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

title_alt: Utrum Verbum sit unitum humanae naturae mediante Spiritu sancto

source_text:
<!-- page 54 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum Verbum unitum sit humanae naturae mediante Spiritu sancto.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Verbum sit unitum humanae naturae mediante Spiritu sancto. Et quod sic, videtur:

*Ad oppositum.*

1. Quia unio Verbi increati ad carnem est similis unioni verbi intelligibilis ad vocem; sed verbum intelligibile non unitur voci nisi mediante spiritu vel flatu spirato, qui est vehiculum verbi, sicut dicit Damascenus[^1]: ergo nec Verbum unitur carni, nisi mediante Spiritu sancto.

2. Item, omnis unio voluntaria est mediante amore, sicut dicit Dionysius[^2], quia «amor nihil aliud est quam vis unitiva»; sed unio Verbi ad humanam naturam est voluntaria: ergo est mediante amore; aut ergo mediante amore creato, vel increato. Non mediante amore creato, quia amor creatus non potuit facere illam unionem; ergo mediante amore increato; sed amor iste est Spiritus sanctus: ergo unio in humana natura facta est mediante Spiritu sancto.

3. Item, maior est unio divinarum personarum ad invicem, quam naturae assumentis et assumtae; sed persona Patris et Filii nectuntur Spiritu sancto[^3]: ergo multo fortius natura humana unitur divinae mediante Spiritu sancto.

4. Item, remotiora coniunguntur per propinquiora; sed inter personas tres propinquior est nobis persona Spiritus sancti, sicut vult Hilarius et Augustinus[^4] — nam omne donum et omnis usus doni est ex Munere — ergo videtur, quod persona Filii non uniatur humanae naturae nisi mediante persona Spiritus sancti.

<!-- page 55 -->

**Sed contra:**

*Fundamenta.*

1. Si persona Verbi unita est humanae naturae mediante Spiritu sancto, ergo Spiritus sanctus est unitus humanae naturae: ergo sicut Filius est incarnatus, ita et Spiritus sanctus.

2. Item, magis unitur medium extremo quam extremum extremo: ergo si unio Verbi ad humanam naturam est mediante Spiritu sancto, magis est facta unio in persona Spiritus sancti quam in persona Verbi; sed hoc est falsum: ergo etc.

3. Item, in unione divinae naturae cum humana[^5] non potest esse unitas essentiae, sed personae: ergo necesse est, quod illa unio fiat mediante una persona; sed Filius et Spiritus sanctus non conveniunt in persona: ergo impossibile est, Filium uniri humanae naturae mediante Spiritu sancto in unitate personae.

4. Item, infinita est distantia in persona Spiritus sancti, sicut in persona Filii; sed quandocumque aliqua sunt in aequali distantia respectu eiusdem, unum non est medium uniendi alterum, pro eo quod medium plus appropinquat extremis, quam extrema sibi invicem: ergo videtur, quod persona Verbi non habeat uniri mediante persona Spiritus sancti.

### Conclusio

> Verbum non est unitum animae humanae mediante Spiritu sancto ut vinculo interveniente, sed ut principio efficiente et per modum appropriationis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cum quaeritur, utrum persona Verbi habeat uniri humanae naturae mediante Spiritu sancto, hoc dupliciter potest intelligi *(duplex sensus)*: aut ita, quod illa unio fiat mediante Spiritu sancto, sicut vinculo interveniente; aut ita, quod fiat sicut principio efficiente. Si primo modo intelligatur *(conclusio 1)*, sic non habet veritatem, pro eo quod persona Verbi per se unitur humanae naturae, non persona aliqua mediante. Nequaquam enim persona Spiritus sancti intercidit media inter personam Verbi et naturam assumtam. — Si autem unio illa intelligatur fieri mediante Spiritu sancto[^6] sicut principio efficiente *(conclusio 2)*, per modum cuiusdam subauctoritatis et appropriationis: sic veritatem habet; incarnatio enim Verbi fuit a Patre et a Filio mediante Spiritu sancto. — Sed hoc modo non est hic quaestio, sed *(de hoc non quaeritur)* infra[^7] erit suo loco, cum quaeretur, utrum incarnationis opus appropriari debeat Spiritui sancto. Nunc autem est quaestio, utrum unio Verbi fiat mediante Spiritu sancto sicut vinculo interveniente. Ad hanc quaestionem respondendum est *(conclusio 3)*, quod hoc falsum est et non intelligibile, sicut ostendunt rationes ad hoc inductae.

*(Solutio oppositorum.)*

*Ad 1.* Ad illud vero quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod verbum intelligibile unitur voci mediante spiritu; dicendum, quod similitudo est inter creaturam et Creatorem, ita tamen, quod maior reperitur dissimilitudo; unde quodam modo est simile et quodam modo non *(notandum)*. In hoc inquam est simile, quod sicut mens format vocem exteriorem mediante spiritu[^8]; sic Deus Pater formavit carnem assumtam mediante Spiritu sancto. In hoc est dissimile, quia spiritus est vehiculum verbi; non sic Spiritus sanctus personae Filii. Nusquam enim est persona Spiritus sancti, ubi non sit persona Verbi; et ideo quantum ad hoc similitudo non potest nec debet attendi.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod unio voluntaria est mediante amore; dicendum, quod unio voluntaria dicitur dupliciter *(duplex unio voluntaria)*: aut quia est a voluntate, aut quia est secundum voluntatem. Illa unio, quae est voluntaria[^9] a voluntate, est mediante amore sicut efficiente; illa vero, quae est voluntaria secundum voluntatem, illa habet fieri mediante amore sicut glutino coniungente. Dico igitur, quod unio Verbi ad humanam naturam est voluntaria, quia est a voluntate; sed non est voluntaria, quia fit secundum conformitatem voluntatum, sed potius secundum coniunctionem naturarum in una persona. Et ideo non sequitur, quod talis unio fiat mediante Spiritu sancto sicut vinculo interveniente, sed potius sicut principio efficiente.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod divinae personae nectuntur mediante Spiritu sancto; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia nexus duarum personarum attenditur secundum productionem personae unius per voluntatis fecunditatem, ita quod inter illas personas et earum nexum[^10] est distinctio personarum. Non sic autem est in proposito, quia duae naturae concurrunt in unitatem personae.

<!-- page 56 -->

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod propinquior est nobis persona Spiritus sancti; dicendum, quod[^11] dictum est per appropriationem *(notandum)*, non quia persona Spiritus sancti magis accedat ad naturam creatam quam persona Verbi, sed quia tantum procedit, ita quod non producit aliam personam; et procedit per modum fecunditatis voluntatis. Et quoniam omnes creaturae productae sunt voluntarie et ex divina liberalitate; hinc est, quod persona Spiritus sancti dicitur nobis magis appropinquare. Et ideo secundum quandam appropriationem, concedi potest, quod unio illa fiat mediante Spiritu sancto, cum sit gratuita[^12], Spiritu sancto, inquam, efficiente secundum appropriationem, non interveniente tamen secundum personalem discretionem[^13].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether the Word was united to human nature through the medium of the Holy Spirit.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the Word was united to human nature through the medium of the Holy Spirit. And that it was, seems to be the case:

*To the contrary.*

1. Because the union of the uncreated Word to flesh is similar to the union of the intelligible word to the voice; but the intelligible word is not united to the voice except through the medium of breath or of exhaled spirit, which is the vehicle of the word, as Damascene says[^1]: therefore neither is the Word united to flesh except through the medium of the Holy Spirit.

2. Likewise, every voluntary union is through the medium of love, as Dionysius says[^2], because "love is nothing other than a unitive power"; but the union of the Word to human nature is voluntary: therefore it is through the medium of love; either therefore through the medium of created or of uncreated love. Not through the medium of created love, because created love could not effect that union; therefore through the medium of uncreated love; but that love is the Holy Spirit: therefore the union in human nature was made through the medium of the Holy Spirit.

3. Likewise, the union of the divine persons to one another is greater than that of the assuming nature and the assumed; but the person of the Father and of the Son are bound together by the Holy Spirit[^3]: therefore much more strongly is human nature united to the divine through the medium of the Holy Spirit.

4. Likewise, things more remote are joined through things nearer; but among the three persons the person of the Holy Spirit is nearer to us, as Hilary and Augustine hold[^4] — for every gift and every use of a gift is from the Giver — therefore it seems that the person of the Son is not united to human nature except through the medium of the person of the Holy Spirit.

**Sed contra:**

*The foundations.*

1. If the person of the Word is united to human nature through the medium of the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is united to human nature: therefore just as the Son is incarnate, so too is the Holy Spirit.

2. Likewise, the medium is more united to an extreme than one extreme to the other: therefore if the union of the Word to human nature is through the medium of the Holy Spirit, the union is made more in the person of the Holy Spirit than in the person of the Word; but this is false: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, in the union of the divine nature with the human[^5] there cannot be a unity of essence, but of person: therefore it is necessary that that union be made through the medium of one person; but the Son and the Holy Spirit do not coincide in person: therefore it is impossible that the Son be united to human nature through the medium of the Holy Spirit in unity of person.

4. Likewise, the distance in the person of the Holy Spirit is infinite, just as in the person of the Son; but whenever some things are at an equal distance with respect to the same thing, the one is not a medium for uniting the other, on the ground that a medium approaches the extremes more than the extremes approach one another: therefore it seems that the person of the Word is not to be united through the medium of the person of the Holy Spirit.

### Conclusio

> The Word is not united to the human soul through the medium of the Holy Spirit as an intervening bond, but as an efficient principle and by way of appropriation.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that when it is asked whether the person of the Word is to be united to human nature through the medium of the Holy Spirit, this can be understood in two ways *(a twofold sense)*: either so that that union is made through the medium of the Holy Spirit as an intervening bond; or so that it is made as an efficient principle. If it be understood in the first way *(conclusion 1)*, thus it does not hold true, on the ground that the person of the Word is united to human nature by itself, and not through the medium of any person. For in no way does the person of the Holy Spirit fall in between, as a medium, between the person of the Word and the assumed nature. — But if that union be understood to be made through the medium of the Holy Spirit[^6] as an efficient principle *(conclusion 2)*, by way of a certain sub-authority and appropriation: thus it holds true; for the incarnation of the Word was from the Father and from the Son through the medium of the Holy Spirit. — But in this way the question is not here at issue, but *(of this it is not asked)* it will be in its place below[^7], when it will be asked whether the work of the incarnation ought to be appropriated to the Holy Spirit. Now, however, the question is whether the union of the Word is made through the medium of the Holy Spirit as an intervening bond. To this question it must be answered *(conclusion 3)* that this is false and unintelligible, as the reasons adduced for it show.

*(The solution of the opposing arguments.)*

*Ad 1.* To that indeed which is objected to the contrary, that the intelligible word is united to the voice through the medium of breath; it must be said that there is a likeness between creature and Creator, yet in such a way that a greater unlikeness is found; whence in a certain way it is similar and in a certain way not *(note)*. In this, I say, it is similar, that just as the mind forms the exterior voice through the medium of breath[^8]; so God the Father formed the assumed flesh through the medium of the Holy Spirit. In this it is unlike, because breath is the vehicle of the word; not so is the Holy Spirit of the person of the Son. For nowhere is the person of the Holy Spirit where there is not the person of the Word; and therefore in this respect the likeness cannot and ought not to be pressed.

*Ad 2.* To that which is objected, that a voluntary union is through the medium of love; it must be said that a voluntary union is so called in two ways *(a twofold voluntary union)*: either because it is from the will, or because it is according to the will. That union which is voluntary[^9] as from the will is through the medium of love as an efficient cause; but that which is voluntary according to the will, that has to be made through the medium of love as a conjoining glue. I say therefore that the union of the Word to human nature is voluntary, because it is from the will; but it is not voluntary in that it is made according to a conformity of wills, but rather according to a conjunction of natures in one person. And therefore it does not follow that such a union is made through the medium of the Holy Spirit as an intervening bond, but rather as an efficient principle.

*Ad 3.* To that which is objected, that the divine persons are bound together through the medium of the Holy Spirit; it must be said that it is not similar: because the binding of two persons is regarded according to the production of one person through the fecundity of the will, in such a way that between those persons and their binding[^10] there is a distinction of persons. But it is not so in the matter at hand, because two natures concur into the unity of person.

*Ad 4.* To that which is objected, that the person of the Holy Spirit is nearer to us; it must be said that[^11] it has been said by appropriation *(note)*, not because the person of the Holy Spirit approaches a created nature more than the person of the Word, but because it merely proceeds, in such a way that it does not produce another person; and it proceeds by way of the fecundity of the will. And since all creatures have been produced voluntarily and out of the divine liberality; hence it is that the person of the Holy Spirit is said to approach us more nearly. And therefore, according to a certain appropriation, it can be granted that that union is made through the medium of the Holy Spirit, since it is gratuitous[^12] — the Holy Spirit, I say, being the efficient cause according to appropriation, yet not intervening according to personal distinction[^13].

---

la: Libr. I. de Fide orthod. c. 7. Cfr. ibid. c. 13. et II. c. 21; nec non August., XV. de Trin. c. II. n. 20, et Serm. 187. (alias 27. de Tempore) c. 3. n. 3. — Pro *similis unioni*, quam lectionem invenimus in codd. K bb, alii codd. et edd. 1, 2 exhibent *similis modi*, Vat. *similis modi unioni*. Vat. etiam bis pro *intelligibilis* substituit *intellectualis*.

en: John Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* bk. I, c. 7. Cf. ibid. c. 13 and bk. II, c. 21; and also Augustine, *On the Trinity* bk. XV, c. 2, n. 20, and *Sermon* 187 (otherwise 27, *On the Season*) c. 3, n. 3. — For *similis unioni* ("a similar union"), which reading we find in codices K bb, the other codices and editions 1, 2 give *similis modi* ("of a similar mode"), the Vatican edition *similis modi unioni*. The Vatican edition also twice substitutes *intellectualis* for *intelligibilis*.

la: De Div. Nom. c. 4. § 15. — Aliquantulum inferius pro *non potuit* codd. G K Z *non potest*.

en: *On the Divine Names* c. 4, § 15. — A little further down, for *non potuit* ("could not"), codices G K Z read *non potest* ("cannot").

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 10. a. 2. q. 2. — In maiori cod. Q post *quam* repetit *unio*.

en: Cf. I Sent., d. 10, a. 2, q. 2. — In the larger codex Q, after *quam* it repeats *unio*.

la: Hilar., II. de Trin. n. 1. et 35; August., VI. de Trin. c. 10. n. 11, Enchirid. c. 40. n. 12. August. ait: «Quae gratia [ut in incarnatione filius hominis esset Filius Dei] propterea per Spiritum sanctum fuerat significanda, quia ipse proprie sic est Deus, ut dicatur etiam Dei donum». Et in libro de Spiritu et anima (inter opera August.) c. 6. haec habentur: *Quodam modo namque quasi proprior* [aliqui codd. *propior*] *videtur nobis esse Spiritus sanctus, utpote Patris et Filii munus. Ex ipso nimirum est omnis usus gratiae cum Patre et Filio.*

en: Hilary, *On the Trinity* bk. II, n. 1 and 35; Augustine, *On the Trinity* bk. VI, c. 10, n. 11, *Enchiridion* c. 40, n. 12. Augustine says: "This grace [namely, that in the incarnation the son of man should be the Son of God] had on that account to be signified through the Holy Spirit, because he himself is properly God in such a way that he is also called the Gift of God." And in the book *On the Spirit and the Soul* (among the works of Augustine) c. 6 these things are found: *For in a certain way the Holy Spirit seems to us to be as it were more proper* [some codices, *nearer*] *to us, inasmuch as he is the gift of the Father and of the Son. From him indeed is every use of grace, together with the Father and the Son.*

la: Post *humana* codd. G K inserunt *terminus*. Cfr. infra d. 6. a. 2. q. 1. — Subinde pro *unitas essentiae* cod. Q *unitas naturae*. Mox pro *una persona* edd. cum codd. H L U aa *una sola persona*.

en: After *humana* codices G K insert *terminus*. Cf. below d. 6, a. 2, q. 1. — Thereafter, for *unitas essentiae* ("unity of essence") codex Q reads *unitas naturae* ("unity of nature"). Soon after, for *una persona* ("one person") the editions, together with codices H L U aa, read *una sola persona* ("one sole person").

la: Cod. F *mediante persona Spiritus sancti*. Post pauca pro *subauctoritatis* codd. H M O T V X *auctoritatis*.

en: Codex F reads *through the medium of the person of the Holy Spirit*. A little after, for *subauctoritatis* ("sub-authority") codices H M O T V X read *auctoritatis* ("authority").

en: Distinction 4, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Cod. K addit *spirato*, Vat. *id est, flatu spirato a creatura*. Paulo inferius iterum cod. K cum cod. H post *quia spiritus* adiicit *spiratus*, et Vat. *spiratus a creatura*. Cod. T hoc secundo loco voci *spiritus* primitus cum codd. A G U V et edd. 1, 2 adiunxerat *sanctus*, pro illo nunc exhibet *noster*. Subinde pro *Nusquam* codd. A G H L X T U V Z et edd. 1, 2 substituunt *Nunquam*.

en: Codex K adds *spirato*, the Vatican edition *that is, by breath exhaled by a creature*. A little further down, again, codex K together with codex H after *quia spiritus* adds *spiratus*, and the Vatican edition *spiratus a creatura*. Codex T, in this second place, had originally joined to the word *spiritus*, together with codices A G U V and editions 1, 2, the word *sanctus*; in place of it it now exhibits *noster*. Thereafter, for *Nusquam* codices A G H L X T U V Z and editions 1, 2 substitute *Nunquam*.

la: Hic et in seq. propositione post *voluntaria* codd. A F G K N T U V Z bb et edd. 1, 2 repetunt *quae est* (*quia est?*), et paulo inferius pro *quia est a voluntate* codd. F G U Z substituunt *quae est a voluntate*.

en: Here and in the following clause, after *voluntaria*, codices A F G K N T U V Z bb and editions 1, 2 repeat *quae est* (perhaps *quia est*?), and a little further down, for *quia est a voluntate* codices F G U Z substitute *quae est a voluntate*.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 10. a. 1. et 2. — Pro *earum nexum*, quod cod. K et Vat. exhibent, in ceteris edd. et codd. legitur non apte *earum nexus*, et in fine solut. pro *in unitatem* cod. A *in unitate*.

en: Cf. I Sent., d. 10, a. 1 and 2. — For *earum nexum* ("their binding," accusative), which codex K and the Vatican edition exhibit, in the other editions and codices is read, inaptly, *earum nexus* ("their binding," nominative), and at the end of the solution, for *in unitatem* codex A reads *in unitate*.

la: Cod. bb et Vat. subiiciunt *hoc*.

en: Codex bb and the Vatican edition append *hoc* ("this").

la: Edd. 1, 2 *cum sit facta a Spiritu sancto tanquam efficiente* etc. In fine solut. pro *discretionem* codd. G W Z et edd. 1, 2 habent *distinctionem*, in Vat. legitur *distinctionem vel discretionem*.

en: Editions 1, 2 read *since it was made by the Holy Spirit as by an efficient cause*, etc. At the end of the solution, for *discretionem* ("distinction") codices G W Z and editions 1, 2 have *distinctionem*; in the Vatican edition is read *distinctionem vel discretionem*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p054..056-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`), authoritative over the cascade-shattered IA djvu OCR per the Vol II/III override. OCR base (raw lines 4371–4475) used for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. English literal per the formula/terminology tables.

**Page-split map.** q3 opens on printed **p.54 L-col bottom** (`QUAESTIO III.` header + opener + fundamenta 1–2; fund. 3–4 in p.54 R-col bottom), continues on **p.55** (Sed contra 1–4, Conclusio, Respondeo, replies *Ad 1–3*), and finishes on **p.56 R-col top** (reply *Ad 4*, ending `…personalem discretionem³`). Running heads: p.54 L `54 SENTENTIARUM`, R `…ARUM LIB. III.`; p.55 L `DIST. II. ART. III. QUAEST. III.`, R `QUAEST. III. 55`; p.56 L `56 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`.

**Apparatus split (13 entries, continuous slugs `[^1]`–`[^13]`, per-page restart in source).**
- **p.54 f.1–4 = `[^1]`–`[^4]`** (q3's own; the p.54-top SCHOLION is q2's and carries no numbered footers): ¹ Damascenus (anchors fund-1 `Damascenus`); ² Dionysius (fund-2 `Dionysius`); ³ I Sent. d.10 (fund-3 `Spiritu sancto`); ⁴ Hilarius/Augustinus (fund-4 `Augustinus`).
- **p.55 f.1–6 = `[^5]`–`[^10]`**: ⁵ humana/terminus (Sed contra 3 `humana`); ⁶ Cod. F mediante persona (Respondeo `mediante Spiritu sancto` of conclusion 2); ⁷ Dist. 4 a.1 q.1 (`infra`); ⁸ Cod. K spirato (reply *Ad 1* `mediante spiritu`); ⁹ voluntaria variants (reply *Ad 2* `voluntaria`); ¹⁰ earum nexum (reply *Ad 3* `earum nexum`).
- **p.56 f.1–3 = `[^11]`–`[^13]`** (q3's only; p.56 f.4–9 belong to the d.2 DUBIA block and are OMITTED here): ¹¹ Cod. bb hoc (reply *Ad 4* `dicendum, quod`); ¹² efficiente/discretionem variants (`gratuita`); ¹³ `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` (`personalem discretionem`).

**Incoming hand-off (from d2-a3-q2, commit faeba0b).** The hand-off predicted p.54 f.1–3 (Damascenus / Dionysius / I Sent. d.10) carry into this chunk as `[^1]`–`[^3]` — **verified**. In addition, p.54 f.4 (Hilarius/Augustinus, anchoring fund-4) is equally q3's and is included as `[^4]`. q2 consumed NO p.54 footers (its scholion block is unfootnoted), so the entire p.54 footer sequence belongs to q3.

**Forward hand-off (to d2-dubia).** After reply *Ad 4* ends grammatically complete at `…personalem discretionem³` (p.56 R-col, raw ~4473), the **d.2 DUBIA block** begins immediately: `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` (raw 4476, printed p.56 L-col foot) / `Dub. I.` (raw 4478). p.56 footers f.4–9 (Cod. N supplet Deus / Aristot. Elench. / II Sent. d.31 / Edd. bonum est / Cfr. supra / Vide infra) all belong to the dubia, NOT to q3. The dubia block runs Dub. I–III+ (raw ~4476–4618). On promotion of d2-dubia, **Distinctio II is COMPLETE.**

**Alignment.** PASS. Opener `Tertio quaeritur, utrum Verbum sit unitum humanae naturae mediante Spiritu sancto` = ART. III TRACTATIO q3. No q-swap.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false` — VERIFIED on PDF p.56: reply *Ad 4* runs directly into `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.`; no `SCHOLION` header for q3. Confirmed by q3's own footer ¹³ (`[^13]`) = `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` and by q2's scholion §III (p.54 top), which expressly forward-covered q3's solution (Spirit as *causa effectiva* of the union, by appropriation). Per-question d.1/d.2 forward-cover pattern.

**Cascade-merge check.** q3 tail + DUBIA opener continuous; no broken splice at the seam.

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


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 2, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 56 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et quaeritur primo de hoc quod dicit: *Omnia quae in nostra natura plantavit, Dei Verbum assumsit.* Sed *contra:* Deus plantavit in primo homine immortalitatem: ergo assumsit immortalitatem; quod falsum est, quia mortalis fuit. — Item, in natura nostra plantavit utrumque sexum, scilicet femininum et masculinum: ergo utrumque assumsit; quod similiter falsum est.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum est, quod quaedam plantavit Deus in natura nostra, quae respiciunt ipsius *constitutionem;* quaedam, quae respiciunt *statum* et accidentalem dispositionem. Cum ergo dicitur[^1], quod *omnia* assumsit quae plantavit, *omnia* dicit ibi quae sunt de ipsius constitutione. — Cum ergo ipse arguit contra hoc de immortalitate et sexus distinctione, non instat secundum veritatem, sed propter praedicati commutationem paralogizat vel sophistice instat[^2]; et per hoc patent illa duo obiecta.

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit contra haereticos: *Si visibilia munda visibilibus immundis inquinari non possunt, quanto magis immutabilis veritas.* Videtur enim ratio illa non valere. Quamvis enim radii solis non inquinentur ex foeditate illuminabilis, anima tamen, quae spiritualior est, inficitur ex coniunctione carnis[^3]. — Praeterea, Filius Dei est passibilis propter assumtionem carnis passibilis, ergo similiter factus est *carnalis;* sed spiritus foedatur et inficitur, quando carnalis efficitur: ergo videtur, quod haereticus verum dixit in hoc, quod dicebat, divinitatem ex sui societate cum carne maculari.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod exemplum illud[^4] contra haereticos et ratio est bona et efficax. Radius enim a rebus foedis non inquinatur propter hoc, quia non communicat in materia transmutabili nec etiam ab eis dependet. Si ergo Veritas multo magis a rebus foedis distat et est independens, necessario sequitur, quod multo minus est contaminabilis. — Nec valet illud de anima, propter hoc quod anima, etsi sit spiritualis, habet tamen a corpore dependentiam et inclinationem.

Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod Filius Dei passibilis factus est; dicendum, quod illud verum est propter communicationem idiomatum[^5], non quia patiatur secundum divinam naturam, sed secundum naturam assumtam. — Et similiter potest concedi, quod sit carnalis, secundum quod *carnalis* nominat *naturam,* sed non secundum quod nominat *vitium,* quia suscepit carnis passibilitatem, non vitiositatem[^6]. Cum ergo obiicit, quod spiritus inficitur, cum carnalis efficitur; dicendum, quod non valet, quia obiicit de *carnali,* prout sonat in vitium.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod caro non fuit prius concepta et postmodum assumta. Videtur enim falsum, quia quod non est non potest assumi; sed caro, quae nondum concepta est, nondum est: ergo non est assumtibilis: ergo necesse est, quod caro prius concipiatur, quam assumatur. — Item, non est assumtio nisi carnis iam organizatae;

<!-- page 57 -->

sed ante[^7] organizationem praecedit formatio, formationem praecedit consolidatio, consolidationem conceptio: ergo a primo, ante assumtionem est conceptio.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est loqui de conceptione quantum ad ordinem *temporis* et quantum ad ordinem *naturae*[^8]. Si loquamur quantum ad ordinem naturae, sic prior est conceptio quam assumtio, sicut illae rationes ostendunt. Si autem quantum ad ordinem *temporis,* sic non *decet* nec *oportet,* ipsum esse; non, inquam, oportet[^9], quia utrumque fuit per virtutem infinitam, quae subito potuit facere; non decuit, quia mulier non carnis frustum, sed virum debuit circumdare[^10] in angelica annuntiatione. Illud autem melius patebit in sequenti distinctione, ubi Magister inquirit istam quaestionem.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit circa finem: *Angelo annuntiante et Spiritu adveniente, mox in utero Verbum caro.* Incarnatio enim excellentius opus est quam gratiae infusio; sed gratiae infusio non fit per angelicam annuntiationem: ergo nec incarnatio. — Item, Deus vicinior erat beatae Virginis cordi per gratiam quam angelicae menti — unde Bernardus[^11]: « Virgo creditur exaltata super omnes ordines Angelorum » — ergo potius debuit transire illuminatio per beatam Virginem ad Angelum quam e converso.

Est igitur quaestio: quare conceptionem Filii Dei praecessit angelica annuntiatio? — Quaeritur etiam, de quo ordine Angelus ille fuerit. Non enim videtur fuisse de superioribus Angelis, quia dicit Dionysius[^12], quod « qui praeeminent usum exterioris officii nunquam habent ». Nec de inferioribus, quoniam illi mysterium incarnationis ignoraverunt et per Ecclesiam didicerunt. Unde quaerit Isaias sexagesimo tertio[^13]: *Quis est iste, qui venit de Edom?* sicut exponit Gregorius.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod incarnationem debuit praecedere angelica annuntiatio, sicut hominis praevaricationem praecessit diabolica tentatio, ut sic ordo reparationis correspondeat ordini praevaricationis. Unde sicut diabolus tentavit mulierem, ut eam pertraheret ad dubitationem, et per dubitationem pertraheret ad consensum, et per consensum ad lapsum; sic Angelus nuntiavit Virgini, ut nuntiando excitaret ad fidem, et per fidem ad consensum, et per consensum ad concipiendum Dei Filium per Spiritum sanctum[^14].

Alia etiam ratio ordinis fuit ibi: quia beata Virgo erat in statu viatricis, sed Angelus in statu comprehensoris; et ideo voluntatem Domini clarius pro illo tempore agnoscebat, quia Deum videbat Angelus facie ad faciem, beata Virgo per speculum in aenigmate[^15]. — Rursus, Angelus erat Dei servus et minister; et beata Virgo electa est et praeelecta fuerat, ut esset Dei mater. Quia ergo congruum est nescientem erudire per nuntium intelligentem et cognoscentem voluntatem Dei; congruum est etiam, ministrum famulari dominae suae: hinc est, quod decens et congruum fuit mysterium incarnationis per Angelum Virgini nuntiare[^16].

Tertia etiam ratio congruentiae potest assignari: quia incarnatio et humani generis redemptio non tantum faciebat ad reparationem lapsus humani, verum etiam ad reparationem ruinae angelicae[^17]; et ideo Angeli beati non debuerunt excludi. Unde sicut sexus muliebris non excluditur a cognitione mysterii incarnationis et etiam resurrectionis, sic etiam nec angelicus nuntius; immo utrumque Deus Angelo mediante nuntiat mulieri, incarnationem scilicet beatae

<!-- page 58 -->

Virgini, et resurrectionem Magdalenae.

Et sic patet, quod decens fuit, ante incarnationem praecedere angelicam nuntiationem propter triplicem ordinem[^18], videlicet reparationis generis humani, ministerii angelici et lapsus angelici restaurandi.

Quod ergo dicitur de gratia, quod non fit per angelicum ministerium; dicendum, quod gratia infunditur per ministerium humanum et per verbum humanum; sed incarnatio, quae est principium totius glorificationis, non per hominem debuit nuntiari, sed potius per Angelum[^19]. — Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod proximior erat Virgo Maria Deo quam Angelus; dicendum, quod verum est quantum ad gratiam electionis[^20], sed non quantum ad gratiam comprehensionis.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, de quo ordine fuit: dicendum, quod probabiliter creditur, quod fuerit de ordine Archangelorum, sicut canit Ecclesia[^21]. Unde si dicatur Gabriel fuisse summus inter Angelos, hoc non intelligitur de Angelo, secundum quod est nomen *naturae,* sed secundum quod est nomen *nuntii,* et nuntii, secundum quod ad nuntianda exteriora progreditur[^22]; et hoc nihil impedit, quin Gabriel scire potuerit mysterium incarnationis, et alii Angeli potuerint ignorare. — Vel posset dici, quod inferiores Angeli scierunt mysterium incarnationis, sed quaerebant profunda divini consilii; et hoc melius cognoverunt post Filii exaltationem et veritatis praedicationem, quibus explicita et manifestata est multiformis Dei sapientia[^23].

---

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

### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and it is asked first about what he says: *All things which he planted in our nature, the Word of God assumed.* But *on the contrary:* God planted immortality in the first man: therefore he assumed immortality; which is false, since he was mortal. — Likewise, in our nature he planted each sex, namely female and male: therefore he assumed each; which is likewise false.

**I respond:** It must be said that God planted in our nature certain things which regard its *constitution;* certain things which regard its *state* and accidental disposition. When, therefore, it is said[^1] that he assumed *all* the things which he planted, *all* there means the things which belong to its constitution. — When, therefore, he argues against this from immortality and the distinction of sex, he does not press the objection according to the truth, but rather, through a shifting of the predicate, he reasons fallaciously or presses the objection sophistically[^2]; and through this those two objections are answered.

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says against the heretics: *If clean visible things cannot be defiled by unclean visible things, how much more the immutable truth.* For that reasoning seems not to hold. For although the rays of the sun are not defiled by the foulness of what is illuminated, yet the soul, which is more spiritual, is infected by its conjunction with the flesh[^3]. — Moreover, the Son of God is passible on account of the assumption of passible flesh, therefore likewise he became *carnal;* but the spirit is befouled and infected when it becomes carnal: therefore it seems that the heretic spoke truly in this, in that he said that the divinity is stained by its association with the flesh.

**I respond:** It must be said that that example[^4] against the heretics, and the reasoning, is good and effective. For the ray is not defiled by foul things, because it does not share in transmutable matter, nor even depend upon them. If therefore the Truth stands much further from foul things and is independent of them, it necessarily follows that it is much less contaminable. — Nor does that objection about the soul hold, on account of the fact that the soul, although it be spiritual, nevertheless has from the body a dependence and an inclination.

But as to that which is objected, that the Son of God was made passible; it must be said that this is true on account of the communication of idioms[^5], not because he suffers according to the divine nature, but according to the assumed nature. — And likewise it can be conceded that he is carnal, insofar as *carnal* names the *nature,* but not insofar as it names *vice,* because he took on the passibility of the flesh, not its viciousness[^6]. When therefore he objects that the spirit is infected when it becomes carnal; it must be said that it does not hold, because he objects of the *carnal* as it sounds toward vice.

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that the flesh was not first conceived and afterward assumed. For it seems false, because what is not cannot be assumed; but the flesh which is not yet conceived is not yet: therefore it is not assumable: therefore it is necessary that the flesh be first conceived before it is assumed. — Likewise, there is no assumption except of flesh already organized;

for before[^7] organization there precedes formation, formation is preceded by consolidation, consolidation by conception: therefore from the first, before the assumption there is conception.

**I respond:** It must be said that conception may be spoken of with respect to the order of *time* and with respect to the order of *nature*[^8]. If we speak with respect to the order of nature, then conception is prior to assumption, as those arguments show. But if with respect to the order of *time,* then it neither *befits* nor is it *required* that it be so; not, I say, required[^9], because each came about through an infinite power, which could do it instantaneously; it did not befit, because it was not a fragment of flesh, but a man, that the woman ought to encompass[^10] in the angelic annunciation. But this will better appear in the following distinction, where the Master inquires into this question.

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says toward the end: *With the angel announcing and the Spirit coming, at once in the womb the Word [was made] flesh.* For the incarnation is a more excellent work than the infusion of grace; but the infusion of grace does not come about through angelic annunciation: therefore neither the incarnation. — Likewise, God was nearer to the heart of the blessed Virgin through grace than to the angelic mind — whence Bernard[^11]: « The Virgin is believed to be exalted above all the orders of Angels » — therefore rather ought the illumination to pass through the blessed Virgin to the Angel than the reverse.

There is, therefore, the question: why did the angelic annunciation precede the conception of the Son of God? — It is also asked, of what order that Angel was. For he does not seem to have been of the higher Angels, because Dionysius says[^12] that « those who are preeminent never have the use of an exterior office ». Nor of the lower, since those were ignorant of the mystery of the incarnation and learned it through the Church. Whence Isaiah asks in the sixty-third chapter[^13]: *Who is this who comes from Edom?* as Gregory expounds.

**I respond:** It must be said that the angelic annunciation ought to precede the incarnation, just as the diabolical temptation preceded man's transgression, so that thus the order of reparation might correspond to the order of transgression. Whence, just as the devil tempted the woman, that he might draw her to doubt, and through doubt draw her to consent, and through consent to the fall; so the Angel announced to the Virgin, that by announcing he might rouse her to faith, and through faith to consent, and through consent to conceiving the Son of God through the Holy Spirit[^14].

There was also another reason of the order there: because the blessed Virgin was in the state of a wayfarer, but the Angel in the state of a comprehensor; and therefore he recognized the will of the Lord more clearly for that time, because the Angel saw God face to face, the blessed Virgin through a glass in a riddle[^15]. — Again, the Angel was God's servant and minister; and the blessed Virgin was elect and pre-elect, that she should be the mother of God. Since therefore it is fitting that one who does not know be instructed by a messenger who understands and knows the will of God; it is fitting also that a minister serve his lady: hence it is that it was decent and fitting that the mystery of the incarnation be announced to the Virgin through an Angel[^16].

A third reason of congruity can also be assigned: because the incarnation and the redemption of the human race made not only for the reparation of the human fall, but also for the reparation of the angelic ruin[^17]; and therefore the blessed Angels ought not to be excluded. Whence, just as the female sex is not excluded from knowledge of the mystery of the incarnation and also of the resurrection, so neither is the angelic messenger; nay, both does God announce to the woman through the Angel — namely, the incarnation to the blessed

Virgin, and the resurrection to Magdalene.

And thus it is plain that it was decent that the angelic announcement precede the incarnation on account of a threefold order[^18], namely, of the reparation of the human race, of the angelic ministry, and of the angelic fall to be restored.

As to what is said about grace, that it does not come about through angelic ministry; it must be said that grace is infused through human ministry and through a human word; but the incarnation, which is the principle of all glorification, ought not to be announced through a man, but rather through an Angel[^19]. — As to that which is objected, that the Virgin Mary was nearer to God than the Angel; it must be said that this is true with respect to the grace of election[^20], but not with respect to the grace of comprehension.

As to that which is objected, of what order he was: it must be said that it is probably believed that he was of the order of Archangels, as the Church sings[^21]. Whence, if Gabriel be called the highest among the Angels, this is not understood of an Angel insofar as it is the name of a *nature,* but insofar as it is the name of a *messenger,* and of a messenger insofar as he goes forth to announce exterior things[^22]; and this in no way prevents Gabriel from having been able to know the mystery of the incarnation, while the other Angels could be ignorant of it. — Or it could be said that the lower Angels knew the mystery of the incarnation, but were seeking out the depths of the divine counsel; and they knew this better after the exaltation of the Son and the preaching of the truth, by which the manifold wisdom of God is made explicit and manifest[^23].

---

la: Cod. N supplet *Deus.* Pro *dicitur* in codd. A U habetur *dicit.*

en: Codex N supplies *Deus.* For *dicitur* codices A U have *dicit.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. et II. *Elench.,* praecipue I. c. 3. (c. 6.), ubi omnes syllogismi sophistici ad ignorantiam reducuntur redargutionis (*elenchi*) i. e. ad ignorantiam syllogismi contradictionis, qua scil. ignorantur quae ad veram contradictionem et instantiam requiruntur. — Pro *praedicati commutationem* edd. *praedicti commutationem.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 7.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Sophistical Refutations* I and II, especially I, c. 3 (c. 6), where all sophistical syllogisms are reduced to an ignorance of refutation (*elenchus*), that is, to an ignorance of the syllogism of contradiction, by which, namely, the things required for a true contradiction and counter-instance are unknown. — For *praedicati commutationem* the editions read *praedicti commutationem.* — Cf. on this doubt Bl. Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here doubt on the text 7.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. — Pro *spiritualior* Vat. *spiritualis,* edd. 1, 2 *spiritualiter.* Mox Vat., post *Filius Dei* addito verbo *factus,* cum edd. 1, 2 omittit *passibilis* post *assumtionem carnis.* Post pauca pro *verum dixit* cod. E *verum dixerit,* codd. A U *verum dicat.*

en: Cf. *Sentences* II, d. 31, a. 2, q. 1. — For *spiritualior* the Vatican reads *spiritualis,* editions 1, 2 *spiritualiter.* Then the Vatican, after *Filius Dei* having added the word *factus,* together with editions 1, 2 omits *passibilis* after *assumtionem carnis.* Shortly after, for *verum dixit* codex E reads *verum dixerit,* codices A U *verum dicat.*

la: Codd. bb et Vat. subiiciunt *hoc.*

en: Codices bb and the Vatican add *hoc.*

la: Edd. 1, 2 *cum sit facta a Spiritu sancto tanquam efficiente* etc. In fine solut. pro *discretionem* codd. G W Z et edd. 1, 2 habent *distinctionem,* in Vat. legitur *distinctionem vel discretionem.*

en: Editions 1, 2 [read] *since it was effected by the Holy Spirit as by an efficient [cause]* etc. At the end of the solution, for *discretionem* codices G W Z and editions 1, 2 have *distinctionem,* in the Vatican is read *distinctionem vel discretionem.*

en: See the scholion on the preceding question.

la: Cod. N omittit *ante.*

en: Codex N omits *ante.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., *de Praedicam.* c. de *Priori* et c. de *Simul.*

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Categories,* the chapter on the *Prior* and the chapter on the *Simultaneous.*

la: Edd. 1, 2 *ipsam esse, antequam oportet,* Vat. *ipsam esse, antequam assumatur.* Mox pro *non decuit* edd. *ut decuit.*

en: Editions 1, 2 [read] *ipsam esse, antequam oportet,* the Vatican *ipsam esse, antequam assumatur.* Then for *non decuit* the editions read *ut decuit.*

la: Respicitur illud Ierem. 31, 22: *Quia creavit Dominus novum super terram: femina circumdabit virum.* Cfr. infra d. III. lit. Magistri, c. 4, et Comment. p. II. a. 3. q. 2. — Huius dubii solutio invenitur etiam apud Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 2; B. Albert., hic a. 14; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 4; Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 4.

en: Reference is made to Jeremiah 31:22: *For the Lord has created a new thing upon the earth: a woman shall encompass a man.* Cf. below d. III, text of the Master, c. 4, and Commentary p. II, a. 3, q. 2. — The solution of this doubt is found also in Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III, q. 8, m. 2; Bl. Albert, here a. 14; St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 3; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 4; Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 4.

la: Serm. in Dominica infra Octav. Assumt. B. M. V. n. 8: *Iam in eo, quod tam reverenter atque officiosissime ab Archangelo salutata est, ut iam tunc in regali solio supra omnes caelestium ordines legionum exaltatam cernere videretur... excellentissimum nobis Virginis nostrae meritum et singularis gratia commendatur.* Cfr. Serm. 4. in Assumt. B. M. V. n. 1, et Serm. in Nativ. B. M. V. n. 9. In epistola ad Paulam et Eustochium directa (olim Hieronymo tributa) de die Assumt. B. M. V. legitur c. 7: *Haec est dies praeclara, in qua meruit [Maria] exaltari super choros Angelorum.* — Pro *Bernardus* codd. A U substituunt *Gregorius,* qui reapse in libro Respons., sive Antiphonar., pro festo Assumtionis B. V. dicit: *Exaltata est sancta Dei Genitrix super choros Angelorum.*

en: Sermon on the Sunday within the Octave of the Assumption of the Bl. Virgin Mary, n. 8: *Already in this, that she was so reverently and most dutifully saluted by the Archangel, so that even then she might be seen exalted upon a royal throne above all the orders of the legions of the heavenly hosts... is commended to us the most excellent merit and singular grace of our Virgin.* Cf. Sermon 4 on the Assumption of the Bl. V. M., n. 1, and the Sermon on the Nativity of the Bl. V. M., n. 9. In the epistle directed to Paula and Eustochium (once attributed to Jerome) on the day of the Assumption of the Bl. V. M., it is read c. 7: *This is the illustrious day on which [Mary] merited to be exalted above the choirs of Angels.* — For *Bernardus* codices A U substitute *Gregorius,* who indeed in the book of Responses, or Antiphonary, for the feast of the Assumption of the Bl. V. says: *The holy Mother of God is exalted above the choirs of Angels.*

la: *De Caelest. Hierarch.* c. 5 sententialiter; at verba hic allata inveniuntur in Gregor., II. in Evang. Homil. 34. n. 12. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 261, nota 3.

en: *On the Celestial Hierarchy* c. 5, in substance; but the words here adduced are found in Gregory, II *on the Gospels,* Homily 34, n. 12. Cf. tom. II, p. 261, note 3.

la: Vers. 1. — Glossa ordinaria in hunc loc. (apud Strabum) Augustino docenti, « quod omnes Angeli ab ipsa creatione sua statim cognoverunt in contemplatione sui Creatoris quidquid ipse erat facturus », opponit Hieronymi de hac re sententiam: « Hieronymus autem aperte declarat [super hunc loc.], quia quidam Angeli, donec perficeretur, mysterium incarnationis ad plenum non cognoverunt ». Exponens Eph. 3, 10, idem Hieronymus affirmat, Principatus et Potestates sacramentum incarnationis didicisse per Ecclesiam. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 118, nota 8. Gregor., II. in Evang. homil. 34. n. 8: *Hi autem, qui minima nuntiant, Angeli... vocantur.* — Pro *ignoraverunt* Vat. et plures codd. *ignorant.*

en: Verse 1. — The ordinary Gloss on this place (in Strabo), to Augustine teaching « that all the Angels from their very creation immediately knew, in the contemplation of their Creator, whatever he was about to do », opposes Jerome's opinion on this matter: « But Jerome openly declares [on this place] that certain Angels, until it was accomplished, did not fully know the mystery of the incarnation ». Expounding Eph. 3:10, the same Jerome affirms that the Principalities and Powers learned the sacrament of the incarnation through the Church. Cf. tom. II, p. 118, note 8. Gregory, II *on the Gospels,* homily 34, n. 8: *But those who announce the least things are called Angels.* — For *ignoraverunt* the Vatican and several codices read *ignorant.*

la: Vide supra pag. 41, nota 7.

en: See above p. 41, note 7.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 13, 12, in quo testimonio edd. cum non paucis codd. pro *in aenigmate* exhibent *et aenigma.* — Cfr. Dionys., *de Caelest. Hierarch.* c. 4. § 4. — Paulo ante pro *agnoscebat* codd. M O S *cognoscebat,* et immediate post pro *quia Deum* Vat. edd. *et Deum.*

en: [Cf.] the Epistle I Cor. 13:12, in which testimony the editions, with not a few codices, for *in aenigmate* present *et aenigma.* — Cf. Dionysius, *On the Celestial Hierarchy* c. 4, § 4. — Shortly before, for *agnoscebat* codices M O S read *cognoscebat,* and immediately after, for *quia Deum* the Vatican [and] editions read *et Deum.*

la: *nuntiari* Vat. edd.; al. *nuntiare.*

en: *nuntiari* the Vatican [and] editions; others *nuntiare.*

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 9. q. 5. et 7. — Paulo ante cod. G post *lapsus humani* supplet *generis.* Aliquanto inferius pro *immo utrumque* edd. *immo ut patet.* Subinde pro *nuntiat* cod. N *nuntiavit.*

en: Cf. *Sentences* II, d. 9, q. 5 and 7. — Shortly before, codex G after *lapsus humani* supplies *generis.* Somewhat below, for *immo utrumque* the editions read *immo ut patet.* Thereupon for *nuntiat* codex N reads *nuntiavit.*

la: Cod. N *ordinationem.*

en: Codex N [reads] *ordinationem.*

la: Codd. M O adiiciunt *comprehensionis.* Cod. W ante *potius per Angelum* inserit *sine dubio.*

en: Codices M O add *comprehensionis.* Codex W, before *potius per Angelum,* inserts *sine dubio.*

la: Codd. M O *reparationis,* omittentes dein *sed... comprehensionis.* Mox pro *obiicitur* cod. W aptius *quaeritur,* et post pauca pro *dicendum* cod. N *dici potest.*

en: Codices M O [read] *reparationis,* omitting thereafter *sed... comprehensionis.* Then for *obiicitur* codex W more aptly [reads] *quaeritur,* and after a little, for *dicendum* codex N [reads] *dici potest.*

la: B. Albert., II. Sent. d. 3. a. 15: *Sicut canit Ecclesia dicens: Gabrielem Archangelum scimus divinitus te esse affatum.* Cfr. antiph. ad Magnificat in II. Vesp. S. Gabrielis Archangeli (die 24. Martii). — Cod. N voci *Ecclesia* praefigit *sancta mater.*

en: Bl. Albert, *Sentences* II, d. 3, a. 15: *As the Church sings, saying: We know that the Archangel Gabriel was sent by God to address thee.* Cf. the antiphon at the Magnificat in II Vespers of St. Gabriel the Archangel (24 March). — Codex N prefixes to the word *Ecclesia* [the words] *sancta mater.*

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. X. lit. Magistri, c. 1. seq. et Comment. a. 1. q. 1. seq.

en: Cf. *Sentences* II, d. 10, text of the Master, c. 1 ff., and Commentary a. 1, q. 1 ff.

la: Eph. 3, 10. Cfr. August., V. de Gen. ad lit. c. 19. n. 38. seq. — Aliquanto superius pro *Vel posset* cod. N exhibet *Vel etiam posset,* et post pauca pro *sed quaerebant* substituit *sed tamen non adverterant.* Circa finem solut. cod. A *explicita* commutavit in *explicata.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., III.

en: Eph. 3:10. Cf. Augustine, V *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis* c. 19, n. 38 ff. — Somewhat above, for *Vel posset* codex N presents *Vel etiam posset,* and after a little, for *sed quaerebant* substitutes *sed tamen non adverterant.* Toward the end of the solution codex A changed *explicita* into *explicata.* — Cf. on this doubt Bl. Albert, [Sentences] III.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p056-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`, `vol3-p057-*`, `vol3-p058-*`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 4478–4618) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/III override the PDF column-band read is authoritative wherever the OCR cascade-fragments. Printed pp. 56–58 (PDF 78–80, offset +22); running heads confirmed: p.56 L `56 SENTENTIAR[UM]` / R `[SENTENT]IARUM LIB. III.`, header band `DUBIA CIRCA | LITTERAM MAGISTRI.`; p.57 L `DIST. II. DUBIA` / R `[D]UBIA. 57`; p.58 L `58 SENTENTIAR[UM]` / R `[SENTENT]IARUM LIB. III.`

**Type.** Dubia block (`DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI`); no articulus/quaestio frontmatter, `has_scholion: false`. **Four doubts: Dub. I, II, III, IV** — verified on the PDF bands and against raw headers (Dub. I raw 4478, Dub. II raw 4500, Dub. III raw 4503 [R-col], Dub. IV raw 4546). No scholion or COMMENTARIUS prints between the last Dub. and DISTINCTIO III.

**Dub. column-reflow map (two-column, interleaved).** Raw line order interleaves the two columns; printed reading order reconstructed from the crops:
- **p.56 L-col** = tail of d2-a3-q3 (reply Ad 4, "Notandum") → `DUBIA CIRCA` (left half of header) → `Dub. I.` (question + Sed contra + Respondeo, with "Distinctio." marginal) → `Dub. II.` question opener + first two argument-lines.
- **p.56 R-col** = `LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` (right half of header) → continuation of d2-a3-q3 tail (`...personalem discretionem³`) — already in the q3 chunk — then Dub. II's `...ergo videtur, quod haereticus verum dixit... maculari` + Dub. II `Respondeo` (with "Notandum" marginal) → `Dub. III.` question opener.
- **p.57 L-col** = `DIST. II. DUBIA` head → Dub. III continuation (`tae; sed ante¹...`) + Dub. III Respondeo → `Dub. IV.` question opener.
- **p.57 R-col** = `[D]UBIA. 57` head → Dub. IV question continuation (`...ignoraverunt et per Ecclesiam didicerunt...`) → Dub. IV Respondeo (Ad 1.quaest., Ratio 1/2/3).
- **p.58 L-col** = Dub. IV resolution continued (`diante nuntiat mulieri... gratiam comprehensionis`) then `DISTINCTIO III. / Pars I. / Cap. I.` begins (NOT this chunk).
- **p.58 R-col** = Dub. IV resolution, second reply (`Ad illud quod obiicitur, de quo ordine fuit... multiformis Dei sapientia`) then DISTINCTIO III continues.
The raw-OCR marginal labels (*Notandum, Distinctio, Duplex quaestio, Solvuntur duo obiecta, Ad 1. quaest., Ad 2. quaest., Ratio 1/2/3, Aliter*) are editorial side-notes; rendered inline / as paragraph structure, NOT as footnote anchors.

**Apparatus split map (23 entries, continuous slugs `[^1]`–`[^23]`, per-page footer restart):**
- **`[^1]`–`[^6]` = p.56 footers 4–9** (INHERITED per the d2-a3-q3 hand-off, which consumed p.56 footers 1–3 only). Anchors: f.4→Dub. I Respondeo `dicitur`; f.5→Dub. I `instat`; f.6→Dub. II question `coniunctione carnis`; f.7→Dub. II Respondeo `exemplum illud`; f.8→`idiomatum`; f.9→`vitiositatem`.
- **`[^7]`–`[^17]` = p.57 footers 1–11** (Dub. III & Dub. IV; fresh per-page sequence). f.1→`ante`(`[^7]`); f.2→`naturae`(`[^8]`); f.3→`oportet`(`[^9]`); f.4→`circumdare`(`[^10]`); f.5→`Bernardus`(`[^11]`); f.6→`Dionysius`(`[^12]`); f.7→`tertio`(Isaias 63:1)(`[^13]`); f.8→`Spiritum sanctum`(`[^14]`); f.9→`aenigmate`(`[^15]`); f.10→`nuntiare`(`[^16]`); f.11→`angelicae`(`[^17]`). NOTE: in the p.57 R-col band the `7` superscript sits on `tertio` (the Isaiah-63 reference), not on `ignoraverunt` (whose trailing `57` in raw OCR is digit-noise bleeding from `sexagesimo`).
- **`[^18]`–`[^23]` = p.58 footers 1–6** (Dub. IV resolution; the entire p.58 page-bottom footer block belongs to the dubia, since DISTINCTIO III's body — which also begins in p.58's L-col — has no footers until its own first marked word later in the column / on p.59). f.1 `Cod. N ordinationem`→`triplicem ordinem`(`[^18]`); f.2 `Codd. M O comprehensionis`→`Angelum`(`[^19]`); f.3 `Codd. M O reparationis`→`electionis`(`[^20]`); f.4 `B. Albert... Gabrielem Archangelum`→`Ecclesia`(`[^21]`); f.5 `Cfr. II. Sent. d. X. lit. Magistri`→`progreditur`(`[^22]`); f.6 `Eph. 3, 10`→`sapientia`(`[^23]`). The DISTINCTIO III body (`Cap. I. De carne assumta...`) and any of its footers are OMITTED — they belong to d3-p1-littera.

**Incoming hand-off (from d2-a3-q3, commit 27c0aa1):** the dubia inherit p.56 footers 4–9, rendered as `[^1]`–`[^6]`; q3 retained p.56 footers 1–3. Boundary at p.56 L-col: q3's reply Ad 4 ends `...Notandum...` region (raw ~4473) immediately before `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` (raw 4476); continuous, no cascade-merge splice.

**Forward hand-off → d3-p1-littera.** `DISTINCTIO III. / Pars I. / Cap. I. De carne assumta, qualis ante fuerit.` begins on p.58 L-col bottom (raw 4619), continuing R-col; it has its OWN footer sequence (`¹ Cod. N ordinationem`, `² Codd. M O adiiciunt...` etc.) NOT rendered here. Dub. IV's resolution ends grammatically complete at `...multiformis Dei sapientia.` (raw ~4612); the DISTINCTIO III opener (`Quaeritur etiam de carne Verbi...`) is continuous and not leaked into this chunk. NOTE for the next session: **d.3 is PARS-SPLIT (p1/p2)** with dup-ID skeletons (`d3-p2-*`) flagged for rechunk-review — re-verify d.3's structure from raw before translating.

**Footnote ordering note.** The p.57 R-col band shows the brief footer 10 (`nuntiari` Vat./`nuntiare` variant) anchoring `...incarnationis per Angelum Virgini nuntiare` (rendered `[^16]`) and footer 11 (`Cfr. II. Sent. d. 9. q. 5. et 7`) anchoring `ruinae angelicae` (rendered `[^17]`). All p.57 and p.58 anchor positions verified against the R-col / L-2 bands.

**No `[?]` flags.**

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. 3, Part 1

title_alt: Distinctio III — textus Magistri Sententiarum (Caps. I–IV)

title_alt: On the conception and sanctification of the flesh assumed by the Word

source_text:
<!-- page 58 -->

### DISTINCTIO III.
#### Pars I.

#### Cap. I. *De carne assumta, qualis ante fuerit.*

Quaeritur etiam de carne Verbi, an, priusquam conciperetur, obligata fuerit peccato, et an talis assumta fuerit a Verbo. — Sane dici potest et credi oportet, iuxta Sanctorum attestationis convenientiam, ipsam prius peccato fuisse obnoxiam, sicut reliqua Virginis caro, sed Spiritus sancti operatione ita mundatam, ut ab omni peccati contagione immunis uniretur Verbo, poena tantum non necessitate, sed voluntate assumentis remanente. — Mariam quoque totam Spiritus sanctus, in eam praeveniens, a peccato prorsus purgavit et a fomite peccati etiam liberavit, vel fomitem ipsum penitus evacuando, ut quibusdam placet, vel sic debilitando et extenuando, ut ei postmodum peccandi occasio nullatenus exstiterit; potentiam quoque generandi absque viri semine Virgini praeparavit. Ita enim verba Evangelii docent, ubi Angelus Virginem alloquens ait[^1]: *Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi... et quod nascetur ex te sanctum vocabitur Filius Dei.* Cui sacra Virgo respondit: *Ecce ancilla Domini; fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum.* Quod exponens Ioannes Damascenus[^2] ait: «Post consensum autem sanctae Virginis Spiritus sanctus pervenit in ipsam secundum verbum Domini, quod dixit Angelus, purgans ipsam et potentiam deitatis Verbi receptivam praeparans, simul autem et generativam. Et tunc obumbravit ipsam Dei altissimi per se Sapientia et Virtus existens, id est Filius Dei Patri homousios, id est consubstantialis, sicut divinum semen; et copulavit sibi ipsi ex sanctissimis et purissimis ipsius Virginis sanguinibus nostrae antiquae conspersionis carnem, animatam anima rationali et intellectiva, non seminans, sed per Spiritum sanctum creans. Quare simul caro, simul Dei caro, simul Dei Verbi caro, animata anima rationali et intellectiva». — Ex his perspicuum fit quod ante diximus[^3], carnem scilicet Verbi simul conceptam et assumtam, eandemque, immo totam Virginem, Spiritu sancto praeveniente, ab omni labe peccati castificatam. Cui collata est potentia «novo more generandi, ut sine coitu viri, sine libidine concipientis in utero Virginis celebraretur conceptus

<!-- page 59 -->

Dei et hominis[^4]». «Illa enim caro, quam Deus ex Virgine sibi unire dignatus est, sine vitio concepta, sine peccato nata est». «Hanc tamen carnem non caelestis, non aëreae, non alterius cuiusquam putes esse naturae, sed eius, cuius est omnium hominum caro».

#### Cap. II. *Quod nullus est sine peccato hic, excepta Virgine.*

Quod autem sacra Virgo ex tunc ab omni peccato immunis exstiterit, Augustinus evidenter ostendit, in libro de Natura et gratia[^5] inquiens: «Excepta sancta Virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo quaestionem. Inde enim scimus, quod ei plus gratiae sit collatum ad vincendum ex omni parte peccatum, quod concipere ac parere meruit quem constat nullum habuisse peccatum. Hac ergo Virgine excepta, si omnes Sancti et Sanctae congregari possent, et quaereretur ab eis, an peccatum haberent, quid responderetur, nisi quod Ioannes ait: *Si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus*»? «Illa autem Virgo singulari gratia praeventa est atque repleta, ut ipsum haberet ventris sui fructum, quem ex initio habuit universitas Dominum[^6]»; «ut illud quod nascebatur ex propagine primi hominis, tantummodo generis et non criminis originem duceret».

#### Pars II.

#### Cap. III. *Quare Christus non fuit decimatus in Abraham, sicut Levi.*

Cum autem illa caro, cuius excellentia singularis verbis explicari non valet, antequam esset Verbo unita, obnoxia fuerit peccato *in Maria et in aliis,* a quibus propagatione traducta est; non immerito videri potest in Abraham peccato subiacuisse, cuius universa caro peccato subiacebat. Unde quaeri solet, quare Levi decimatus dicatur[^7] in Abraham, et non Christus, cum in lumbis Abrahae uterque fuerit secundum materialem rationem, quando Abraham decimatus est et decimas dedit Melchisedech. Tunc enim Apostolus Levi decimatum dicit in Abraham tanquam in materiali causa, quia ea decimatione sicut Abraham minor Melchisedech ostenditur, cui personaliter decimas solvit, ita et Leviticus ordo, qui in Abraham secundum rationem seminalem erat et ex eo per concupiscentiam carnis descendit. Christus autem non est decimatus, quia licet ibi fuerit secundum carnem, non tamen inde descendit secundum legem communem, scilicet per carnis libidinem; sicut etiam in Adam omnes peccaverunt, sed non Christus. Unde Augustinus super Genesim[^8]: Sicut, Adam peccante, qui in lumbis eius erant peccaverunt, sic, Abraham dante decimas, qui in lumbis eius erant decimati sunt. Sed hoc non sequitur in Christo, licet in lumbis Adae et Abrahae fuerit, quia non secundum concupiscentiam carnis inde descendit. Cum ergo Levi et Christus secundum carnem essent in lumbis Abrahae, quando decimatus est; ideo pariter decimati non sunt, quia secundum aliquem modum non erat ibi Christus, quo erat ibi Levi. «Secundum rationem quippe illam seminalem ibi fuit Levi, qua ratione per concubitum venturus erat in matrem, secundum quam rationem non ibi erat Christi caro, quamvis secundum ipsam ibi fuerit Mariae caro». «Ille ergo decimatus est in Abraham, qui sic fuit in lumbis Abrahae, sicut ille fuit in lumbis patris sui, id est, qui sic est natus de patre Abraham, sicut ille de suo patre natus est, scilicet per legem carnis et invisibilem concupiscentiam».

#### Cap. IV. *Quare caro Christi non dicta est peccatrix, sed similis.*

Quocirca primitiam[^9] nostrae massae recte assumsisse dicitur Christus, quia non *carnem peccati,* sed *similitudinem* carnis peccati accepit. *Misit enim Deus Filium suum,* ut ait Apostolus[^10], *in similitudinem carnis peccati.* Assumsit enim Verbum carnem peccatrici similem in poena, et non in culpa, et ideo non peccatricem, cetera vero hominum caro omnis peccati[^11] caro est. Sola illius non est caro peccati, quia non eam mater concupiscentia, sed gratia concepit. Habet tamen similitudinem carnis peccati per passibilitatem et mortalitatem, quia esurit, sitiit[^12] et huiusmodi. Licet ergo eadem caro sit eius quae et nostra, non tamen ita facta est in utero, sicut nostra. Est enim sanctificata in utero et nata sine peccato, et nec ipse in illa unquam peccavit. In poena ergo similis est nostrae, non in qualitate peccati, quia pollutionem, quae ex concupiscentiae motu concepta est, omnino non habuit nec ex carnali delectatione nata est. Venit ergo ad corpus immaculatum[^13], quod praeter libidinis concupiscentiam fuit conceptum; nec illud in se habuit vitium, quod in aliis est causa peccati, nec in eo peccavit. Ideoque vere dicitur Verbi caro non fuisse in Christo obligata peccato.

<!-- page 60 -->

Illi autem sententiae, qua supra diximus, carnem Verbi non ante fuisse conceptam quam assumtam, videtur obviare quod Augustinus ait super Ioannem[^14], ubi legitur: *Solvite templum hoc, et in tribus diebus excitabo illud. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei: Quadraginta et sex annis aedificatum est hoc templum, et tu tribus diebus excitabis illud?* «Hic, inquit, numerus perfectioni dominici corporis convenit, quia, ut dicunt physici, tot diebus forma humani corporis perficitur». Horum occasione verborum quidam dicere praesumserunt, dominici corporis formam tot diebus ad modum aliorum corporum perfectam et membrorum lineamentis distinctam, et mox Verbum Dei dicitur sibi univisse carnem et animam; et hoc modo dicunt illum numerum perfectioni dominici corporis convenire. — Sed alia ratio illius dicti exstitit, ex qua sana verbi intelligentia oritur. Non enim ideo illud dixit Augustinus, quin[^15] mox, ut caro illa opere Spiritus sancti sanctificata et a reliqua separata fuit, Verbo Dei cum anima uniretur, ut perfectus et verus Deus esset perfectus et verus homo, sed quia membrorum illius dominici corporis distinctio in ipso momento conceptionis et unionis Dei et hominis adeo tenuis erat et parva, ut humano visui vix posset subiici; diebus autem illis, quos memorat Augustinus, perfecta est et notabilis facta. «Incarnatum est igitur Verbum, ut ait Ioannes Damascenus[^16], et a propria incorporalitate non excessit, et totum incarnatum est et totum est incircumscriptum. Minoratur corporaliter et contrahitur et divine est incircumscriptum, non coextensa carne eius cum incircumscripta divinitate». «In omnibus igitur et super omnia erat et in utero sanctae Genitricis existebat, sed in ipso actu incarnationis».

english:
### DISTINCTION III.
#### Part I.

#### Ch. I. *On the flesh assumed, what it was beforehand.*

It is asked also concerning the flesh of the Word, whether, before it was conceived, it was bound to sin, and whether it was assumed by the Word as such. — It can soundly be said and ought to be believed, according to the consistency of the saints' testimony, that it was beforehand liable to sin, like the rest of the Virgin's flesh, but was so cleansed by the operation of the Holy Spirit that it was united to the Word free from every contagion of sin, only the penalty remaining—not by necessity, but by the will of the one assuming. — The Holy Spirit also, coming beforehand into her, wholly purged Mary from sin and even freed her from the tinder of sin, either by entirely emptying out that tinder itself, as it pleases some, or by so weakening and attenuating it that afterward no occasion of sinning at all remained for her; he also prepared for the Virgin the power of generating without a man's seed. For the words of the Gospel thus teach, where the Angel, addressing the Virgin, says[^1]: *The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee... and that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God.* To whom the holy Virgin replied: *Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word.* Expounding this, John Damascene[^2] says: «But after the consent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit came upon her according to the word of the Lord, which the Angel spoke, purifying her and preparing her to be receptive of the deity of the Word, and at the same time generative. And then there overshadowed her the per-se-existing Wisdom and Power of the Most High God, that is, the Son of God consubstantial with the Father (*homousios*), that is, of one substance, as a divine seed; and he joined to himself from the most holy and most pure bloods of the Virgin herself the flesh of our ancient mingling, animated by a rational and intellective soul—not sowing, but creating through the Holy Spirit. Wherefore at once flesh, at once God's flesh, at once the flesh of God the Word, animated by a rational and intellective soul». — From these things it is clear, as we said before[^3], namely that the flesh of the Word was at once conceived and assumed, and that the same flesh—indeed the whole Virgin—was, by the prevenient Holy Spirit, purified from every stain of sin. To her was granted the power «of generating in a new manner, so that without intercourse of a man, without the lust of one conceiving, there should be celebrated in the Virgin's womb the conception

of God and man[^4]». «For that flesh which God deigned to unite to himself from the Virgin was conceived without fault, born without sin». «Yet do not suppose this flesh to be of a celestial, an aerial, or any other nature whatsoever, but of that whose flesh is the flesh of all men».

#### Ch. II. *That no one here is without sin, except the Virgin.*

That the holy Virgin was from that time free from all sin, Augustine plainly shows in the book *On Nature and Grace*[^5], saying: «With the exception of the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, for the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question raised when sins are treated. For from this we know that more grace was conferred on her for overcoming sin in every part, because she merited to conceive and to bear him whom it is certain had no sin. With this Virgin excepted, therefore, if all the Saints, men and women, could be gathered together, and it were asked of them whether they had sin, what would be answered, except what John says: *If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves*»? «But that Virgin was forestalled and filled with singular grace, so that she had as the fruit of her womb him whom the universe had from the beginning as its Lord[^6]»; «that what was born from the propagation of the first man should draw only the origin of its race and not of crime».

#### Part II.

#### Ch. III. *Why Christ was not tithed in Abraham, as Levi was.*

But since that flesh, whose singular excellence cannot be explained in words, before it was united to the Word, was liable to sin *in Mary and in others,* from whom it was derived by propagation; it can not without reason seem to have been subject to sin in Abraham, whose entire flesh was subject to sin. Hence it is wont to be asked why Levi is said to have been tithed[^7] in Abraham, and not Christ, since both were in the loins of Abraham according to material reckoning, when Abraham was tithed and gave tithes to Melchizedek. For then the Apostle says Levi was tithed in Abraham as in a material cause, because by that tithing, just as Abraham is shown to be lesser than Melchizedek, to whom he personally paid tithes, so also the Levitical order, which was in Abraham according to seminal reckoning and descended from him through the concupiscence of the flesh. But Christ was not tithed, because although he was there according to the flesh, nevertheless he did not descend thence according to the common law, namely through the lust of the flesh; just as also in Adam all sinned, but not Christ. Hence Augustine *on Genesis*[^8]: As, when Adam sinned, those who were in his loins sinned, so, when Abraham gave tithes, those who were in his loins were tithed. But this does not follow in Christ, although he was in the loins of Adam and Abraham, because he did not descend thence according to the concupiscence of the flesh. Since therefore Levi and Christ were according to the flesh in the loins of Abraham when he was tithed; therefore they were not alike tithed, because in some mode Christ was not there in the way that Levi was there. «For according to that seminal reckoning Levi was there, by which reckoning he was to come into a mother through intercourse, according to which reckoning Christ's flesh was not there, although according to it Mary's flesh was there». «He therefore was tithed in Abraham who so was in the loins of Abraham as that man was in the loins of his own father, that is, who was so born of his father Abraham as that man was born of his own father, namely through the law of the flesh and invisible concupiscence».

#### Ch. IV. *Why Christ's flesh was not called sinful, but similar.*

Wherefore Christ is rightly said to have assumed the first-fruits[^9] of our mass, because he took not *the flesh of sin,* but *the likeness* of the flesh of sin. *For God sent his Son,* as the Apostle says[^10], *in the likeness of the flesh of sin.* For the Word assumed flesh like to sinful flesh in penalty, and not in fault, and therefore not sinful, whereas the rest of men's flesh is all flesh of sin[^11]. His alone is not the flesh of sin, because not concupiscence as mother, but grace conceived it. Yet it has the likeness of the flesh of sin through passibility and mortality, because he hungered, thirsted[^12], and the like. Although therefore the same flesh is his which is also ours, nevertheless it was not so made in the womb as ours. For it was sanctified in the womb and born without sin, and he never sinned in it. In penalty therefore it is like to ours, not in the quality of sin, because it had no pollution at all such as is conceived from the motion of concupiscence, nor was it born from carnal delight. He came therefore to an immaculate body[^13], which was conceived apart from the concupiscence of lust; nor did it have in itself that fault which in others is the cause of sin, nor did he sin in it. And therefore it is truly said that the flesh of the Word was not bound to sin in Christ.

But to that opinion, by which we said above that the flesh of the Word was not conceived before it was assumed, there seems to be opposed what Augustine says *on John*[^14], where it is read: *Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews therefore said: Forty-six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days?* «This number, he says, befits the perfection of the Lord's body, because, as the natural philosophers say, in so many days the form of the human body is perfected». On the occasion of these words certain men presumed to say that the form of the Lord's body was, in so many days, perfected after the manner of other bodies and distinguished by the lineaments of its members, and then the Word of God is said to have united flesh and soul to himself; and in this way they say that number befits the perfection of the Lord's body. — But another reason for that saying existed, from which a sound understanding of the word arises. For Augustine did not say it as though[^15] it were not the case that, as soon as that flesh was, by the work of the Holy Spirit, sanctified and separated from the rest, it was united to the Word of God together with a soul, so that perfect and true God might be perfect and true man; but because the distinction of the members of that Lordly body, in the very moment of the conception and union of God and man, was so slight and small that it could scarcely be subjected to human sight; but in those days which Augustine mentions, it became perfect and conspicuous. «The Word therefore became incarnate, as John Damascene[^16] says, and did not depart from its own incorporeality, and it was wholly made incarnate and is wholly uncircumscribed. It is lessened corporeally and is contracted and divinely is uncircumscribed, his flesh not being coextensive with the uncircumscribed divinity». «In all things therefore and above all things it was, and was existing in the womb of the holy Mother, but in the very act of incarnation».

la: Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 2., sed brevius a Magistro; in quo textu pro *pervenit* Vat. et edd. 4, 6, 8 *supervenit.* In originali secundum versionem recentiorem post *divinum semen* sic legitur: Exque castis purissimisque illius sanguinibus carnem anima rationali et intelligente animatam, conspersionis scilicet nostrae *primitias,* ipse sibi compegit; non id quidem seminali procreatione, sed conditoris more per Spiritum S... Quam ob rem simul atque caro exstitit, simul quoque Dei Verbi exstitit caro, simul caro animata, rationis particeps et intelligentiae (ὥστε ἅμα σὰρξ, ἅμα Θεοῦ Λόγου σὰρξ, ἅμα σὰρξ ἔμψυχος, λογικῇ τε καὶ νοερά). Codd. nostri ita inter se differunt et falsis lectionibus abundant, ut superfluum sit lectiones variantes afferre.

en: Bk. III, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 2, but more briefly by the Master; in which text, for *pervenit* («came upon»), the Vatican edition and edd. 4, 6, 8 read *supervenit.* In the original, according to the more recent version, after *divine seed* it reads thus: «And from her chaste and most pure bloods he framed for himself a flesh animated by a rational and intelligent soul, namely the first-fruits of our mingling—not indeed by a seminal procreation, but in the manner of a Creator through the Holy Spirit... Wherefore as soon as the flesh existed, at once it existed as the flesh of God the Word, at once a flesh animated, partaker of reason and of intelligence» (so that at once flesh, at once flesh of God the Word, at once flesh ensouled, rational and intellective). Our codices differ so among themselves and abound in false readings that it would be superfluous to adduce the variant readings.

la: Dist. II. c. ult.

en: Distinction II, last chapter.

la: Fulgent., de Fide ad Petrum, c. 2. n. 16; seq. locus ibid. n. 15; et tertius ibid. immediate superius.

en: Fulgentius, *On the Faith, to Peter,* c. 2, n. 16; the following passage in the same place, n. 15; and the third in the same place, immediately above.

la: Cap. 36. n. 42. In textu originali pro *lade... peccatum,* quod nunc legitur *Unde... peccatum, quae.* Pro *responderetur* edd. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 *responderent.* — Locus Scripturae est I. Ioan. 1, 8.

en: C. 36, n. 42. In the original text, for *lade... peccatum* what is now read is *Unde... peccatum, quae.* For *responderetur* edd. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 read *responderent.* — The scriptural passage is 1 John 1:8.

la: De Fide ad Petrum, c. 2. n. 17; seq. locus est August., XIII. de Trin. c. 18. n. 23.

en: *On the Faith, to Peter,* c. 2, n. 17; the following passage is Augustine, *On the Trinity* XIII, c. 18, n. 23.

la: Hebr. 7, 9. De decimatione Abrahae cfr. Gen. 14, 18.

en: Hebrews 7:9. On the tithing of Abraham cf. Genesis 14:18.

la: Lib. X. super Gen. ad lit. c. 19. n. 34, ex variis propositionibus excerptum; seq. locus ibid. c. 20. n. 35; tertius ibid. n. 36. (secundum sensum).

en: Bk. X, *On Genesis according to the Letter,* c. 19, n. 34, excerpted from various propositions; the following passage in the same place, c. 20, n. 35; the third in the same place, n. 36 (according to the sense).

la: Ita codd. et edd. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 et ipse Comment. S. Bonav. In aliis edd. melius *primitias.* Cfr. locus Damasceni, c. 1. pag. 58, nota 2. citatus.

en: So the codices and edd. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and the Commentary of St. Bonaventure itself. In other editions better: *primitias* («first-fruits», plural). Cf. the passage of Damascene, c. 1, cited on p. 58, note 2.

en: Romans 8:3.

la: Ita edd. 1, 8; in reliquis tantum *omnis caro peccati est.*

en: So edd. 1, 8; in the rest only *omnis caro peccati est* («all flesh is flesh of sin»).

en: Cf. Matthew 4:2; John 19:28.

la: Sap. 8, 20, ubi Vulgata *incoinquinatum* pro *immaculatum.*

en: Wisdom 8:20, where the Vulgate has *incoinquinatum* («undefiled») for *immaculatum* («immaculate»).

la: Tract. 10 n. 12; IV. de Trin. c. 5. n. 9; et praecipue 83 Qq. 56. Locus Scripturae Ioan. 2, 19; cfr. ibi Glossa Lyrani. Verba *supra diximus* referuntur ad d. II. c. 3.

en: Tractate 10, n. 12; *On the Trinity* IV, c. 5, n. 9; and especially the *Eighty-three Questions,* 56. The scriptural passage is John 2:19; cf. there the Gloss of [Nicholas of] Lyra. The words *as we said above* refer to Distinction II, c. 3.

la: Vat. perperam *quia.*

en: The Vatican edition wrongly *quia* («because»).

la: Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 7. Seq. locus est partum superius, qui est in pluribus codd. corruptus. Recentior versio sic habet: Et quidem in omnibus et supra omnia erat etiam tum, cum in sanctae Deiparae utero esset (καὶ ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ ὑπάρχων τῆς ἁγίας Θεοτόκου); at in eo per incarnationis operationem.

en: Bk. III, *On the Orthodox Faith,* c. 7. The following passage is somewhat above [in the source], and in several codices it is corrupt. The more recent version reads thus: «And indeed in all things and above all things it was even then, when it was in the womb of the holy Mother of God (καὶ ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ ὑπάρχων τῆς ἁγίας Θεοτόκου); but in it [it acted] through the operation of the incarnation».

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 58–60 (PDF 80–82; offset pdf = printed + 22), per the Vol II/III override (PDF authoritative for the cascade-shattered two-column body + footers; raw IA OCR `bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 4619–4757 used only as base for clean prose + marker spacing). This is the **shared littera Magistri** for the whole **Distinctio III** (both Pars I and Pars II comment on it); `pars: 1` retained per the chunk convention. English is a fresh literal translation, paragraph-for-paragraph; scriptural quotations kept Vulgate in the Latin and rendered literally in English.

**Content.** Lombard's text, four chapters: Cap. I *De carne assumta, qualis ante fuerit* (the flesh of the Word formerly liable to sin, cleansed by the Spirit; the Annunciation, the Damascene exposition); Cap. II *Quod nullus est sine peccato hic, excepta Virgine* (Augustine, *De Natura et gratia,* on Mary's exception); the printed text opens **Pars II** at Cap. III *Quare Christus non fuit decimatus in Abraham, sicut Levi* (the Levi/Christ tithing question); Cap. IV *Quare caro Christi non dicta est peccatrix, sed similis* (Romans 8:3, likeness of sinful flesh in penalty not fault), closing with the *Dubitatio de verbis Augustini super Ioannem* / *Expositio sana* (the forty-six-days temple-building text) and the Damascene close on p. 60.

**Page-split map.** The chunk spans printed pp. 58, 59, 60 (the briefing predicted [58, 59]; the littera body in fact continues onto p. 60 with the *Illi autem sententiae...* / *Expositio sana* paragraph, ending grammatically complete at `...sed in ipso actu incarnationis».` immediately before the COMMENTARIUS).
- **p. 58 (shared with d2-dubia):** d2-dubia ended on p. 58 and consumed the p. 58 footers 1–6 that sit **above** the `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` divider (its [^18]–[^23]: *ordinationem* / *comprehensionis* / *reparationis* / B. Albert. Gabriel / II Sent. d. X / Eph. 3, 10). Beneath the fresh `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` divider on p. 58 sit the **littera's** three footers — rendered here as [^1]–[^3] (Luc. 1, 35.38 / Damascene de Fide orthod. c. 2 / Dist. II c. ult.), anchoring the Cap. I body. The dubia's six footers are deliberately **omitted** (out-of-chunk), not rendered anchorless.
- **p. 59 (per-page restart):** footers 1–10 = [^4]–[^13], anchoring Caps. I-tail through IV.
- **p. 60 (per-page restart):** the littera's three footers beneath `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` = [^14]–[^16] (Augustine super Ioannem / Vat. *quia* / Damascene de Fide orthod. c. 7), anchoring the *Expositio sana* paragraph. The COMMENTARIUS's own `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` footer block on p. 60 is **out-of-chunk** and forwarded to d3-p1-divisio.

**COMMENTARIUS forward.** `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III.` (OCR'd `IN DLSTINCTIONEM III.`, raw line 4758, printed p. 60), with `Pars I. / De sanctificatione beatae Virginis`, the `DIVISIO TEXTUS` (raw 4765) and `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` (raw 4785) for Pars I, are **NOT** part of this chunk — they belong to `bon-sent-III-d3-p1-divisio` and are forwarded. Cap. IV's tail and the p. 60 *Expositio sana* close grammatically complete; the COMMENTARIUS opener (`Supra egit Magister de incarnatione; hic vero agit de conceptione...`) is continuous (no cascade-merge splice).

**Marginal labels.** *Dubium 1./2./3.4./5./2./3./4., Fulgentius, Augustinus, Damascenus, Dubitatio de verbis Augustini, Expositio sana* are printed editorial side-notes (cross-references to the dubia and source attributions), rendered as plain prose flow / omitted as marginalia — NOT footnote anchors.

**[?] flags.** None.


title: Dist. 3, Part 1, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum, Pars I

title_alt: Division of the text and the questions of Distinction III, Part I

source_text:
<!-- page 60 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III.

#### Pars I.
##### *De sanctificatione beatae Virginis.*

*Quaeritur etiam de carne Verbi, an, priusquam conciperetur.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de incarnatione; hic vero agit de conceptione. Et quia ante conceptionem Filii Dei praecessit sanctificatio Virginis, ideo ista pars habet duas partes. In prima determinat, qualiter Virgo Maria fuerit per Spiritum sanctum sanctificata et ab omni labe purgata. Secundo vero determinat, qualiter caro Christi fuerit per Spiritum sanctum concepta, infra distinctione quarta: *Cum vero incarnatio Verbi* etc.

Prima pars dividitur in duas partes, in quarum prima determinat de sanctificatione, quae praecessit Christi conceptionem. In secunda vero inquirit, utrum caro Christi ita potuerit in Abraham decimari, sicut in Virgine potuit sanctificari. Ideo primo agit de sanctificatione; secundo vero de decimatione, ibi: *Cum autem illa caro* etc.

Prima pars dividitur in tres partes. In prima parte determinat, quae fuerit sanctificationis exigentia. In secunda, quae fuerit sanctificationis causa, ibi: *Mariam quoque totam Spiritus sanctus* etc. In tertia vero, quae fuerit sanctificationis efficacia, ibi: *Quod autem sacra Virgo ex tunc ab omni peccato* etc. — Haec autem pars, in qua agitur de Virginis sanctificatione, spectat ad praesentem considerationem[^1].

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis incidit hic quaestio circa sanctificationem Virginis quantum ad duo. Primo quaeritur de sanctificatione Virginis quantum ad congruentiam temporis. Secundo vero, quantum ad efficaciam virtutis. Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum caro Virginis sanctificata fuerit ante animationem.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum anima eius sanctificata fuerit ante originalis contractionem.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum sanctificata fuerit[^2] ante nativitatis originem.

---

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION III.

#### Part I.
##### *On the sanctification of the blessed Virgin.*

*It is also asked concerning the flesh of the Word, whether, before it was conceived.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the Incarnation; here, however, he treats of the conception. And because the sanctification of the Virgin preceded the conception of the Son of God, this part has two parts. In the first he determines in what manner the Virgin Mary was sanctified by the Holy Spirit and cleansed from every stain. In the second, however, he determines in what manner the flesh of Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, below in the fourth distinction: *When, however, the incarnation of the Word* etc.

The first part is divided into two parts, of which in the first he determines concerning the sanctification which preceded the conception of Christ. In the second, however, he inquires whether the flesh of Christ could have been tithed in Abraham, just as it could have been sanctified in the Virgin. Therefore he treats first of the sanctification; second, however, of the tithing, there: *When, however, that flesh* etc.

The first part is divided into three parts. In the first part he determines what was the requirement of the sanctification. In the second, what was the cause of the sanctification, there: *Mary too, whom the Holy Spirit wholly* etc. In the third, however, what was the efficacy of the sanctification, there: *That, moreover, the holy Virgin from then on from every sin* etc. — This part, however, in which the sanctification of the Virgin is treated, pertains to the present consideration[^1].

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part there arises here a question concerning the sanctification of the Virgin with respect to two things. First it is asked concerning the sanctification of the Virgin with respect to the fittingness of the time. Second, however, with respect to the efficacy of its power. Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked whether the flesh of the Virgin was sanctified before its animation.

Second it is asked whether her soul was sanctified before the contraction of original [sin].

Third it is asked whether she was sanctified[^2] before the origin of her birth.

---

la: Haec ultima propositio, quae in omnibus codd. exhibetur, desideratur in edd.

en: This last proposition, which is exhibited in all the codices, is wanting in the editions.

la: Codd. A R T V W Y Z dd adiiciunt *tota*, pro quo in cod. N legitur *beata Virgo*, in cod. S *anima eius*. Verbum *tota* non respondet ipsi quaestioni; apte autem poneretur *cito*. Paulo superius voci *originalis* Vat. praefigit *peccati*.

en: The codices A R T V W Y Z dd add *tota* ("wholly"), in place of which in codex N is read *beata Virgo* ("the blessed Virgin"), in codex S *anima eius* ("her soul"). The word *tota* does not correspond to the question itself; but *cito* ("soon") would be aptly placed. A little above, to the word *originalis* the Vatican [edition] prefixes *peccati*.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed p. 60 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p060-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`, PDF p. 82, offset +22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR raw lines 4758–4807. The whole divisio (COMMENTARIUS opener + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM + its two *Notae ad Commentarium* footers) fits on printed p. 60; the two DIVISIO/TRACTATIO columns were reflowed column-by-column (L-col top→bottom, then R-col), not in raw line order. Running heads: p. 60 L `60 SENTENTIARU[M]`, R `[SENTEN]TIARUM LIB. III.`; the next page's running head (`DIST. … P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 61`) and `ARTiCULUS 1.` opener belong to the downstream chunk.

**Page-split map.** Single printed page: p. 60. The DIVISIO TEXTUS body and the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM both occupy the lower two-thirds of p. 60 across both columns; the footer block carries two distinct footer sequences (see incoming hand-off).

**Incoming hand-off (resolved) from d3-p1-littera, commit 806d692.** The COMMENTARIUS begins raw 4758, after the littera's *Expositio sana* tail (`…sed in ipso actu incarnationis».`, raw 4755), with no cascade-merge splice. The p. 60 footers form TWO distinct sequences: the three under the upper `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` divider (L-col: Tract. 10 n. 12 / Vat. perperam *quia* / Libr. III de Fide orthod. c. 7) are the **littera's `[^14]`–`[^16]`** (commit 806d692) and are **NOT re-rendered here**, omitted rather than rendered anchorless. The two footers under the lower, separate `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` divider (R-col) are **this chunk's** — rendered as `[^1]`–`[^2]` above. Confirmed on the p.60 R-2 band: the `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` header prints below the column rule, with footers 1 (*considerationem*) and 2 (*sanctificata fuerit*).

**Forward hand-off to d3-p1-a1-q1 (raw 4808–~5124, printed p. 61+).** The `ARTiCULUS 1.` opener (raw 4804, subtitle *De sanctificatione Virginis quoad congruentiam temporis*) + `QUAESTIO I.` (raw 4808, *Utrum caro Virginis sanctificata fuerit ante animationem*) begin the next chunk on printed p. 61 (running head `DIST. … P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 61` at raw 4801). Per the chunking convention the short ART. I opener folds into a1-q1 (no standalone d3-p1-a1-divisio). q1 body opener: `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum caro Virginis sanctificata fuerit ante animationem. Et probatur primo, quod sic: 1. Ieremiae primo¹: Antequam formarem te…`. **Footer split:** p. 61 opens a fresh per-page footer sequence belonging to a1-q1 (verify on the p.61 bands — already cropped `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p061-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`); none of p. 60's footers carry forward (both are consumed: littera's three + this divisio's two). **Check for an ART. I scholion** on the PDF after q1's replies (per the d.1/d.2 per-question pattern).

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


title: Dist. 3, Part 2, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum distinctionis III, partis II

title_alt: Division of the text and the questions of Distinction III, Part II

source_text:
<!-- page 80 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III.

### Pars II.

#### *Utrum caro Christi in Abraham fuerit decimata.*

*Cum autem illa caro, cuius excellentia etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra ostendit Magister, qualiter beata Virgo fuerit sanctificata, ex qua caro Christi est assumta. In hac vero parte ad maiorem intelligentiam inquirit, utrum caro Christi in Abraham fuerit decimata. Dividitur autem pars ista in tres partes. In quarum prima inquirit Magister, utrum caro Christi potuerit decimari, vel debuerit in Abraham. Secundo vero post huius determinationem elicit quandam conclusionem, scilicet quod caro Christi non fuit caro peccati, ibi: *Quocirca primitiam nostrae massae recte assumsisse dicitur.* In tertia vero et ultima dissolvit quandam dubitationem de formatione corporis dominici, ibi: *Illi autem sententiae.* Subdivisiones autem partium manifestae sunt in littera.

<!-- page 81 -->

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis iuxta tria, quae Magister determinat, incidit hic quaestio.

Primo quaeritur de Christi decimatione.

Secundo quaeritur de carnis Christi traductione.

Tertio quaeritur de dominici corporis formatione.

Circa primum quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum aliquis possit decimari in parentibus.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus in Abraham fuerit decimatus.

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION III.

### Part II.

#### *Whether the flesh of Christ was tithed in Abraham.*

*But since that flesh, whose excellence etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master showed in what manner the blessed Virgin was sanctified, from whom the flesh of Christ was assumed. But in this part, for the sake of fuller understanding, he inquires whether the flesh of Christ was tithed in Abraham. Now this part is divided into three parts. In the first of these the Master inquires whether the flesh of Christ could have been tithed, or ought to have been, in Abraham. In the second, after the determination of this, he draws a certain conclusion, namely that the flesh of Christ was not flesh of sin, there: *Wherefore it is rightly said to have assumed the first-fruits of our mass.* In the third and last he resolves a certain doubt concerning the formation of the Lord's body, there: *But those opinions.* The subdivisions of the parts, however, are manifest in the text.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, in accordance with the three things which the Master determines, a question arises here.

First, it is asked concerning the tithing of Christ.

Second, it is asked concerning the propagation of Christ's flesh.

Third, it is asked concerning the formation of the Lord's body.

Concerning the first, two questions are asked.

First, it is asked whether anyone can be tithed in his forebears.

Second, it is asked whether Christ was tithed in Abraham.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p080-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`, `vol3-p081-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 6158–6206) as the base for clean prose. This chunk is the PARS II pars-level **divisio**: the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III. Pars II.` header, the lemma *Cum autem illa caro, cuius excellentia etc.*, the `DIVISIO TEXTUS`, and the `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` (the pars-level 3-question list + the ARTICULUS I 2-question sub-list). PARS II treats *de Christi decimatione* and *de carnis Christi traductione*.

**Page-split map.** The full-width `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III. Pars II.` header, the title-line, the lemma, and `DIVISIO TEXTUS` print on **p.80** (PDF 102), in the right column after the tail of PARS I Dub. V (`…in hac vita aliquandiu permanserunt⁷`). The DIVISIO TEXTUS reflows full-width-into-two-columns (L-col → R-col). `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM`, `ARTICULUS I.`, `De Christi decimatione.`, and `QUAESTIO I.` print on **p.81** (PDF 103); the page number `81` appears in the running head `DIST. III. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 81`. Running heads: p.80 `80 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.81 `DIST. III. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 81`.

**Apparatus / footer split.** This chunk has **no apparatus of its own** (`has_apparatus: false`). The DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM body carries zero footnote markers. The footers printed on these two pages all belong to neighbouring chunks:
- **p.80 footers 1–7** are the PARS I *dubia* footers (`creatio`-variant; Greek text + Aug. *de Morib. Manich.*; *quia et* var; *Vers. 4*; *Cfr. supra a.2 q.1 ad 3*; *Vide supra a.2 q.2*; *Solutionem huius dubii… B. Albert.*). These were already consumed by **d3-p1-dubia** as its `[^12]`–`[^17]` (the last, `permanserunt⁷`, closes the dubia). Documented here, not rendered.
- **p.81 footers 1–8** (`Vers. 9`; *Super Hebr. 7,9… Glossa secundum August.*; *Cfr. Aristot. I. Polit. … Iustinian.*; *Cfr. hic corp. circa finem*; *Cap. 20 n. 36*; …) belong to **d3-p2-a1-q1** — they anchor the ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I body (*Utrum aliquis possit decimari in parentibus*, args 1ff.: `Hebraeos septimo¹`, etc.). Carry forward to a1-q1; documented here, not rendered.

**Incoming hand-off resolved (from d3-p1-dubia, commit 2db7df7).** Dub. V ends grammatically complete at `…in hac vita aliquandiu permanserunt⁷` (p.80 R-col, raw 6157). The COMMENTARIUS Pars II begins raw 6158, p.80 R-col, continuous — no cascade-merge splice. As forecast, **no p.80 footer carries into this chunk**: all 7 p.80 footers are the dubia's, verified on the crop (p080-L-2 / R-2). The COMMENTARIUS/divisio carries no footer on p.80's band.

**Forward hand-off to d3-p2-a1-q1.** `ARTICULUS I.` (raw 6203, p.81 L-col) + `De Christi decimatione.` (6205) + `QUAESTIO I.` (6207) + `Utrum aliquis possit decimari in parentibus.` (6208) + the body opener `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum aliquis decimari habeat in parentibus. Et quod sic, probatur: 1. Per illud Apostoli ad Hebraeos septimo¹: «In lumbis Abrahae illud decimabatur quod curabatur»…` (raw 6210) all begin **d3-p2-a1-q1** — NOT included here (per the Vol II chunking convention, the short ARTICULUS opener + its sub-divisio fold into that article's q1). The seam is continuous. **p.81 footers 1–8 carry forward** as a1-q1's apparatus (per-page restart, starting `[^1]` = `Vers. 9`). ART. I has q1 (*decimari in parentibus*) + q2 (*Christus in Abraham decimatus*); check the PDF after q1's replies for an ART. I `SCHOLION` block.

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