisset citius; dicendum, quod Deus bonum commune praeponit bono privato, et bonum totius universitatis praeponit bono personae singularis; et ideo, cum ordinis exigentia hoc requireret, ut Deus in fine temporum incarnaretur, usque ad sextam aetatem fuit dilatum[^14]. Nec propter utilitatem aliquarum personarum existentium in prioribus aetatibus accelerari debuit divinum beneficium. Placuit enim universitatis Conditori in aliis servare severitatem iustitiae, in aliis manifestare benignitatem misericordiae.

<!-- page 33 -->
*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de aegro, quod statim debet[^15] succurri; dicendum, quod nunquam defuit divinus succursus. Nam ipsa exspectatio et fides futuri adventus erat eis in remedium salutare et sustentationem, quousque veniret ille qui consummaret; unde omni tempore fuerunt aliqua Sacramenta, quae attulerunt aegris remedium salutare, licet alia et alia in diversis fuerint temporibus instituta, sicut in quarto libro[^16] expressius habetur manifestatum.

---

english:
### Question IV. *At what time it was more fitting for the Son of God to become incarnate.*

Fourthly and lastly it is asked, at what time it was more fitting for the Son of God to become incarnate. And it seems that it was at the beginning of the ages:

**On the opposite side:**
1. First, through that which is said in Genesis 2[^1]: *God completed his work on the sixth day;* but the completion of works belongs most of all to the work of the Incarnation, as was touched upon above: therefore it seems that he ought to have become incarnate on one of those six days.

2. Likewise, the greatness of love makes gifts not only to be multiplied, but also to be hastened; but God, on account of his exceeding charity, sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh[^2]: therefore it seems that it was fitting for the Son of God to become incarnate at once, when man was in need. But man was in need at once, as soon as he had fallen: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, if Christ had come at the beginning of time, many would have come to the way of truth, as is said in Matthew 11[^3]: *If of old [these mighty works had been done] in Tyre and Sidon,* etc.; but it pertains to the greatness of the divine kindness that he wills all men to be saved: therefore it seems all the more that it was fitting for the Son of God to become incarnate at the beginning of the ages.

4. Likewise, one who is sick and in danger of death ought to be helped without delay; but when man sinned, he fell most dangerously ill: if therefore the sick man is helped through the Incarnation of the Son[^4], it seems that he ought to have become incarnate at once.

**On the contrary:**
1. Ecclesiastes 3[^5]: *All things have their time;* and this same thing is said in Ecclesiasticus 39: *All things shall be approved in their time:* therefore, if no time is so fitting for the fullest benefit as the time of fullness; it seems that the Son of God ought to have become incarnate then, when the fullness of time came: therefore not at the beginning of time.

2. Likewise, God in all his works most of all preserves order; and just as there is order and gradation in the advance of age, so there is gradation and order in the advance of the world[^6]: therefore, just as man is more disposed to wisdom in advanced age than in youthful age,

quia *with the ancient is wisdom, and in length of time prudence*[^7], it seems that there is a greater fittingness that the divine Wisdom should be incarnate and sent down from the heavens by a perfect mission in the fullness of times than at the beginning.

3. Likewise, the work of the Incarnation and of redemption have more in common with the work of glorification than with the work of the first founding; but the work of glorification is to be at the end of time, the work of founding is to be at the beginning: therefore it seems that the work of the Incarnation ought rather to have been accomplished near the end of the ages than at the beginning[^8].

4. Likewise, the benefit of the Incarnation is useful to none but to him who recognizes it and is grateful for it; but the postponement of a benefit conduces to the knowledge and acceptance of it[^9]: therefore it seems that the Son of God ought not to have become incarnate at once from the beginning of the ages, but after long ages, in which he could be awaited and desired.

### Conclusion.

> It was more fitting for the Son of God to become incarnate, as it were, at the end of the ages than at the beginning.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the reasons show, and the divine operation itself proves, it was more fitting for the Son of God to become incarnate, as it were, at the end of the ages than at the beginning. And a fourfold reason can be assigned for this, why he so long[^10] put off becoming incarnate.

*Reason 1.* The first is for the sake of *punishing the sin of man.* For in this is made manifest the severity of the divine vengeance, which endured so many cries and laments of men for so long a time before it willed to descend; and Adam himself with his posterity waited so long a time in limbo, an exile from paradise; and this for the manifestation of the divine justice, which lets nothing go unavenged.

*Reason 2.* The second reason was for the sake of *better curing the disease.* For a spiritual disease is not duly cured unless the sick man first recognizes it and is grateful for its cure. For man is more sick through ingratitude for the cure than through the commission of the fault; and therefore God had to defer the benefit of the Incarnation, so that man might be convinced of his impotence and ignorance — before he became incarnate[^11] — both under the Law innate and under the Law written; and thus, being convinced, he might flee to the divine grace, and fleeing might be cured efficaciously.

*Reason 3.* The third reason is for the sake of *preserving the order of the universe.* For since this was a full and most great benefit, it had to be deferred until the fullness of days. And on account of this the Apostle says in Galatians 4[^12]: *But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son,* etc.

*Reason 4.* The fourth reason was for the sake of *commending more highly the benefit of the Incarnation.* For what is the more deferred and the longer desired is reckoned the more precious; and therefore the benefit of the Incarnation, which is the most precious among the benefits of God, had first to be desired and awaited rather than bestowed.

And on this account it was more fitting for the Son of God to become incarnate at the end of the ages. — And the reasons which show this are to be granted.

**Solution of the opposing arguments.**
*To 1.* But to that which is objected first on the contrary side, concerning the completion of the divine works, it must be said that in the work of the Incarnation there is not regarded that completion which indeed pertains[^13] to the first work of the universe, but a completion exceeding all completion; and therefore it does not pertain to the works of the six days, in which the universe was founded and fashioned, as regards those things which pertain to its primary complement.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that the greatness of love makes benefits to be hastened; it must be said that this is true when the hastening of the gift profits him whom one loves; but when delay profits more than hastening, then love rather makes one defer than hasten. — *Another reason.* Moreover, divine love does not operate according to impulse, but according to the disposition and rule of wisdom; and therefore it does not hasten gifts except with the due and fitting order preserved. And on account of this, because the fittingness of order demanded a delay, therefore the immensity of love did not bring about a hastening.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that many would have been saved if God had come sooner; it must be said that God prefers the common good to the private good, and prefers the good of the whole totality to the good of a single person; and therefore, since the exigency of order required this, that God become incarnate at the end of the ages, the benefit was deferred until the sixth age[^14]. Nor on account of the usefulness of some persons existing in the earlier ages ought the divine benefit to have been hastened. For it pleased the Founder of the totality to preserve in some the severity of justice, and in others to manifest the kindness of mercy.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning the sick man, that he ought[^15] to be helped at once; it must be said that the divine help was never lacking. For the very expectation and faith of the future advent was for them a saving remedy and a sustenance, until he should come who would consummate; whence in every age there were certain Sacraments, which brought to the sick a saving remedy, although different ones were instituted at different times, as is shown more expressly in the fourth book[^16].

---

la: Vers. 4. — Seq. Scripturae loc. est ibid. v. 5; tertius ibid. v. 6. — Paulo superius pro *primo decebat Filium mitti* cod. N *Filius debebat primo mitti*. Paulo inferius pro *Propterea* Vat. *Praeterea*.

en: Verse 4. — The following scriptural passage is ibid. v. 5; the third, ibid. v. 6. — A little above, for *it was fitting that the Son be sent first* codex N reads *the Son ought to be sent first*. A little below, for *Therefore* the Vatican edition reads *Moreover*.

la: Vers. 2. — De minori cfr. supra a. 2. q. I. seq.

en: Verse 2. — On the minor premise cf. above, a. 2, q. 1 and following.

la: Vers. 21. — Alia verba Script., quae dein afferuntur, sunt ex I. Tim. 2, 4. — Cfr. August., *Epist.* 102. (alias 49.) quaest. 2. n. 8. — Pro *divinae benignitatis* Codd. M N O *divinae bonitatis*, Vat. *divinae dignitatis*.

en: Verse 21. — The other words of Scripture which are then adduced are from 1 Tim. 2:4. — Cf. Augustine, *Letter* 102 (alias 49), question 2, n. 8. — For *of the divine kindness* codices M N O read *of the divine goodness*, the Vatican edition *of the divine dignity*.

la: Cfr. Marc. 2, 17; Luc. 5. 31. seq. — In *maiori* cod. A *aegrotanti* pro *aegro*.

en: Cf. Mark 2:17; Luke 5:31 f. — In the major premise codex A reads *to the ailing one* for *to the sick one*.

la: Vers. 1. — Testimonium ex Ecclesiastico allatum est ibi cap. cit. v. 40: *Omnia enim in tempore* etc. Tertius Script. loc. respicit Gal. 4, 4.

en: Verse 1. — The testimony adduced from Ecclesiasticus is there in the cited chapter, v. 40: *For all things in time,* etc. The third scriptural passage refers to Gal. 4:4.

la: De mundi et temporum decursu vide plura IV. Sent. d. 40. dub. 3; Breviloq. prooem. § 3; Itiner. mentis in Deum, c. 1. post medium; Hexaëm. Serm. 14-16.

en: On the course of the world and of the ages see more in IV *Sentences* d. 40, dub. 3; *Breviloquium* prologue § 3; *Itinerarium mentis in Deum*, c. 1, after the middle; *Hexaëmeron* Serm. 14–16.

la: Iob 12, 12. — In subnexis respicitur Sap. 9, 10: *Mitte illam [sapientiam] de caelis sanctis tuis* etc. — Cfr. de hoc arg. August., *83 Qq.* q. 44, et I. *Retract.* c. 26, nec non I. *de Gen. contra Manich.* c. 23. n. 35. seqq. — Paulo superius pro *in profectu aetatis* et *in profectu mundi* edd. *in provectu aetatis* et *in provectu mundi*. Circa finem arg. cod. K post *missione perfecta* subiicit *et*.

en: Job 12:12. — In what follows reference is made to Wis. 9:10: *Send her [wisdom] forth from thy holy heavens,* etc. — Cf. on this argument Augustine, *On 83 Questions* q. 44, and I *Retractations* c. 26, as well as I *On Genesis against the Manichees* c. 23, n. 35 ff. — A little above, for *in the advance of age* and *in the advance of the world* the editions read *in the advancement of age* and *in the advancement of the world*. Near the end of the argument, codex K after *by a perfect mission* adds *and*.

la: Cod. K *in initio temporum*.

en: Codex K reads *at the beginning of the ages*.

la: Cfr. Gregor., V. *Moral.* c. 4. n. 6. et XXVI. c. 19. n. 34. Cfr. etiam *Quaest. ex novo Testam.* (inter opera August.) q. 83, ubi latius et fusius de hoc arg. disseritur. — Pro *acceptionem* Vat. *acceptationem*, et paulo inferius ex cod. K substituimus *post longa* pro *per longa* quod est in edd. et aliis codd.

en: Cf. Gregory, V *Morals* c. 4, n. 6, and XXVI, c. 19, n. 34. Cf. also *Questions on the New Testament* (among the works of Augustine) q. 83, where this argument is treated more broadly and at greater length. — For *acceptance* the Vatican edition reads *acceptation*, and a little below, from codex K, we have substituted *after long [ages]* for *through long [ages]*, which is in the editions and other codices.

la: Edd. *tamdiu*. Aliquanto inferius cod. T. voci *posteritate* praefigit *omni*.

en: The editions read *so long*. Somewhat below, codex T prefixes *with all* to the word *posterity*.

la: Vat. *curaretur*, et deinde cum edd. 1, 2 *ut sic* pro *ei sic*. Paulo superius pro *ut homo* codd. G T V *unde homo*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *might be cured*, and then with editions 1, 2 *that thus* for *for him thus*. A little above, for *that man* codices G T V read *whence man*.

la: Vers. 4. Cfr. Tertull., III. *adversus Marcion.* c. 2. seqq. et August., tr. 31. in Ioan. Evang. n. 5.

en: Verse 4. Cf. Tertullian, III *Against Marcion* c. 2 ff., and Augustine, tractate 31 on the Gospel of John, n. 5.

la: Cod. bb *est*, codd. A D M N O T V etc. et ed. 1. *fit*. Mox pro *superexcedens* cod. A *superexcellens*.

en: Codex bb reads *is*, codices A D M N O T V etc. and edition 1 *becomes*. Shortly after, for *exceeding* codex A reads *surpassing*.

la: Cfr. infra dub. 1.

en: Cf. below, dub. 1.

la: Edd. adiungunt *ei*, cod. K *debuit*. Mox pro *erat* cod. Z *erant*. Post pauca cod. T omittit *aliqua* ante *Sacramenta*.

en: The editions add *to him*, codex K *ought*. Shortly after, for *was* codex Z reads *were*. A little later codex T omits *certain* before *Sacraments*.

la: Dist. 2. a. 1. q. 2. — Subinde post *expressius* cod. T inserit *hoc*.

en: Dist. 2, a. 1, q. 2. — Then after *more expressly* codex T inserts *this*.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p0{31,32,33}-{L,R}-*.png`), raw OCR lines 2786–2897 (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`), per the Vol II/III PDF-priority override (cascade-shattered two-column Respondeo + footers). English literal, paragraph-for-paragraph. Apparatus walked from the printed page footers directly.

**Page-split map (printed → PDF, offset +22).** p.31 (PDF 53): QUAESTIO IV opener + fundamenta "Ad oppositum" args 1–4 + Sed contra args 1–2 (head). p.32 (PDF 54): Sed contra args 2 (tail)–4, Conclusio blockquote, Respondeo + Rationes 1–4, Solutio oppositorum Ad 1–3 (head). p.33 (PDF 55): Ad 3 tail + Ad 4, ending `…in quarto libro expressius habetur manifestatum.`; then `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` / `Dub. I.` begin the next chunk. Running heads confirmed: p.31 `DIST. I. ART. II. QUAEST. IV. 31`; p.32 `32 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.33 `DIST. I. DUBIA.`.

**Briefing page span corrected.** Briefing estimated printed pp.31–32; PDF eyes-on shows q4's Solutio (Ad 3 tail + the whole of Ad 4) runs onto **p.33** before the DUBIA header. Corrected to [31, 32, 33] / pdf [53, 54, 55]. (Same "final-page spill" pattern that bit q1/q2/q3.)

**Apparatus — per-page footer split (10 entries, continuous unique slugs 1–16; gaps are non-q4 footers omitted).**
- **p.31 (8 footers total; q3 consumed footer 2 as its `[^23]`).** q4 takes footers **1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8** = `[^1]`–`[^6]` (footer 1 `Genesis secundo`→`[^1]`; footer 3 `Vers. 2`→`[^2]`; footer 4 `Eph 2,4 / Rom 8,3`→`[^3]`; footer 5 `Vers. 21`→`[^3]`… renumbered below). The inherited p.31 footers anchor q4 body markers ¹(Genesis), ²(Matthaei, *Vers. 2*), ³(carnis peccati, *Eph 2,4*), then R-col footers ⁵ Matthaei/Tyre→`[^3]`, ⁶ aegro/Marc→`[^4]`, ⁷ Ecclesiastis→`[^5]`, ⁸ profectu mundi→`[^6]`. (Printed markers on the body run 1–8 across p.31; the body shows ¹ on `Genesis secundo`, ² wrongly shown by OCR — see below.)
- **p.32 (8 footers):** footers 1–8 = `[^7]`–`[^14]` (¹ `prudentia`/Iob 12,12→`[^7]`; ² `in initio`→`[^8]`; ³ `acceptionem`/Gregor→`[^9]`; ⁴ `tantum`/tamdiu→`[^10]`; ⁵ `incarnaretur`/curaretur→`[^11]`; ⁶ `ad Galatas quarto`/Vers.4→`[^12]`; ⁷ `sit`/bb-est→`[^13]`; ⁸ `dilatum`/Cfr. infra dub. 1→`[^14]`).
- **p.33 (2 footers belong to q4):** footer 1 `statim debet`/Edd. adiungunt ei→`[^15]`; footer 2 `in quarto libro`/Dist. 2. a. 1. q. 2.→`[^16]`. **p.33 footers 3–7** (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`, `Gal. 4,4`, `Vers. 9`, `Vers. 47`, `Vers. 4`) annotate the **Dub. I** text → FORWARDED to d1-dubia, omitted here (not rendered anchorless).

**Marker note (anchor mapping).** The Quaracchi body uses per-page restarting superscripts (p.31: 1–8; p.32: 1–8; p.33: 1–2). They are rendered here with continuous unique slugs `[^1]`–`[^16]` in printed order; the apparatus block is grouped p.31 (footers 1,3–8) → p.32 (1–8) → p.33 (1–2). 16 La markers = 16 En markers = 16 defs; **0 anchorless, 0 defless** (verified programmatically).

**Incoming hand-off (from d1-a2-q3, commit 4a71a0c).** p.31 footer 2 was consumed by q3 (`[^23]`, reply-5 tail *de Trinitate*). q4 picks up p.31 footers **1, 3, 4** (above the L-col) **plus 5–8** (the entire R-col, which is all q4 body) — all anchor q4. Rendered in printed order, then fresh p.32 + p.33 sequences (per-page restart, continuous slugs).

**Forward hand-off (to d1-dubia).** q4's Ad 4 ends grammatically complete at `…in quarto libro expressius habetur manifestatum.` (p.33 L-col, raw 2897). Then `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` (raw 2898) / `Dub. I.` (raw 2900). **Dub. I opener:** `In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de verbo Apostoli, quod dicitur: At ubi venit plenitudo temporis etc.` The d.1 DUBIA block begins printed **p.33** (PDF 55); on its promotion **Distinctio I is COMPLETE**. p.33 footers 3–7 belong to the dubia (forwarded). The q4 tail + Dub. I opener are continuous — no cascade-merge splice.

**Alignment result: PASS.** Opener `Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, quo tempore fuerit magis congruum, Filium Dei incarnari` = ART. II TRACTATIO q4 (`Quarto, quo tempore…`). No q-swap.

**Scholion disposition: NONE printed for q4 — confirmed.** PDF eyes-on p.31–p.33: after q4's Ad 4 the very next printed block is `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` / `Dub. I.` — no SCHOLION block prints for q4. q4's parallel treatments were already forward-listed in q3's Scholion §II (`De 4. quaestione: … Dionys. Carth., hic q. 8.`). `has_scholion: false`.

**Marginal labels** (`Ad opposi-tum.`, `Fundamenta.`, `Conclusio.`, `Ratio 1.`–`Ratio 4.`, `Solutio oppositorum.`, `Alia ratio.`) are rendered inline as structural/topic headings, not as footnote anchors — per the d1-a2-q3 precedent.

**`[?]` flags: none.** The only notable OCR oddity (the body's superscript on the *Eph 2,4* fundamentum showing as `*` rather than a clean digit) is resolved by the per-page footer-text match; no ambiguity remains.

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. 1, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 33 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de verbo Apostoli[^1], quod dicitur: *At ubi venit plenitudo temporis* etc. **Contra:** Videtur, quod non fuerit plenitudo temporis in adventu Filii Dei, primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio[^2]: *Ex parte cognoscimus et ex parte prophetamus*; sed *plenitudo evacuat quod ex parte est*: ergo videtur, quod plenitudo temporis nondum pervenerit. — Item, Matthaei decimo tertio[^3]: *Sagena, quam cum impleta*; Glossa: « In fine mundi »: ergo non videtur, quod ante finem mundi sit temporis plenitudo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod tempus incarnationis dicitur *tempus plenitudinis* multiplici de causa: primo, quia Deus implevit quod praefinierat. Unde super illud ad Galatas quarto[^4]: *At ubi venit plenitudo temporis*; Glossa: « Completum est tempus, quod praefinierat Pater, quando mitteret Filium suum ».

Alia ratio est propter impletionem promissionis, quia ille nobis datus est, qui fuerat repromissus. Unde super illud Ioannis primo[^5]: *Plenum gratiae et veritatis*; Glossa: « Quantum ad impletionem promissorum ».

Tertia ratio est quantum ad completionem figurarum, quia in Christi adventu figurae illae, quae erant in veteri Testamento, impletae sunt veritate, Matthaei quinto[^6]: *Non veni Legem solvere, sed adimplere*.

Quarta ratio est propter plenitudinem gratiae, quae fuit in Christo, quae fuit principium omnium plenitudinum. Unde ad Colossenses secundo[^7]: *In Christo habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter*.

Quinta ratio est propter plenitudinem generationis, quia, cum sit quadruplex modus generationis: prima quidem nec de viro nec de muliere, sed de terra; secunda mulieris de solo viro; tertia vero prolis de viro et muliere; quarta vero viri de sola muliere; ista quarta est consummata in Christi incarnatione.

Sexta vero ratio est, quia tempus incarnationis est tempus sextae aetatis, in qua quidem est plenitudo et perfectio, ut, sicut mundus in sexta die est consummatus, sic in sexta aetate sit reparatus; ita quod prima aetas fuit ab Adam usque ad Noe, secunda a Noe usque ad Abraham, tertia ab Abraham usque ad Moysen, quarta a Moyse usque ad David, quinta a David usque ad Christum, sexta a Christo usque ad finem[^8].

His igitur sex rationibus dicitur tempus incarnationis tempus plenitudinis.

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod non est plenitudo usque ad gloriam; dicendum, quod est plenitudo *naturae*[^9] et plenitudo *gratiae* et plenitudo *gloriae*. Et illae duae rationes procedunt de plenitudine *gloriae*; auctoritas autem Apostoli intelligitur de plenitudine *gratiae*.

Propter quod notanda est quaedam distinctio de plenitudine, quod quaedam est plenitudo *naturae*, quaedam *gratiae*, quaedam *gloriae*. Plenitudo naturae est in duplici differentia: prima quantum ad rerum *conditionem*, de qua Genesis secundo[^10]: *Complevit Deus die septimo opus suum*; secunda quantum ad rerum *multiplicationem*, de qua Psalmus[^11]: *Domini est terra et plenitudo eius*. — Similiter ple<!-- page 34 -->nitudo gratiae duplex est: quaedam in *capite*, et de hac Ioannis primo[^12]: *Plenum gratiae et veritatis*; quaedam in *membris*, et de hac Actuum secundo: *Repleti sunt omnes Spiritu sancto*; et ad Ephesios primo: *Proposuit* etc. — Similiter plenitudo gloriae duplex est: vel quantum ad *numerum electorum*, de hac Apocalypsis sexto[^13]: *Sustinete modicum tempus, donec impleatur* etc.; aut quantum ad *perceptionem aeternorum bonorum*, Ecclesiastici vigesimo quarto[^14]: *In plenitudine Sanctorum detentio mea*.

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Factum de muliere*; quia in Symbolo[^15] negatur: « Genitum, non factum » etc. — Item, si de muliere factus est, non videtur, quod mulier sit eius mater, sed solum materia. Propter quid ergo dicit magis *factum* quam *genitum*?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Christus secundum divinam naturam ita est *genitus*, quod non *factus*, quia non est creatura. Secundum humanam vero ita est *genitus*, quod *factus*, quia conceptus fuit a Virgine, faciente divina virtute. Qualis autem fuerit Virginis virtus, adhuc melius manifestabitur suo loco[^16]; per hoc autem quod dictum est, patet responsio ad obiecta.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Factum sub Lege*, quia dicitur primae ad Timotheum primo[^17]: *Iusto non est lex posita*: si ergo Christus iustissimus erat, videtur etc. — Item, Christus non tenebatur implere mandata Legis: ergo non videtur, quod sub Lege esset factus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *esse sub Lege* dicitur tribus modis: vel quantum ad *causam*, vel quantum ad *observationem*, vel quantum ad *motivum*. Quantum ad *causam* sunt illi qui nati sunt sub peccato. Quantum ad *observationem* sunt iusti[^18], qui legem observant. Quantum ad *motivum* sunt illi qui timore serviunt. — Christus igitur non fuit sub Lege quantum ad *causam*, vel quantum ad *motivum*, sed solum quantum ad *observationem*; aliter tamen quam alii homines, quia esse sub Lege quantum ad *observationem* potest esse dupliciter: vel quantum ad obedientiam *obligatoriam*, vel quantum ad obedientiam *spontaneam*. Et primo modo sunt homines, secundo modo fuit Christus, qui se mera liberalitate legali observantiae, ut exemplum daret verae obedientiae[^19], subdidit. — Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *In specie columbae descendisse Spiritum sanctum*. **Sed contra:** Tota columba illa, et quidquid in ea erat, erat simul a Patre et Filio: ergo videtur, quod tota Trinitas in illa columba descenderet, sicut descendebat Spiritus sanctus. — Item, nunquam descendit Spiritus sanctus in hominem[^20], quin descendat simul Pater et Filius: ergo videtur, quod nec in columba.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum breviter, quod in columba illa non erat aliter Spiritus sanctus quam Pater et Filius, nec aliter operabatur; sed tamen[^21] solus in ea significabatur, quia significatio relationem dicit, sicut incarnatio; ideo solus poterat in ea significari, quamvis non solus in ea possit operari. Et sic patet, quod exemplum Magistri est rectum et idoneum; sed hoc magis declaratum est in primo libro, de missione Spiritus sancti, distinctione decima sexta[^22].

---

english:
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Dub. I.

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about the word of the Apostle[^1], which is said: *But when the fullness of time came* etc. **On the contrary:** It seems that there was no fullness of time at the advent of the Son of God, from First Corinthians, chapter thirteen[^2]: *We know in part and we prophesy in part*; but *the fullness does away with that which is in part*: therefore it seems that the fullness of time has not yet arrived. — Likewise, Matthew, chapter thirteen[^3]: *A net, which when it was filled*; Gloss: « At the end of the world »: therefore it does not seem that the fullness of time is before the end of the world.

**I respond:** It must be said that the time of the incarnation is called the *time of fullness* for many causes: first, because God fulfilled what he had foreordained. Whence upon that text in Galatians, chapter four[^4]: *But when the fullness of time came*; Gloss: « The time was completed which the Father had foreordained, when he should send his Son ».

Another reason is on account of the fulfillment of the promise, because he was given to us who had been promised. Whence upon that text in John, chapter one[^5]: *Full of grace and truth*; Gloss: « As regards the fulfillment of the things promised ».

The third reason is as regards the completion of the figures, because at Christ's advent those figures which were in the Old Testament were fulfilled in truth, Matthew, chapter five[^6]: *I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it*.

The fourth reason is on account of the fullness of grace, which was in Christ, which was the principle of all fullnesses. Whence to the Colossians, chapter two[^7]: *In Christ dwells all the fullness of the divinity bodily*.

The fifth reason is on account of the fullness of generation, because, since there are four modes of generation: the first indeed neither from man nor from woman, but from the earth; the second, of a woman from man alone; the third, of offspring from man and woman; the fourth, of a man from woman alone; this fourth was consummated in Christ's incarnation.

But the sixth reason is that the time of the incarnation is the time of the sixth age, in which indeed there is fullness and perfection, so that, just as the world was consummated on the sixth day, so in the sixth age it should be repaired; so that the first age was from Adam to Noah, the second from Noah to Abraham, the third from Abraham to Moses, the fourth from Moses to David, the fifth from David to Christ, the sixth from Christ to the end[^8].

Therefore, for these six reasons the time of the incarnation is called the time of fullness.

To that, then, which is objected to the contrary, that there is no fullness up to glory; it must be said that there is a fullness of *nature* and a fullness of *grace* and a fullness of *glory*[^9]. And those two arguments proceed from the fullness of *glory*; but the authority of the Apostle is understood of the fullness of *grace*.

On account of which a certain distinction concerning fullness is to be noted, that there is a certain fullness of *nature*, a certain of *grace*, a certain of *glory*. The fullness of nature is in a twofold difference: the first as regards the *condition* of things, of which Genesis, chapter two[^10]: *God completed his work on the seventh day*; the second as regards the *multiplication* of things, of which the Psalm[^11]: *The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof*. — Similarly the<!-- page 34 --> fullness of grace is twofold: a certain in the *head*, and concerning this John, chapter one[^12]: *Full of grace and truth*; a certain in the *members*, and concerning this Acts, chapter two: *They were all filled with the Holy Spirit*; and to the Ephesians, chapter one: *He purposed* etc. — Similarly the fullness of glory is twofold: either as regards the *number of the elect*, concerning this Apocalypse, chapter six[^13]: *Wait a little while, until it be filled* etc.; or as regards the *perception of eternal goods*, Ecclesiasticus, chapter twenty-four[^14]: *In the fullness of the Saints is my detention*.

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *Made of a woman*; because in the Creed[^15] it is denied: « Begotten, not made » etc. — Likewise, if he was made of a woman, it does not seem that the woman is his mother, but only the matter. Why then does he say *made* rather than *begotten*?

**I respond:** It must be said that Christ according to the divine nature is *begotten* in such a way that he is not *made*, because he is not a creature. But according to the human nature he is *begotten* in such a way that he is *made*, because he was conceived of the Virgin, the divine power being the agent. But of what kind the Virgin's power was will be better made manifest later in its proper place[^16]; and by that which has been said, the response to the objections is clear.

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *Made under the Law*, because it is said in First Timothy, chapter one[^17]: *The law is not laid down for the just man*: if therefore Christ was most just, it seems etc. — Likewise, Christ was not bound to fulfill the precepts of the Law: therefore it does not seem that he was made under the Law.

**I respond:** It must be said that *to be under the Law* is said in three ways: either as regards the *cause*, or as regards the *observance*, or as regards the *motive*. As regards the *cause* are those who are born under sin. As regards the *observance* are the just[^18], who observe the law. As regards the *motive* are those who serve out of fear. — Christ therefore was not under the Law as regards the *cause*, nor as regards the *motive*, but only as regards the *observance*; yet otherwise than other men, because to be under the Law as regards *observance* can be in two ways: either as regards an *obligatory* obedience, or as regards a *spontaneous* obedience. And in the first way are men, in the second way was Christ, who out of pure liberality subjected himself to legal observance, that he might give an example of true obedience[^19]. — And thus the response to the objections is clear.

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *that the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove*. **But on the contrary:** That whole dove, and whatever was in it, was at once from the Father and the Son: therefore it seems that the whole Trinity descended in that dove, just as the Holy Spirit was descending. — Likewise, the Holy Spirit never descends into a man[^20] without the Father and the Son descending at the same time: therefore it seems that neither does he into a dove.

**I respond:** It must be said briefly that in that dove the Holy Spirit was not present otherwise than the Father and the Son, nor did he operate otherwise; but nevertheless[^21] he alone was signified in it, because signification implies a relation, just as the incarnation does; therefore he alone could be signified in it, although he alone could not operate in it. And thus it is clear that the example of the Master is correct and suitable; but this is more fully explained in the first book, on the mission of the Holy Spirit, distinction sixteen[^22].

---

la: Vers. 9. — In *minori* respicitur eiusdem cap. v. 10: *Cum autem venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est.* — Subinde pro *pervenerit* edd. *supervenerit*.

en: Verse 9. — In the minor premise reference is made to verse 10 of the same chapter: *But when that which is perfect comes, that which is in part shall be done away.* — Subsequently, for *pervenerit* the editions read *supervenerit*.

la: Vers. 47. seq. — Glossa interlinearis secundum Lyranum: *In fine saeculi.*

en: Verse 47 and following. — The interlinear Gloss according to Lyra: *At the end of the age.*

la: Vers. 4. — Glossa allegata sumta est ex Commentario, Ambrosio tributo, in hunc loc., et sic sonat ibi: *Plenitudo temporis est completum tempus, quod praefinitum fuerat a Deo Patre, quando mitteret Filium suum, ut ex Virgine factus, quasi homo nasceretur* etc.

en: Verse 4. — The Gloss cited is taken from the Commentary attributed to Ambrose, on this passage, and there it reads thus: *The fullness of time is the completed time, which had been foreordained by God the Father, when he should send his Son, so that, made of the Virgin, he might be born as a man* etc.

la: Vers. 14. — Glossae, quae *ordinaria* est, verba apud Strabum haec sunt: *Haec autem gratia dicitur et veritas, quia sic olim promissum est et modo exhibitum.* — Paulo ante pro *promissus* codd. F bb substituunt *promissus*.

en: Verse 14. — The words of the Gloss, which is the *ordinary* one, in Strabo are these: *Now this is called grace and truth, because it was thus promised of old and now exhibited.* — A little before, for *promissus* codices F bb substitute *promissus*.

la: Vers. 17.

en: Verse 17.

la: Vers. 9. — Pro *habitat* Vulgata *inhabitat*.

en: Verse 9. — For *habitat* the Vulgate has *inhabitat*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 23, nota 4.

en: Cf. above, page 23, note 4.

la: Vide August., *Enarrat. in Ps.* 92. n. 1; *I. de Gen. contra Manich.* c. 23. n. 35. seqq., et supra pag. 31, nota 8.

en: See Augustine, *Commentary on the Psalms* 92, n. 1; *On Genesis against the Manichees*, book I, c. 23, n. 35 and following, and above, page 31, note 8.

la: In edd. desiderantur verba *plenitudo naturae*. Paulo ante pro *usque ad gloriam* codd. A G K V Z bb *usque in gloriam*.

en: In the editions the words *plenitudo naturae* are wanting. A little before, for *usque ad gloriam* codices A G K V Z bb read *usque in gloriam*.

la: Vers. 2. — Pro *die septimo* edd. exhibent *die sexto*, et paulo ante pro *ad rerum conditionem* substituunt *ad rem in conditione*; cod. N *ad rerum distinctionem vel conditionem*. Paulo etiam superius cod. O verbis *in duplici differentia* addicit *vel in duplici causa*.

en: Verse 2. — For *die septimo* the editions present *die sexto*, and a little before, for *ad rerum conditionem* they substitute *ad rem in conditione*; cod. N *ad rerum distinctionem vel conditionem*. A little higher still, cod. O adds to the words *in duplici differentia* the words *vel in duplici causa*.

en: Psalm 23:1.

la: Vers. 14. — Seq. Script. locus est Act. 2, 4; tertius deinde Eph. 1, 9. 10: *Proposuit in eo in dispensatione plenitudinis temporum instaurare omnia in Christo* etc.

en: Verse 14. — The following scriptural passage is Acts 2:4; the third thereafter is Eph. 1:9–10: *He purposed in him in the dispensation of the fullness of times to restore all things in Christ* etc.

la: Vers. 11, ubi Vulgata sic: *Et dictum est illis, ut requiescerent adhuc tempus modicum, donec compleantur conservi eorum* etc. In hoc loco allegando S. Doctor alia versione usus est, qualiter exhibetur in Breviario Romano in officio festi Ss. Innocentium, I. Noct. Resp. 2. — Pro *de hac* codd. A L T V Z aa bb etc. *de hoc*, cod. G *et de hoc*.

en: Verse 11, where the Vulgate reads thus: *And it was said to them that they should rest yet a little while, until their fellow-servants should be completed* etc. In citing this passage the holy Doctor used another version, such as is presented in the Roman Breviary in the office of the feast of the Holy Innocents, First Nocturn, Responsory 2. — For *de hac* codices A L T V Z aa bb etc. read *de hoc*, cod. G *et de hoc*.

la: Vers. 16. — Hoc dubium solvunt etiam Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 1.

en: Verse 16. — This doubt is also resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, part III, q. 8, m. 1; Bl. Albert, here a. 3; St. Thomas, here on the text; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here doubt, on the text, 1.

la: Nicaeno. — Pro *negatur* edd. et cod. bb legitur.

en: [The Creed referred to is] the Nicene. — For *negatur* the editions and cod. bb read *legitur*.

la: Infra d. 4. a. 3. q. 1. seqq. — Pro *adhuc* edd. *hoc*. — Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 4; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 2. 3.

en: Below, d. 4, a. 3, q. 1 and following. — For *adhuc* the editions read *hoc*. — Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, part III, q. 8, m. 1; Bl. Albert, here a. 4; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here doubt, on the text, 2, 3.

la: Vers. 9.

en: Verse 9.

la: Edd. *isti*.

en: The editions read *isti*.

la: Edd. *veri obedientis*. — August., *Enarrat. in Ps.* 1. n. 2. ait: *Iusto non est lex posita, ut dicit Apostolus. Sed aliud est esse in lege, aliud sub lege. Qui est in lege, secundum legem agit; qui est sub lege, secundum legem agitur. Ille ergo liber est, iste servus.* — Huius dubii solutionem exhibent etiam Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 1; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 4.

en: The editions read *veri obedientis*. — Augustine, *Commentary on the Psalms* 1, n. 2, says: *The law is not laid down for the just man, as the Apostle says. But it is one thing to be in the law, another under the law. He who is in the law acts according to the law; he who is under the law is acted upon according to the law. The former therefore is free, the latter a slave.* — The solution of this doubt is also presented by Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, part III, q. 8, m. 1; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here doubt, on the text, 4.

la: Multi codd. *in homine*.

en: Many codices read *in homine*.

la: Codd. G K *tantum*.

en: Codices G K read *tantum*.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.33–34 (PDF 55–56; offset pdf = printed + 22), per the Vol II/III OCR-priority inversion (two-column IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters the body + every footer; the column-band PDF read is authoritative). Raw OCR (`bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 2900–3037) used as the base for clean prose and exact footnote-marker spacing. Running heads verified: p.33 `DIST. I. DUBIA. 33`; p.34 `34 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`. Block confirmed as `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` with the four doubts Dub. I–IV. **On this chunk's promotion, DISTINCTIO I is COMPLETE** (littera + divisio + a1 q1–q4 + a2 q1–q4 + dubia = 11 chunks Tier-2).

**Four-Dub. column-reflow map (raw line order ≠ reading order).** The four Dub. interleave across the two columns, so the printed reading order was reconstructed from the column bands, NOT from raw line order:
- **Dub. I** — opens L-col p.33 (`In parte ista sunt dubitationes…`), Respondeo (six rationes) continues into R-col p.33, and the plenitudo-naturae/gratiae/gloriae distinction spills to the top of L-col p.34, ending `…In plenitudine Sanctorum detentio mea.`
- **Dub. II** (`Factum de muliere`) — L-col p.34, beneath Dub. I's tail.
- **Dub. III** (`Factum sub Lege`) — opens L-col p.34, Respondeo (`esse sub Lege dicitur tribus modis…`) continues into the **top of R-col p.34**.
- **Dub. IV** (`In specie columbae descendisse Spiritum sanctum`) — R-col p.34, beneath Dub. III's tail; ends `…distinctione decima sexta.`
In the raw OCR (two-column bleed), the `Dub. IV.` header appears in the R-col **before** `Dub. III.` in raw line order (raw 2994 vs 3007); this is an artifact of the column interleave and was disregarded — printed order is I → II → III → IV.

**Page-split map (printed → PDF, offset +22).** **p.33 (PDF 55):** Dub. I — opener + Contra + Respondeo (six rationes) + the *Ad illud quod obiicitur* reply + the plenitudo-naturae/gratiae distinction (head). Footers: L-col bears p.33 footers 1–7, R-col bears 8–15. **p.34 (PDF 56):** Dub. I tail (plenitudo gratiae/gloriae duplex) + Dub. II + Dub. III + Dub. IV, ending `…distinctione decima sexta.` Footers: L-col 1–5, R-col 6–11. **p.35 (PDF 57) is NOT part of this chunk:** its running head is `DISTINCTIO II.` and it opens `Cap. I. Quare totam humanam naturam accepit…` — that is d2-littera. (The `source` line retains "pp. 33–35" as the citation range covering the dubia's neighbourhood, but the dubia text occupies only pp. 33–34; `printed_pages` is [33, 34].)

**Apparatus / per-page footer split (22 entries, continuous unique slugs `[^1]`–`[^22]`).** Quaracchi restarts footer numbering per printed page. The body uses per-page restarting superscripts; rendered here with continuous unique slugs in printed reading order.
- **p.33 → `[^1]`–`[^11]`** (printed footers 4–14): printed footers 1–2 = q4's tail (`debet`/`in quarto libro`), consumed by a2-q4 as its `[^15]`/`[^16]`; printed footer 3 (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) annotates q4's tail `manifestatum`, also q4 territory — OMITTED here, not rendered anchorless. Dubia takes: f.4 (Gal 4,4) → `[^1]` *Apostoli*; f.5 (Vers 9, Cor.) → `[^2]` *decimo tertio*; f.6 (Vers 47, Matt.) → `[^3]` *decimo tertio*; f.7 (Vers 4, Galatas Glossa-Ambros.) → `[^4]` *Galatas quarto*; f.8 (Vers 14, Ioannis Glossa-Strabo) → `[^5]` *Ioannis primo*; f.9 (Vers 17) → `[^6]` *Matthaei quinto*; f.10 (Vers 9, Coloss.) → `[^7]` *Colossenses secundo*; f.11 (Cfr. pag. 23) → `[^8]` *usque ad finem*; f.12 (August. Enarrat. Ps 92) → `[^9]` plenitudo *naturae*; f.13 (*plenitudo naturae* deest in edd.) → `[^10]` *Genesis secundo*; f.14 (Vers 2, die septimo) → `[^11]` *Psalmus*.
- **p.34 → `[^12]`–`[^22]`** (printed footers 1–11, per-page restart; all belong to the dubia): f.1 (Vers 14, Acts/Eph) → `[^12]` *Ioannis primo* (Dub. I tail); f.2 (Vers 11, Apoc. Breviarium) → `[^13]` *Apocalypsis sexto*; f.3 (Vers 16, parallel-treatments Dub. I) → `[^14]` *Ecclesiastici vigesimo quarto*; f.4 (Nicaeno, *negatur*→*legitur*) → `[^15]` Dub. II *Symbolo*; f.5 (Infra d.4, parallel-treatments Dub. II) → `[^16]` Dub. II *suo loco*; f.6 (Vers 9) → `[^17]` Dub. III *ad Timotheum primo*; f.7 (Edd. *isti*) → `[^18]` Dub. III *iusti*; f.8 (Edd. *veri obedientis* / Aug. Enarrat. Ps 1) → `[^19]` Dub. III *obedientiae*; f.9 (Multi codd. *in homine*) → `[^20]` Dub. IV *in hominem*; f.10 (Codd. GK *tantum*) → `[^21]` Dub. IV *tamen*; f.11 (Quaest. 1. seqq., parallel-treatments Dub. IV) → `[^22]` Dub. IV *decima sexta*.

**Marker pairing: 22 La = 22 En = 22 defs, 0 anchorless / 0 defless** (verified programmatically before commit).

**Incoming hand-off picked up (from d1-a2-q4, commit 2adbc4a).** a2-q4 consumed p.33 printed footers 1–2 (its `[^15]`/`[^16]`). The hand-off forwarded p.33 footers 3–7 to the dubia. On eyes-on, printed footer 3 (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) annotates q4's tail `manifestatum` (q4 territory) and is OMITTED here (not rendered anchorless, per the marker-pairing rule); footers 4–7 anchor Dub. I body markers and are rendered as `[^1]`–`[^4]`.

**Forward hand-off (to d2-littera).** Dub. IV ends grammatically complete at `…distinctione decima sexta.` (p.34 R-col, raw ~3032). `DISTINCTIO II.` (raw ~3040) / `Cap. I. Quare totam humanam naturam accepit…` begin **d2-littera** on printed **p.35** (PDF 57) — NOT included here. The dubia tail + Dist. II opener are continuous (no cascade-merge splice).

**`[?]` flags:** none. The only OCR ambiguities (garbled footers, two-column bleed, the Dub. III/IV header interleave) were all resolved by the 450 dpi column-band reads.