title: Dist. 14, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Distinctio XIV)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Distinction XIV)

source_text:
<!-- page 325 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *in nullo Creatori creatura aequatur.* Videtur enim falsum in duratione *ex parte post*; sicut enim Deus durat in infinitum, ita et creatura; infinitum autem infinito non est maius[^p325-6]. — Item, infertur instantia in numero personarum, quoniam ternarius aequatur ternario, et in multis creaturis contingit ternarium invenire: videtur ergo, quod in aliquo contingat, creaturam Creatori aequari.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod pensatis conditionibus, in nullo potest creatura Creatori coaequari perfecte, nec est in aliquo ferre instantiam. — Et quod obiicitur de perpetuitate creaturae, non valet, quia perpetuitas creaturae pendet ex perpetuitate Creatoris, et perpetuitas etiam creaturae non est tota simul, sicut perpetuitas Creatoris; et hoc dicit Anselmus[^p325-7], tractans illud verbum, quod habetur in Cantico Exodi: *Dominus regnavit in aeternum et ultra.* — Similiter quod obiicit de numero personarum, non valet, quia in divinis personis est vera distinctio cum perfectissima unitate; et huic nihil in creatura potest reperiri perfecte simile vel aequale, licet aliquid reperiatur ibi de similitudine[^p325-8].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Nemo novit quae sunt Dei, nisi solus Spiritus Dei* etc. Hoc enim videtur esse falsum, quia Filius scrutatur omnia quae sunt Patris: non ergo solus Spiritus. — Item, perscrutatio est actus pertinens ad cognitivam: ergo si sapientia appropriatur Filio, potius deberet dici solus Filius perscrutator quam Spiritus sanctus.

<!-- page 326 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod verbum illud intelligitur *causaliter*. Dicitur enim solus Spiritus *scrutari profunda Dei*[^p326-1], quia facit, nos ipsa scrutari; et quia Pater et Filius operantur in nobis per Spiritum sanctum, quem ad nos mittere dicuntur; hinc est, quod quamvis dicatur de solo Spiritu sancto, intelligitur tamen de Patre et Filio; et ideo cum dicitur solus Spiritus sanctus, non excluditur Filius[^p326-2].

Ad illud quod quaeritur: quare magis appropriatur Spiritui sancto? dicendum, quod hoc est propter dona gratiarum, quae Spiritui sancto attribuuntur, in quorum collatione Spiritus sanctus dicitur ad nos mitti[^p326-3].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Non ita clare ac perspicue omnia capit, ut Deus.* Hoc enim videtur esse falsum, quia anima Christi est speculum clarissimum et mundissimum[^p326-4]: ergo omne illud, quod in ea resultat, adeo clare videt, ut Deus. — Item, si non ita limpide videt, hoc non provenit nisi propter permixtionem obscurationis; sed obscurationis causa est peccatum: ergo videtur, quod anima Christi habuerit obscurationem peccati; quodsi hoc est falsum, ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod respectu summae lucis omnis creatura tenebra est, sicut dicit Augustinus[^p326-5], eo ipso quod ex nihilo est. Unde sicut non potest pervenire ad summam *stabilitatem*, ita non potest venire ad summam *luminositatem.*

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod est speculum clarissimum; dicendum, quod non dicitur speculum clarissimum simpliciter, sed respectu aliarum creaturarum, inter quas retinet principatum[^p326-6].

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod causa minoris claritatis est obscuratio, quae quidem est per peccatum; dicendum, quod minor claritas dupliciter potest dici in creatura: vel respectu Dei, vel respectu illius claritatis, quam creatura nata est habere. Si respectu illius, quam nata est habere; sic talis obscuratio est ex peccato, et haec quidem non fuit in Christo. Si respectu Dei; sic talis obscuratio venit ex defectu creaturae, eo quod creatura nunquam potest Creatori coaequari. — Praeterea, ratio illa non valet: *non videt ita limpide, ergo habet aliquam obscuritatem*[^p326-7]; quia luminare unum dicitur esse minus altero propter minorem accessum ad summum sui generis, quia oppositum eius non est aliqua *natura*, sed *privatio.* Cum autem dicitur, quod maius et minus est per impermixtionem contrarii, hoc intelligitur in oppositis, quorum utrumque per se est aliqua natura[^p326-8].

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Non est datum ei posse facere omnia.* Hoc enim videtur esse falsum. Quia dicitur Matthaei ultimo[^p326-9]: *Data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra.* — Item, Marci nono: *Si potes credere, omnia possibilia sunt credenti:* ergo si possibilia sunt credenti, multo magis possibilia sunt animae Christi comprehendenti.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est potentia *impetrandi*, et est potentia *praesidendi*, et potentia *faciendi.* Cum ergo dicit Magister, quod « non est datum ei » etc.; intelligitur de potentia *faciendi.* Cum autem dicitur Matthaei ultimo: *Data est mihi* etc.; intelligitur de potentia *praesidendi*; omnibus enim, quae sub Deo sunt, praeest etiam Christus secundum humanam naturam, quae est super Angelos exaltata. Cum autem dicitur Marci nono: *Omnia possibilia sunt credenti*; intelligitur de potentia *impetrandi*; fides enim firma impetrare potest omnia miracula, iuxta illud quod dicitur primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio[^p326-10]: *Si habuero fidem* etc. — Et per hoc patet, quod in praedictis nulla est contrarietas.

---

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

### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which he says, that *in nothing is a creature equal to the Creator.* For this seems false as regards duration *on the side of what comes after*; for just as God endures unto infinity, so also does a creature; but the infinite is not greater than the infinite[^p325-6]. — Likewise, an instance is brought forward in the number of the persons, since a ternary is equal to a ternary, and in many creatures it happens that a ternary is found: it seems therefore that in something it happens that a creature is equal to the Creator.

**I respond:** It must be said that, when the conditions are weighed, in nothing can a creature be made perfectly co-equal to the Creator, nor is there in anything any ground for bringing forward an instance. — And as for the objection from the perpetuity of a creature, it does not hold, because the perpetuity of a creature depends on the perpetuity of the Creator, and also the perpetuity of a creature is not all-at-once, as is the perpetuity of the Creator; and this Anselm says[^p325-7], when treating that word which is had in the Canticle of Exodus: *The Lord shall reign unto eternity and beyond.* — Likewise, what is objected concerning the number of the persons does not hold, because in the divine persons there is a true distinction together with a most perfect unity; and to this nothing in a creature can be found perfectly similar or equal, although something of likeness may be found there[^p325-8].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *No one knows the things that are of God, except only the Spirit of God,* etc. For this seems to be false, because the Son searches all things that are of the Father: therefore not only the Spirit. — Likewise, searching is an act pertaining to the cognitive faculty: therefore, if wisdom is appropriated to the Son, the Son rather ought to be called the only searcher than the Holy Spirit.

**I respond:** It must be said that that word is understood *causally.* For only the Spirit is said *to search the deep things of God*[^p326-1], because he makes us search them; and because the Father and the Son work in us through the Holy Spirit, whom they are said to send to us; hence it is that, although it is said of the Holy Spirit alone, it is nevertheless understood of the Father and the Son; and so when only the Holy Spirit is said, the Son is not excluded[^p326-2].

To that which is asked—why is it rather appropriated to the Holy Spirit?—it must be said that this is on account of the gifts of graces, which are attributed to the Holy Spirit, in the conferring of which the Holy Spirit is said to be sent to us[^p326-3].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *He does not grasp all things so clearly and distinctly as God does.* For this seems to be false, because the soul of Christ is a most clear and most pure mirror[^p326-4]: therefore everything that is reflected in it, it sees as clearly as God does. — Likewise, if it does not see so limpidly, this does not come about except on account of an admixture of obscuration; but the cause of obscuration is sin: therefore it seems that the soul of Christ had the obscuration of sin; but if this is false, then etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that, in respect of the supreme light, every creature is darkness, as Augustine says[^p326-5], by the very fact that it is from nothing. Hence, just as it cannot attain to supreme *stability*, so it cannot come to supreme *luminosity.*

To that, then, which is objected, that it is a most clear mirror; it must be said that it is not called a most clear mirror simply, but in respect of the other creatures, among which it retains the primacy[^p326-6].

To that which is objected, that the cause of lesser clarity is obscuration, which indeed is through sin; it must be said that lesser clarity can be spoken of in a creature in two ways: either in respect of God, or in respect of that clarity which the creature is born to have. If in respect of that which it is born to have, then such obscuration is from sin, and this indeed was not in Christ. If in respect of God, then such obscuration comes from the defect of the creature, by the fact that a creature can never be made co-equal to the Creator. — Moreover, that reasoning does not hold: *it does not see so limpidly, therefore it has some obscurity*[^p326-7]; because one luminary is said to be less than another on account of its lesser approach to the highest of its kind, since its opposite is not any *nature*, but a *privation.* But when it is said that the greater and the lesser are by the un-mixing of a contrary, this is understood of opposites, each of which is of itself some nature[^p326-8].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *It was not given to him to be able to do all things.* For this seems to be false. Because it is said in the last [chapter] of Matthew[^p326-9]: *All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.* — Likewise, in the ninth [chapter] of Mark: *If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth:* therefore, if they are possible to him that believeth, much more are they possible to the soul of Christ comprehending.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a power of *obtaining* [by prayer], and there is a power of *presiding*, and a power of *doing.* When therefore the Master says that « it was not given to him » etc.; it is understood of the power of *doing.* But when it is said in the last [chapter] of Matthew: *All power is given to me,* etc.; it is understood of the power of *presiding*; for over all things that are under God, Christ also presides according to the human nature, which is exalted above the Angels. But when it is said in the ninth [chapter] of Mark: *All things are possible to him that believeth*; it is understood of the power of *obtaining*; for firm faith can obtain all miracles, according to that which is said in the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, the thirteenth [chapter][^p326-10]: *If I should have faith,* etc. — And by this it is clear that in the foregoing there is no contrariety.

---

la: Cfr. supra pag. 279, nota 8. — Subinde pro *infertur* codd. A G I K L Z aa *fertur.*

en: Cf. above, p. 279, note 8. — Thereafter, in place of *infertur* ("is brought forward"), codices A G I K L Z aa read *fertur.*

la: Proslog. c. 20. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 61, nota 8. — Loc. s. Script. est Exod. 15, 18. — Pro *et hoc* ante *dicit Anselmus* complures codd. *et tantum*, edd. *ut.*

en: *Proslogion* c. 20. Cf. vol. II, p. 61, note 8. — The place of holy Scripture is Exod. 15:18. — In place of *et hoc* before *dicit Anselmus*, several codices read *et tantum*, the editions *ut.*

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 4, nec non S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. I *Sent.* d. 3, p. I, q. 4, and likewise St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 2, 10. — August., *Enarrat. in Ps. 52.* n. 5, illud Apostoli verbum commentans ait: *Hinc enim dictum est et illud: Spiritus enim omnia scrutatur, etiam altitudinem Dei* (I. Cor. 2, 10.); *non quia ille scrutatur, qui novit omnia, sed quia tibi donatus est Spiritus, qui et te scrutari facit; et quod dono ipsius tu facis ille facere dicitur, quia sine illo tu non faceres; ergo Deus facere dicitur, cum tu facis.*

en: Epistle, I Cor. 2:10. — Augustine, *Enarration on Psalm 52*, n. 5, commenting on that word of the Apostle, says: *For from this also was that said: For the Spirit searches all things, even the depth of God* (I Cor. 2:10); *not because he who knows all things searches, but because the Spirit is given to you, who also makes you search; and what you do by his gift, he is said to do, because without him you would not do it; therefore God is said to do, when you do.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 4. dub. I.

en: Cf. above, d. 4, doubt I.

la: Vide infra d. XXXIV. seq., ubi et in lit. Magistri et in Comment. de donis Spiritus S. agitur. Vide etiam I. Sent. d. 15. p. II. q. I. seqq. — De hoc dubio cfr. P. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: See below, d. XXXIV and the following, where both in the text of the Master and in the Commentary the gifts of the Holy Spirit are treated. See also I *Sent.* d. 15, p. II, q. I and following. — On this doubt cf. P. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Sap. 7, 26: *Candor est enim lucis aeternae et speculum sine macula Dei maiestatis* etc.

en: Wisd. 7:26: *For she is the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty,* etc.

la: Libr. XII. *Confess.* c. 3. n. 3. seqq.; IV. *de Genes. ad lit.* c. 23. n. 40; *contra Secundin. Manich.* c. 26; I. *Contra Adversar. Legis et Prophet.* c. 7. n. 10. seqq. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 141, nota 5.

en: *Confessions* bk. XII, c. 3, n. 3 ff.; *On Genesis according to the Letter* IV, c. 23, n. 40; *Against Secundinus the Manichean* c. 26; *Against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets* I, c. 7, n. 10 ff. Cf. vol. II, p. 141, note 5.

la: Cfr. supra d. 13. a. I. q. 2. — Paulo inferius pro *potest dici* edd. *dicitur.*

en: Cf. above, d. 13, a. I, q. 2. — A little below, in place of *potest dici*, the editions read *dicitur.*

la: Codd. F U *obscurationem.*

en: Codices F U read *obscurationem.*

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 17. p. II. q. 2. seq. et II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 2, ubi de augmento et diminutione caritatis agitur, quae lumini assimilatur. De hoc dubio vide B. Albert., hic a. 4.

en: Cf. I *Sent.* d. 17, p. II, q. 2 and following, and II *Sent.* d. 27, a. 2, q. 2, where the increase and diminution of charity is treated, which is likened to light. On this doubt see Blessed Albert, here, a. 4.

la: Vers. 18. — Seq. s. Script. loc. est Marc. 9, 22. Codd. hic et infra in solut. erronee citant *Matth. 6.*

en: Verse 18. — The next place of holy Scripture is Mark 9:22. The codices here and below in the solution erroneously cite *Matt. 6.*

la: Vers. 2. — Paulo ante pro *firma* edd. cum aliquot codd. *summa.*

en: Verse 2. — A little before, in place of *firma*, the editions together with some codices read *summa.* ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p325-{L,R}-{0..2}.png` and `vol3-p326-{L,R}-{0..2}.png` (offset `pdf = printed + 22`; printed pp.325–326 = PDF 347–348). Raw OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 22825–22916) used as the base only for clean prose and marker spacing — the OCR cascade-fragmented the two columns of pp.325–326 and inter-leaved the footer blocks, so the PDF read is authoritative throughout. `type: dubia`, `has_scholion: false` (dubia blocks carry no scholion).

**Running heads (confirmed eyes-on via low-dpi render, NOT OCR digits):** p.325 `DIST. XIV. DUBIA. 325`; p.326 `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III. 326`. The `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` header opens in the L-col foot of p.325 (immediately after q3's tail `…sicut intellectus eius factus est omnisciens.`); the four doubts span pp.325–326.

**Number of dubia: FOUR** (DUB. I–IV).
- DUB. I — *in nullo Creatori creatura aequatur* (whether a creature is in something equal to the Creator: objections from duration *ex parte post* and from the ternary of the persons; resolved negatively).
- DUB. II — *Nemo novit quae sunt Dei, nisi solus Spiritus Dei* (why "searching the deep things of God" is said of the Spirit alone — answered *causaliter*, the Son not excluded).
- DUB. III — *non ita clare ac perspicue omnia capit, ut Deus* (Christ's soul as a clarissimum mirror, yet not equalling God's clarity; the obscuration question, distinguishing *natura* vs *privatio*).
- DUB. IV — *non est datum ei posse facere omnia* (the *triplex potentia*: impetrandi / praesidendi / faciendi; reconciles Matt. 28:18 and Mark 9:22).

**Page-split map (per-page footer restart):**
- p.325 (DUBIA section): footers **6, 7, 8** → `[^p325-6]`, `[^p325-7]`, `[^p325-8]` (all DUB. I). Footers 1–5 of p.325 belong to q3 (a3-q3) and were consumed there (footer 5 = `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`); not re-claimed.
- p.326: footers **1–10** → `[^p326-1]`–`[^p326-10]` (single sequence across both columns: L-col holds 1–4 = DUB. II/III; R-col holds 5–10 = DUB. III/IV).
- Total apparatus: **13 entries.** Marker pairing verified 13/13 in both Latin and English bodies.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* p.325 footers **6–8** from a3-q3 (per the a3-q3 hand-off — they are DUB. I's first body-footers: Anselm *Proslog.* c. 20 / Exod. 15:18, the *infinito non est maius* and *similitudine* references). a3-q3 consumed p.325 footers 1–5; not re-claimed.
- *Forwarded:* **none.** DISTINCTIO XIV is COMPLETE on this dubia's promotion. DISTINCTIO XV (`Cap. I.`) begins at raw line **22917**; the seam is grammatically clean (DUB. IV ends `…in praedictis nulla est contrarietas.`, followed by the p.326 footer block, then `DISTINCTIO XV.`). No footer leaks across the boundary — p.326 footers 1–10 all belong to the dubia.

**[?] flags:** none. The region was fully legible at 450 dpi; the entire Latin body and all 13 footers were re-set column-by-column from the PDF. The OCR running-head digit-mangle (`DIST. XIV. DUBIA. 323` mid-body actually meaning 325) flagged in the a3-q3 hand-off was confirmed and does not affect this chunk's page assignment.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 15

title_alt: Distinctio XV — textus Magistri Sententiarum

title_alt: Distinction XV — text of the Master of the Sentences

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 327 -->

### DISTINCTIO XV.

### Cap. I. *De hominis defectibus, quos assumsit Christus.*

Illud quoque praetermittendum non est, quod Dei Filius naturam hominis accepit passibilem, animam passibilem, carnem passibilem et mortalem. Ut enim probaretur verum *corpus* habere, suscepit defectus corporis, famem, sitim et huiusmodi; et ut veram *animam* probaretur habere, suscepit defectus animae, scilicet tristitiam, timorem, dolorem et huiusmodi. Omnis autem sensus animae est. Non enim caro sentit, sed anima utens corpore veluti instrumento. Unde Augustinus, super Genesim in libro duodecimo[^p327-1]: «Non corpus sentit, sed anima per corpus, quo velut nuntio utitur ad confirmandum in se ipsa quod extrinsecus nuntiatur». Sicut ergo anima quod foris est per corpus tanquam instrumentum videt vel audit; ita etiam per corpus quaedam sentit mala, quae sine corpore non sentiret, ut famem et sitim et huiusmodi; unde non immerito defectus corporis dicuntur. Quaedam autem non per corpus, immo etiam sine corpore sentit, ut est timor et huiusmodi. Sentit igitur anima dolores, sed quosdam per instrumentum corporis, quosdam vero non. Suscepit autem Christus sicut veram naturam hominis, ita et veros defectus hominis, sed non omnes. Assumsit enim defectus *poenae*, sed non *culpae*, nec tamen omnes defectus poenae, sed eos omnes, quos homini eum assumere expediebat et suae dignitati non derogabat. Sicut enim propter hominem homo factus est, ita propter eum hominis defectus suscepit. Suscepit enim de nostro, ut de suo nobis tribueret et[^p327-2] ut nostrum tolleret. Suscepit enim nostram vetustatem, ut suam nobis infunderet novitatem. «*Simplam* accepit ille vetustatem, id est poenae, ut nostram *duplam* consumeret», id est poenae et culpae.

Tradit auctoritas[^p327-3], quod Dominus noster in se suscepit omnia infirmitatis nostrae praeter peccatum; quod nisi accipiatur de illis tantum, quae eum sumere pro nobis oportuit nec dedecuit, falsum esse probabitur. Non enim assumsit ignorantiam aliquam, cum sit ignorantia quaedam, quae defectus est nec peccatum est, scilicet ignorantia invincibilis[^p327-4]. Nam vincibilis peccatum est, si tamen de his est, quae nobis expedit scire. Sunt enim quaedam, quorum scientia non affert, vel ignorantia non impedit salutem; et forte talium rerum ignorantia defectus non est. Constat autem, in nobis esse ignorantiam atque difficultatem volendi vel faciendi bonum, quae ad miseriam nostram pertinent. Unde Augustinus in libro tertio de Libero Arbitrio[^p327-5]: «Approbare, inquit, falsa pro veris, ut erret invitus, et resistente atque torquente dolore carnalis vinculi, non posse a libidinosis operibus temperare non est natura instituti hominis, sed poena damnati». «Ex qua miseria peccantibus iustissime inflicta liberat Dei gratia, quia sponte homo libero arbitrio cadere potuit, non etiam surgere. Ad quam miseriam pertinet ignorantia et difficultas, quam patitur omnis homo ab exordio nativitatis suae, nec ab isto malo quisquam nisi gratia Dei liberatur». — Ecce evidenter dicit hic Augustinus, ignorantiam, qua quis invitus falsa pro veris approbat, et difficultatem, qua non potest se temperare a malo, ad miseriam nostram pertinere et poenam esse hominis. Haec autem Christus non habuit. Non igitur accepit omnes defectus nostrae infirmitatis praeter peccatum.

Sed forte aliquis dicet, illa esse peccatum. — Cui obviat quod Augustinus tradere videtur, haec scilicet Deum inculpabiliter ante peccatum in exordio conditionis homini potuisse indere, ut essent ei naturalia, ita in libro Retractationum[^p327-6] inquiens: «Ignorantia et difficultas etiam si essent hominis primordia naturalia, nec sic culpandus Deus, sed laudandus esset». Sed si haec homo in primordio naturaliter habuisset, nunquid essent in eo defectus et poenae? Si defectus vel poena ei indita fuisset ante peccatum, iniuste cum eo agi videretur, si ante culpam sentiret poenam. — Ob hoc sane dicimus, illa non fuisse defectus vel poenas, si naturaliter homini infuissent, sicut non fuit homini ante peccatum nondum gratiam adepto defectus sive poena *non posse proficere*. Sed postquam gratiam recepit, per quam proficere potuit et ad tempus etiam[^p327-7] profecit, eamque culpa sua post amisit, simulque proficiendi facultatem perdidit; defectus fuit ei et poena *non posse proficere*, scilicet malum declinare et bonum facere. Omnes igitur defectus nostros suscepit Christus praeter peccatum, quos *ei conveniebat* suscipere et *nobis expediebat*. Sunt enim plura aegritudinum genera et corporis vitia, a quibus omnino immunis exstitit. Quos enim defectus habuit, vel ad ostensionem verae humanitatis, ut timorem et tristitiam, vel ad impletionem operis, ad quod venerat, ut passibilitatem et mortalitatem, vel ab immortalitatis desperatione spem nostram erigendam, ut mortem, suscepit. — Hos autem defectus non conditionis suae necessitate, sed miserationis voluntate suscepit. Veros quidem habuit defectus, sicut et nos,

<!-- page 328 -->

sed non ex eadem causa. Nos enim ex peccato originali hos defectus trahimus, sicut Apostolus[^p328-1] insinuat dicens: *Corpus quidem propter peccatum mortuum est*, id est, necessitatem moriendi habet in se. Christus autem non ex peccato huiusmodi habuit defectus, quia sine peccato est conceptus et natus *et in terris conversatus*. Sed ex sola miserationis voluntate de nostro in se transtulit veram infirmitatem, sicut accepit veram carnem, quam sine omni infirmitate assumere potuit, sicut absque culpa eandem suscepit.

Sed quia nonnulli[^p328-2] de sensu in passione humanitatis Christi male sensisse inveniuntur, asserentes, similitudinem atque imaginem passionis et doloris Christum hominem pertulisse, sed nullum omnino dolorem vel passionem sensisse, auctoritatum testimoniis eos convincentes, indubitabile faciamus quod supra diximus. Propheta Isaias[^p328-3] dicit: *Vere languores nostros ipse tulit et dolores nostros ipse portavit*. Et Veritas ipsa in Evangelio ait: *Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem*; ubi etiam legitur: *Coepit Iesus pavere et taedere*. Propheta etiam ex persona Christi ait: *Repleta est malis anima mea*; quod exponens Augustinus[^p328-4] ait: «Non vitiis et peccatis, sed humanis malis, id est doloribus, repleta fuit anima Christi, quibus ipsa compatitur carni. Non enim dolor corporis potest esse sine anima; dolere autem anima, etiam non dolente corpore, potest. Hos autem humanae infirmitatis affectus, sicut ipsam carnem ac mortem, non conditionis necessitate, sed miserationis voluntate suscepit». Ambrosius etiam in libro de Trinitate[^p328-5] ait: «Scriptum est: *Pater, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste*. Timet ergo Christus, et dum Petrus non timet, Christus timet. Petrus dixit: *Animam meam pono pro te*; Christus dicit: *Anima mea turbatur*. Utrumque verum est et rationis plenum, quod et ille qui est inferior, non timet; et ille qui superior est, gerit timentis affectum». Idem in eodem[^p328-6]: «Ut homo turbatur, ut homo flet, ut homo crucifigitur»; «per naturam hominis et taediavit et resurrexit Christus». «Non turbatur eius virtus, non turbatur eius divinitas, sed turbatur anima, secundum humanae fragilitatis assumtionem turbatur. Nam qui suscepit animam suscepit etiam animae passionem. Non enim eo, quod Deus erat, aut turbari, aut mori posset». Idem in eodem: «Suscepit tristitiam meam, confidenter tristitiam nomino, qui crucem praedico. Ut homo habui tristitiam, quam meo suscepit affectu; mihi compatitur, mihi tristis est, mihi dolet. Ergo pro me et in me doluit, qui pro se nihil habuit, quod doleret». «Doles igitur, Domine Iesu, mea vulnera, non tua, quia tu non pro te, sed pro me doles». Hieronymus quoque in Explanatione fidei[^p328-7] ait: «Nos ita dicimus hominem passibilem a Dei Filio susceptum, ut Deitas impassibilis permaneret. Passus est enim Dei Filius non putative, sed vere omnia quae Scriptura testatur, secundum illud quod pati poterat, scilicet secundum substantiam assumtam. Licet ergo persona Filii susceperit passibilem hominem, ita tamen eius habitatione secundum suam substantiam nil passa est, ut tota Trinitas, quam impassibilem necesse est confiteri». — His aliisque auctoritatibus perspicuum fit, Christum vere passibilem assumsisse hominem atque in eo defectus et affectus nostrae infirmitatis suscepisse, sed voluntate, non necessitatis conditione.

Quaedam tamen reperiuntur in Sanctorum tractatibus, quae praemissis adversari videntur. Nam super illum locum Psalmi: *Clamabo, et non exaudies*, Augustinus[^p328-8] tradere videtur, Christum nec vere timuisse nec vere tristatum esse, sic dicens: «Quomodo hoc dicit qui *peccatum non fecit, nec inventus est dolus in ore eius*? Sed *de nobis*, corpore suo, hoc dicit; corporis enim sui, id est Ecclesiae, gerebat personam, sicut et alibi, cum dixit: *Transeat a me calix iste*, pro nobis loquitur, nisi forte putetur timuisse mori; sed non vere timebat Dominus pati, tertia die resurrecturus, cum arderet Paulus dissolvi et esse cum Christo. Non enim fortior est miles quam imperator. Miles ergo[^p328-9] coronandus gaudet mori, et Dominus coronaturus timet mortem? Sed infirmitatem nostram repraesentans, pro suis infirmis, qui timent mori, haec dixit. Vox illorum erat». Hieronymus[^p328-10] etiam ait: «Erubescant qui putant, Salvatorem timuisse mortem et passionis pavore dixisse: *Transeat a me calix iste*».

### Cap. II. *De propassione et passione timoris, vel tristitiae.*

Ne autem in sacris litteris aliqua adversa diversitas esse putetur, harum auctoritatum verba in hunc modum accipienda dicimus, ut non *veritatem* timoris et tristitiae vel propassionem[^p328-11], sed timoris et tristitiae *necessitatem* et *passionem* a Christo removisse intelligantur. Habuit enim Christus verum timorem et tristitiam in natura hominis, sed non sicut nos, qui sumus membra eius. Nos enim causa peccati nostri his defectibus necessario subiacemus, et in nobis sunt isti defectus secundum propassionem et passionem, sed in Christo non nisi secundum propassionem. Sicut enim

<!-- page 329 -->

in peccatis gradus quidam notantur propassio et passio, ita et in his poenalibus effectibus. Afficitur enim quis interdum timore vel tristitia, ita ut mentis intellectus non inde moveatur a rectitudine vel Dei contemplatione, et tunc propassio est; aliquando vero movetur et turbatur, et tunc passio est. Christus vero non ita fuit turbatus in anima timore vel tristitia, ut a rectitudine vel Dei contemplatione aliquatenus declinaret; secundum quem modum intelligitur, cum dicitur *non timuisse* vel *tristis fuisse*. Unde Hieronymus super Matthaeum[^p329-1], ubi legitur: *Coepit contristari et moestus esse*; «ut veritatem, inquit, probaret assumti hominis, vere contristatus est, sed non *passio* eius dominatur animo, verum *propassio* est. Unde ait: *Coepit contristari*. Aliud est enim *contristari*, aliud *incipere contristari*», quod est, aliter contristatur quis per propassionem, aliter per passionem. Ideoque secundum hanc distinctionem aliquando dicitur Christus non vere timuisse, aliquando vere timuisse, quia verum timorem habuit et tristitiam, sed non secundum passionem neque ex necessitate conditionis. Unde Augustinus[^p329-2], ex his causis volens assumi dictorum intelligentiam, dicit, Christum non vere timuisse vel tristatum esse, et in continenti, veram tristitiam habuisse, his verbis: «*Infirmos* in se praesignans, Dominus ait: *Pater, si fieri potest, transeat a me calix iste*. Non enim vere timebat Dominus pati, tertia die resurrecturus, cum arderet Paulus dissolvi et esse cum Christo. Iste gaudet coronandus, et tristis est Dominus coronaturus»? Ecce hic videtur tristitiam et timorem a Christo removere. Continuo autem subiunxit: «Sed tristitiam sic assumsit, quo modo carnem. Fuit enim tristis, sicut Evangelium dicit. Si enim non tristis fuit, cum Evangelium dicat: *Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem* etc., ergo et quando dicit: *Dormivit Iesus*, non dormivit; vel quando dicit manducasse, non manducavit; et ita nihil sanum relinquetur, ut dicatur etiam, quia[^p329-3] corpus eius non erat verum. Quidquid ergo de illo scriptum est, verum est et factum est. Ergo et tristis fuit, sed voluntate tristitiam suscepit veram, quo modo voluntate carnem veram». — Ecce aperte noscis, eundem sibi in his verbis contradicere, nisi varias dictorum discerneret causas, ex quibus intelligentia verborum assumenda est. Si enim discernatur intelligentiae causa praedictorum verborum, nihil occurrit contradictionis[^p329-4].

---

english:
<!-- page 327 -->

### DISTINCTION XV.

### Chap. I. *On the defects of man which Christ assumed.*

This too must not be passed over, that the Son of God took the nature of man as passible, the soul passible, the flesh passible and mortal. For that he might be proved to have a true *body*, he assumed the defects of the body, hunger, thirst and the like; and that he might be proved to have a true *soul*, he assumed the defects of the soul, namely sadness, fear, grief and the like. Now all sense belongs to the soul. For the flesh does not perceive, but the soul using the body as an instrument. Hence Augustine, on Genesis in the twelfth book[^p327-1]: «It is not the body that perceives, but the soul through the body, which it uses as a messenger to confirm in itself what is announced from without». Therefore just as the soul sees or hears through the body as an instrument that which is outside; so also through the body it perceives certain evils, which it would not perceive without the body, such as hunger and thirst and the like; whence not undeservedly are they called defects of the body. But some it perceives not through the body, indeed even without the body, as is fear and the like. Therefore the soul perceives pains, but some through the instrument of the body, some indeed not. But Christ assumed, just as the true nature of man, so also the true defects of man, but not all. For he assumed the defects of *penalty*, but not of *fault*, nor yet all the defects of penalty, but all those which it was expedient for him to assume for man and which did not derogate from his dignity. For as he was made man for man's sake, so for man's sake he assumed the defects of man. For he assumed of what is ours, that he might bestow on us of what is his and[^p327-2] take away what is ours. For he assumed our oldness, that he might pour into us his newness. «He took the *single* oldness, that is of penalty, that he might consume our *double*», that is of penalty and of fault.

Authority hands down[^p327-3] that our Lord took upon himself all that belongs to our infirmity except sin; which, unless it be understood only of those things which it behooved him and was not unseemly for him to take for us, will be proved false. For he did not assume any ignorance, since there is a certain ignorance which is a defect and is not sin, namely invincible ignorance[^p327-4]. For vincible ignorance is sin, if however it is concerning those things which it is expedient for us to know. For there are certain things, the knowledge of which does not bring, nor the ignorance of which hinders, salvation; and perhaps the ignorance of such things is not a defect. But it is established that in us there is ignorance and difficulty of willing or doing good, which belong to our misery. Hence Augustine in the third book On Free Will[^p327-5]: «To approve, he says, false things for true, so that one errs unwillingly, and, the pain of the carnal bond resisting and tormenting, not to be able to refrain from lustful works, is not the nature of man's institution, but the penalty of one condemned». «From which misery, most justly inflicted on sinners, the grace of God delivers, because man could of his own accord fall by free will, but not also rise. To which misery belong the ignorance and difficulty which every man suffers from the beginning of his birth, nor is anyone delivered from this evil except by the grace of God». — Behold, here Augustine plainly says that the ignorance by which one unwillingly approves false things for true, and the difficulty by which one cannot keep himself from evil, belong to our misery and are a penalty of man. But these Christ did not have. Therefore he did not take all the defects of our infirmity apart from sin.

But perhaps someone will say that those things are sin. — To which is opposed what Augustine seems to hand down, namely that God could blamelessly, before sin, in the beginning of [man's] condition, have implanted these in man, so that they were natural to him, thus saying in the book of Retractations[^p327-6]: «Ignorance and difficulty, even if they were the natural first-beginnings of man, not even thus should God be blamed, but praised». But if man had had these naturally in the first beginning, would there be defects and penalties in him? If a defect or penalty had been implanted in him before sin, it would seem that he was treated unjustly, if before fault he felt penalty. — For this reason indeed we say that those things would not have been defects or penalties, if they had been in man naturally, just as it was not for man before sin, not yet having attained grace, a defect or penalty *not to be able to advance*. But after he received grace, by which he was able to advance and for a time even[^p327-7] advanced, and lost it afterwards by his own fault, and at the same time lost the faculty of advancing; it was a defect and penalty for him *not to be able to advance*, namely to turn from evil and to do good. Therefore Christ assumed all our defects except sin, those which *it was fitting for him* to assume and *was expedient for us*. For there are many kinds of sicknesses and vices of the body, from which he remained wholly immune. For the defects which he had, he assumed either for the showing of true humanity, as fear and sadness, or for the fulfillment of the work for which he had come, as passibility and mortality, or for raising up our hope from the despair of immortality, as death. — But these defects he assumed not by the necessity of his condition, but by the will of mercy. He had indeed true defects, just as we also,

<!-- page 328 -->

but not from the same cause. For we draw these defects from original sin, as the Apostle[^p328-1] suggests, saying: *The body indeed is dead because of sin*, that is, it has in itself the necessity of dying. But Christ did not have such defects from sin, because he was conceived and born without sin *and lived among men*. But from the will of mercy alone he transferred true infirmity from what is ours into himself, just as he took true flesh, which he could have assumed without any infirmity, just as he assumed the same without fault.

But because some[^p328-2] are found to have thought wrongly concerning the sense in the passion of Christ's humanity, asserting that Christ the man underwent a likeness and image of passion and grief, but felt no grief or passion at all, convincing them by the testimonies of the authorities, let us make indubitable what we said above. The prophet Isaiah[^p328-3] says: *Truly he himself bore our weaknesses and himself carried our griefs*. And Truth itself in the Gospel says: *My soul is sorrowful even unto death*; where also it is read: *Jesus began to fear and to be heavy*. The prophet also in the person of Christ says: *My soul is filled with evils*; which, expounding, Augustine[^p328-4] says: «Not with vices and sins, but with human evils, that is griefs, was the soul of Christ filled, by which it suffers with the flesh. For the grief of the body cannot be without the soul; but the soul can grieve, even when the body is not grieving. But these affections of human infirmity, just as the very flesh and death, he assumed not by the necessity of his condition, but by the will of mercy». Ambrose also in the book On the Trinity[^p328-5] says: «It is written: *Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me*. Therefore Christ fears, and while Peter does not fear, Christ fears. Peter said: *I will lay down my soul for thee*; Christ says: *My soul is troubled*. Both are true and full of reason, that he who is the inferior does not fear; and he who is the superior bears the affection of one fearing». The same in the same place[^p328-6]: «As man he is troubled, as man he weeps, as man he is crucified»; «through the nature of man Christ both was wearied and rose again». «His power is not troubled, his divinity is not troubled, but the soul is troubled; according to the assumption of human frailty he is troubled. For he who assumed the soul assumed also the passion of the soul. For not in that he was God could he either be troubled or die». The same in the same place: «He assumed my sadness; confidently do I name sadness, who preach the cross. As man I had sadness, which he assumed with my affection; he suffers with me, he is sad for me, he grieves for me. Therefore for me and in me he grieved, who for himself had nothing for which he should grieve». «You grieve, therefore, Lord Jesus, my wounds, not your own, because you grieve not for yourself, but for me». Jerome too in the Explanation of the Faith[^p328-7] says: «We thus say that a passible man was assumed by the Son of God, in such a way that the Deity remained impassible. For the Son of God suffered, not in appearance, but truly, all that Scripture attests, according to that which was able to suffer, namely according to the assumed substance. Although therefore the person of the Son assumed a passible man, yet by his indwelling, according to his own substance, it suffered nothing, so that the whole Trinity, which must be confessed impassible». — From these and other authorities it becomes clear that Christ truly assumed a passible man and in him took the defects and affections of our infirmity, but by will, not by the condition of necessity.

Yet certain things are found in the treatises of the Saints which seem to be at variance with the foresaid. For upon that place of the Psalm: *I shall cry, and thou wilt not hear*, Augustine[^p328-8] seems to hand down that Christ neither truly feared nor was truly saddened, saying thus: «How does he say this, who *did no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth*? But he says this *of us*, his body; for he bore the person of his body, that is of the Church, just as also elsewhere, when he said: *Let this cup pass from me*, he speaks for us, unless perhaps he be thought to have feared to die; but the Lord did not truly fear to suffer, being about to rise on the third day, when Paul was burning to be dissolved and to be with Christ. For the soldier is not braver than the commander. Does the soldier therefore[^p328-9] who is to be crowned rejoice to die, and the Lord who is to be crowned fear death? But representing our infirmity, for his own weak ones who fear to die, he said these things. It was the voice of them». Jerome[^p328-10] also says: «Let them be ashamed who think that the Savior feared death and out of dread of the passion said: *Let this cup pass from me*».

### Chap. II. *On the pro-passion and passion of fear, or of sadness.*

But that no adverse divergence may be thought to exist in the sacred letters, we say that the words of these authorities are to be taken in this manner, that they be understood to have removed from Christ not the *truth* of fear and sadness or the pro-passion[^p328-11], but the *necessity* and the *passion* of fear and sadness. For Christ had true fear and sadness in the nature of man, but not as we, who are his members. For we, by reason of our sin, are necessarily subject to these defects, and in us these defects are according to pro-passion and passion, but in Christ only according to pro-passion. For just as

<!-- page 329 -->

in sins certain degrees are noted, pro-passion and passion, so also in these penal effects. For one is at times affected by fear or sadness, so that the intellect of the mind is not thereby moved from rectitude or from the contemplation of God, and then it is pro-passion; but sometimes it is moved and troubled, and then it is passion. But Christ was not so troubled in soul by fear or sadness as to decline in any way from rectitude or from the contemplation of God; according to which mode it is understood, when he is said *not to have feared* or *to have been sad*. Hence Jerome on Matthew[^p329-1], where it is read: *He began to be sorrowful and to be heavy*; «that he might prove, he says, the truth of the assumed manhood, he was truly saddened, but *passion* does not dominate his mind, rather it is *pro-passion*. Whence he says: *He began to be sorrowful*. For it is one thing to be sorrowful, another to begin to be sorrowful», which is, one is sorrowful in one way through pro-passion, in another through passion. And therefore according to this distinction Christ is sometimes said not truly to have feared, sometimes truly to have feared, because he had true fear and sadness, but not according to passion nor by the necessity of his condition. Hence Augustine[^p329-2], from these causes wishing the understanding of the sayings to be taken, says that Christ did not truly fear or was not truly saddened, and immediately after, that he had true sadness, in these words: «Praesignifying the *weak* in himself, the Lord says: *Father, if it can be done, let this cup pass from me*. For the Lord did not truly fear to suffer, being about to rise on the third day, when Paul was burning to be dissolved and to be with Christ. This one rejoices being about to be crowned, and is the Lord sad who is about to be crowned»? Behold, here he seems to remove sadness and fear from Christ. But immediately he added: «But he assumed sadness in the same way as the flesh. For he was sad, as the Gospel says. For if he was not sad, since the Gospel says: *My soul is sorrowful even unto death* etc., then also when it says: *Jesus slept*, he did not sleep; or when it says that he ate, he did not eat; and thus nothing sound will be left, so that it may even be said that[^p329-3] his body was not true. Whatever therefore is written of him is true and was done. Therefore he was also sad, but by will he assumed true sadness, in the same way as by will he assumed true flesh». — Behold, you plainly know that he contradicts himself in these words, unless he were to distinguish the various causes of the sayings, from which the understanding of the words must be taken. For if the cause of the understanding of the foresaid words be distinguished, no contradiction occurs[^p329-4].

---

la: Cap. 24. n. 51. — Cfr. Hugo, *Sum. Sent.* tr. I. c. 17, ex quo Magister hic multa excerpsit. — Infra post *corpus tanquam* edd., exceptis 1, 8, addunt *per*.

en: Chapter 24, n. 51. — Compare Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum* tr. I, c. 17, from which the Master here excerpted much. — Below, after *corpus tanquam*, the editions, except 1 and 8, add *per*.

la: Edd., exceptis 1, 8, omittunt *et*, nec non post *tolleret* addunt *defectum*, quam vocem edd. 1, 8, et omnes codices primitus omiserunt (in codd. A C D secunda manus addidit *defectum*). Sed primitiva lectio nobis visa est magis genuina. — De sequentibus cfr. August., IV. *de Trin.* c. 3. n. 5. 6; *Serm. de Symb.* c. 5.

en: The editions, except 1 and 8, omit *et*, and also after *tolleret* add *defectum*, which word editions 1, 8, and all the codices originally omitted (in codices A C D a second hand added *defectum*). But the original reading seemed to us more genuine. — On what follows compare Augustine, *On the Trinity* IV, c. 3, nn. 5, 6; *Sermon on the Creed* c. 5.

la: Hebr. 4, 15: *Non enim habemus pontificem, qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris, tentatum autem per omnia pro similitudine absque peccato*. Hic locus Scripturae in aliis edd. non citatur, sed pro eo diversa testimonia Ss. Patrum, praesertim (ut in Hugone) Leonis *Epist.* 24. (alias 10.) c. 3; et ad marginem habetur: *Qualiter accipiendum sit quod ait Leo Papa*.

en: Hebrews 4:15: *For we do not have a high priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, but tempted in all things in our likeness, without sin*. This place of Scripture is not cited in the other editions, but in its place [are placed] various testimonies of the holy Fathers, especially (as in Hugh) Leo, *Letter* 24 (otherwise 10), c. 3; and in the margin there is: *In what manner what Pope Leo says is to be understood*.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. XXII. c. 5.

en: Compare II Sentences, d. XXII, c. 5.

la: Cap. 18. n. 52; cfr. I. *Retract.* c. 9. n. 5, et *de Natura et gratia* c. 67. n. 81. — Seq. locus est I. *Retract.* c. 9. n. 6, et *de Dono persev.* c. 11. n. 27.

en: Chapter 18, n. 52; compare I *Retractations* c. 9, n. 5, and *On Nature and Grace* c. 67, n. 81. — The following passage is I *Retractations* c. 9, n. 6, and *On the Gift of Perseverance* c. 11, n. 27.

la: Libr. I. c. 9. n. 6, et *de Dono persev.* c. 11. n. 27. — Paulo superius post *videtur* edd. pro *haec* habent *hoc*; deinde pro *indere* edd. 1, 8 *tradere*.

en: Book I, c. 9, n. 6, and *On the Gift of Perseverance* c. 11, n. 27. — A little above, after *videtur*, the editions for *haec* have *hoc*; then for *indere* editions 1, 8 [read] *tradere*.

la: Edd., exceptis 1, 8, omittunt *etiam*.

en: The editions, except 1 and 8, omit *etiam*.

la: Rom. 8, 10, et inferius respicitur Baruch 3, 38. — Superius pro *ex eadem causa* codd. A B C D *eadem causa*; deinde pro *trahimus* edd., exceptis 1, 3, 8, *contrahimus*.

en: Romans 8:10, and below there is a reference to Baruch 3:38. — Above, for *ex eadem causa* codices A B C D [read] *eadem causa*; then for *trahimus* the editions, except 1, 3, 8, [read] *contrahimus*.

la: Cfr. August., *de Haeresib.* n. 21, loquens de Cerdonianis, et n. 46, de Manichaeis, n. 14, de Marcione.

en: Compare Augustine, *On Heresies* n. 21, speaking of the Cerdonians, and n. 46, of the Manichaeans, n. 14, of Marcion.

la: Cap. 53, 4; seq. locus est Matth. 26, 38; tertius Marc. 14, 33; quartus Ps. 87, 4.

en: Chapter 53:4; the following passage is Matthew 26:38; the third Mark 14:33; the fourth Psalm 87:4.

la: *Enarrat.* in cit. Ps. 87, n. 3, ubi ed. 1 habet: *sine animae dolore. Anima autem, etiam... potest dolere*. Deinde pro *infirmitatis affectus* edd. 1, 8 *infirmitatis defectus*.

en: *Enarration* on the cited Psalm 87, n. 3, where edition 1 has: *without grief of the soul. But the soul, even... can grieve*. Then for *affections of infirmity* editions 1, 8 [read] *defects of infirmity*.

la: Sive II. *de Fide*, c. 5. n. 43. 44, ubi respiciuntur Matth. 26, 39; Ioan. 13, 37; 12, 21; Luc. 22, 42.

en: Or rather II *On the Faith*, c. 5, nn. 43, 44, where reference is made to Matthew 26:39; John 13:37; 12:21; Luke 22:42.

la: Ibid. c. 7. n. 56; locus secundus c. 8. n. 59; tertius iterum c. 7. n. 56 (ubi post *assumtionem* Vat. et plures edd. omittunt *turbatur*); quartus c. 7. n. 53; quintus c. 7. n. 54. Eadem habet Ambros. in *Exposit. in Evang. Luc.* (c. 22.) X. n. 56.

en: Ibid. c. 7, n. 56; the second passage c. 8, n. 59; the third again c. 7, n. 56 (where, after *assumtionem*, the Vatican edition and several editions omit *turbatur*); the fourth c. 7, n. 53; the fifth c. 7, n. 54. Ambrose has the same in the *Exposition on the Gospel of Luke* (c. 22), X, n. 56.

la: *Explanat. Symboli ad Damas.* (inter opera S. Hieronymi), ubi Vat. cum paucis edd. post *omnia quae* addit *de illo, et sed* post *testatur*.

en: *Explanation of the Creed to Damasus* (among the works of St. Jerome), where the Vatican edition with a few editions, after *omnia quae*, adds *de illo*, and *sed* after *testatur*.

la: *Enarrat.* 2. in Ps. (21, 3.) n. 4, secundum sensum. Scripturae loci sunt I. Petr. 2, 22; Isai. 53, 9; Matth. 26, 39; Phil. 1, 23.

en: Second *Enarration* on Psalm (21:3), n. 4, according to the sense. The places of Scripture are 1 Peter 2:22; Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 26:39; Philippians 1:23.

la: Ita codd. B C D E et edd. 1, 8; cod. A vero, ed. 6 *etiam*, et ed. 6 bene addunt *non*; Vat. cum reliquis *enim*. In fine Vat. *capitis*.

en: Thus codices B C D E and editions 1, 8; but codex A, edition 6 [read] *etiam*, and edition 6 rightly adds *non*; the Vatican edition with the rest [reads] *enim*. At the end the Vatican edition [has] *capitis*.

la: *Comment. in Matth.* 26, 1.

en: *Commentary on Matthew* 26:1.

la: *De passione et propassione* cfr. Glossa ad Matth. 5, 28, apud Lyranum.

en: *On passion and pro-passion* compare the Gloss on Matthew 5:28, in Lyra.

en: [Jerome, *Commentary on Matthew*,] c. 26, [v.] 37.

la: *Enarrat. in Ps.* 93. n. 19, sed multis a Magistro mutatis, ubi respicitur Phil. 1, 23; Marc. 14, 34.

en: [Augustine,] *Enarration on Psalm* 93, n. 19, but with much altered by the Master, where reference is made to Phil. 1:23; Mark 14:34.

la: Ita codd. et edd., Vat. *quod*. Infra ante *tristis* codd. B C E et edd. 1, 2, 4, 9 cum Vat. omittunt *et*.

en: Thus the codices and editions; the Vatican [edition reads] *quod*. Below, before *tristis*, codices B C E and editions 1, 2, 4, 9 together with the Vatican omit *et*.

la: In codd. et edd., excepta 2, haec distinctio continuatur usque ad c. 3. sequentis dist.: *Hic oritur*.

en: In the codices and editions, except edition 2, this distinction is continued as far as c. 3 of the following distinction: *Hic oritur*.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p32{7,8,9}-{L,R}-{0..2}.png` (offset pdf = printed + 22; PDF pp.349–351), each page read Left column top→bottom then Right column, body then footers. Raw OCR span = `raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines **22917–23082** (`DISTINCTIO XV.` / `Cap. I.` through `…nihil occurrit contradictionis⁴.`). This is the **littera Magistri** (Lombard's text) for Distinction XV — two chapters: Cap. I *De hominis defectibus, quos assumsit Christus* and Cap. II *De propassione et passione timoris, vel tristitiae*. Verified it is the littera, NOT a quaestio: it carries no *Utrum…/videtur* dialectical structure; the Bonaventure COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS that begins at raw 23084 (`COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV`) is the separate divisio chunk.

**Running heads (confirmed eyes-on at low dpi, never OCR'd digits):** p.327 `DISTINCTIO XV. … 327`; p.328 `328 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.329 `DIST. XV. DIVISIO TEXTUS. … 329` (the littera body ends partway down p.329 L-col; the divisio/COMMENTARIUS then opens on the same page).

**Page-split map.** Cap. I opens p.327 and runs through p.328 (`…Salvatorem timuisse mortem… Transeat a me calix iste` at p.328 R, end of Cap. I). Cap. II opens at the foot of p.328 R (`Ne autem in sacris litteris…`) and runs to the foot of p.329 R-col text where the littera ends at `…nihil occurrit contradictionis⁴`.

**Apparatus (19 entries, per-page footnote restart, page-suffixed slugs).**
- p.327 → footers **1–7** (all littera, Cap. I): `[^p327-1..7]`.
- p.328 → footers **1–11** (Cap. I tail + Cap. II opener; the printed page numbers its footers 1→11 in a single sequence across both columns): `[^p328-1..11]`.
- p.329 → **ALL FOUR** main footers 1–4 belong to the littera: `[^p329-1..4]`. **Corrected 2026-07-28** — see the block below.

**⚠ p.329 footers 1–3 RECOVERED 2026-07-28 (they had been mis-forwarded to the divisio).** The original hand-off assigned p.329 footers 1–3 to `bon-sent-III-d15-divisio`, and this Notes block asserted that the *Unde Hieronymus* / *Unde Augustinus* / *quia corpus* positions "are not footnote-marked." **Both claims were wrong**, established eyes-on at 450 dpi (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p329-{L,R}-{0,1}.png`):
- `Unde Hieronymus super Matthaeum ¹` (p.329 L-col) → footer 1 `Cap. 26, 37.` = Jerome, *Comm. in Matth.* on Matt. 26:37 — the very verse the littera then quotes (*Coepit contristari et moestus esse*). `[^p329-1]`.
- `Unde Augustinus ²` (p.329 L-col, carrying the marginal gloss `Augustinus.`) → footer 2 `Enarrat. in Ps. 93. n. 19…`. `[^p329-2]`.
- `ut dicatur etiam, quia ³ corpus eius non erat verum` (p.329 R-col) → footer 3 `Ita codd. et edd., Vat. quod.` — the variant is on that exact word (*quia*/*quod*), and the note's second clause (`Infra ante tristis … omittunt et`) points forward to `Ergo et tristis fuit` seven lines below, confirming the anchor. `[^p329-3]`.

**p.329 carries two independent footnote series** — the main body-footers 1–4 (this littera) and a separate `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` block numbered 1–2 (the divisio). Anything reading the page as one 1–4 sequence will mis-bind them; that is exactly what happened here.

Total markers in body = **22** (p.327 ×7 = `[^p327-1..7]`; p.328 ×11 = `[^p328-1..11]`; p.329 ×4 = `[^p329-1..4]`). Marker pairing is clean: 22 La anchors = 22 En anchors = 22 defs, identical order, every def referenced exactly once in each language.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* **NONE.** The d.14 dubia hand-off confirmed the d.14↔d.15 seam is grammatically clean — all p.326 footers belonged to the d.14 dubia; the littera opens fresh on p.327 with footer 1.
- *Forwarded to `bon-sent-III-d15-divisio`:* the Bonaventure **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV** / **DIVISIO TEXTUS** / **TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM** begins at raw **23084** (printed p.329, immediately after the littera's `contradictionis⁴`). Its apparatus is the **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM** sub-block ONLY (`1 Intellige cum edd. 1, 2 infra dist. 16.` / `2 Codd. U V W Z adiiciunt hic.`), whose two superscripts are printed in the commentary region (`in speciali, ibi ¹` in the DIVISIO TEXTUS; `incidit ²` in the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM). **Superseded 2026-07-28:** the original wording of this hand-off also forwarded p.329 footers 1–3, which was wrong — all four main footers are the littera's, per the correction above.

**[?] flags:** NONE — the region pp.327–329 is fully legible at 450 dpi.

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. 15, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius, divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum in Distinctionem XV

title_alt: Commentary, division of the text, and treatment of the questions on Distinction XV

source_text:
<!-- page 329 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV.

### *De passibilitate et defectibus a Christo assumtis in generali.*

*Illud quoque praetermittendum non est etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de plenitudine gratiae et cognitionis in Christo ex parte humanitatis; in hac vero parte intendit agere de defectu passibilitatis. Dividitur autem pars ista in duas partes. In quarum prima agit de defectibus a Christo assumtis in generali. In secunda vero agit de passione doloris in speciali, ibi[^notae-1]: *Verumtamen magis movent ac difficiliorem afferunt quaestionem* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In quarum prima veritatem explanat. In secunda vero veritatem explanatam multiplici auctoritate confirmat, ibi: *Sed quia nonnulli*. Prima pars habet tres partes. In quarum prima agit de defectibus repertis in Christo quantum ad congruitatem, ostendens, quod congruum fuit, Christum tales defectus in se habere. In secunda vero agit quantum ad generalitatem, inquirens, utrum omnes defectus nostros contingat in Christo reperire, ibi: *Tradit autem auctoritas, quod Dominus noster*. In tertia vero determinat quantum ad causalitatem, ostendens, tales defectus in Christo non fuisse a natura, sed a voluntate, ibi: *Hos autem defectus non conditionis suae* etc.

Similiter secunda pars, in qua confirmat praedeterminata, habet partes tres. In quarum prima adducit auctoritates, quae faciunt ad veritatem. In secunda vero adiungit auctoritates, quae videntur esse contra veritatem, ibi: *Quaedam tamen reperiuntur in Sanctorum auctoritatibus* etc. In tertia vero explanando ostendit, in praedictis non esse contrarietatem, ibi: *Ne autem in sacris litteris aliqua adversa diversitas* etc. Subdivisiones autem partium manifestae sunt in littera.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidit[^notae-2] quaestio circa duo.

Primo enim quaeritur de huiusmodi defectibus assumtis a Christo in generali.

Secundo quaeritur de aliquibus defectibus in speciali.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur de defectibus assumtis a Christo quantum ad condecentiam et congruitatem.

Secundo vero quantum ad generalitatem.

Tertio quaeritur de huiusmodi defectibus quantum ad causalitatem.

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XV.

### *On the passibility and defects assumed by Christ in general.*

*This too must not be passed over etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the fullness of grace and of knowledge in Christ on the side of his humanity; but in this part he intends to treat of the defect of passibility. Now this part is divided into two parts. In the first of these he treats of the defects assumed by Christ in general. In the second he treats of the passion of grief in particular, there[^notae-1]: *Yet certain things move more and bring forward a more difficult question* etc.

The first part has two [subdivisions]. In the first of these he explains the truth. In the second he confirms the explained truth by manifold authority, there: *But because some*. The first part has three parts. In the first of these he treats of the defects found in Christ as regards fittingness, showing that it was fitting that Christ should have such defects in himself. In the second he treats [of them] as regards generality, inquiring whether all our defects are found in Christ, there: *But authority hands down that our Lord*. In the third he determines [the matter] as regards causality, showing that such defects were in Christ not from nature, but from will, there: *But these defects not by the necessity of his condition* etc.

Likewise the second part, in which he confirms what has been predetermined, has three parts. In the first of these he adduces authorities which make for the truth. In the second he adds authorities which seem to be against the truth, there: *Yet certain things are found in the authorities of the Saints* etc. In the third, by explaining, he shows that in the foresaid there is no contrariety, there: *But lest in the sacred letters any adverse diversity* etc. But the subdivisions of the parts are manifest in the text.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

But for the understanding of this part there arises[^notae-2] a question concerning two matters.

For first it is asked concerning such defects assumed by Christ in general.

Secondly it is asked concerning certain defects in particular.

Concerning the first, three [things] are asked.

First it is asked concerning the defects assumed by Christ as regards becomingness and fittingness.

Secondly [it is asked of them] as regards generality.

Thirdly it is asked concerning such defects as regards causality.

la: Intellige cum edd. 1, 2 infra dist. 16.

en: Understand, with editions 1 and 2, below in dist. 16.

la: Codd. U V W Z adiiciunt *hic*.

en: Codices U V W Z add *hic* ("here").

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p329-{L,R}-{0..2}.png` (offset pdf = printed + 22; PDF p. 351), Left column top→bottom then Right column, body then footers. Raw OCR span = `raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines **23084–23121** (`COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV.` through the `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` sub-block, before the `330 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` running head at raw 23122). This is the Bonaventure **COMMENTARIUS + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM** for Distinction XV — confirmed it is the divisio, NOT a1-q1: it carries no *Utrum…/videtur* dialectical structure; the question-listing (TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM) belongs in this divisio chunk per the Vol II/III chunking convention; ARTICULUS I QUAESTIO I (`Utrum congruum fuerit, tales defectus in Christo reperiri`) begins at raw **23125** (printed p. 330, PDF 352) — forwarded.

**Running-head confirmation.** Confirmed eyes-on at 450 dpi: p. 329 running head `DIST. XV. DIVISIO TEXTUS. 329` (the divisio occupies the lower ~two-thirds of p. 329, beneath the littera tail in the L and R columns). The OCR running-head digits are mangled in places; printed page fixed via running-head TEXT, not OCR digits.

**Page-split map.** Entire divisio is on a single printed page, **p. 329** (PDF 351). The page is shared with the d15-littera (the littera body occupies the top of both columns; the COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM occupy the remainder). No page break inside this chunk.

**Apparatus — RESOLVED AND CORRECTED 2026-07-28 (supersedes the 2026-06-04 build and the 2026-07-13 anchor pass).** This chunk's apparatus is the **2-entry *Notae ad Commentarium* sub-block, and nothing else.**

**p.329 prints TWO independent footnote series**, and conflating them was the root error:
- **main body-footers 1–4** — these serve Lombard's *littera*, printed above the COMMENTARIUS heading, and belong to `bon-sent-III-d15-littera` (all four; footers 1–3 were returned to it on 2026-07-28);
- **`NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM`, numbered 1–2** — set as a separate footer block in the p.329 R-col footer register, serving the Commentary / Division / Treatment below.

Both *Notae* superscripts ARE printed, contrary to the 2026-07-13 finding, and were located eyes-on at 450 dpi (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p329-L-{1,2}.png`):
- **`[^notae-1]` = `in speciali, ibi ¹: Verumtamen magis movent…`** (DIVISIO TEXTUS, p.329 L-col). The note — *Intellige cum edd. 1, 2 infra dist. 16* — says that the lemma being cited stands, in edd. 1 and 2, under dist. 16. It anchors the **lemma citation**, not the TRACTATIO's later mention of *in speciali*, where the 2026-07-13 content-match wrongly placed it.
- **`[^notae-2]` = `Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidit ² quaestio circa duo.`** (TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM opener, p.329 L-col). *Codd. U V W Z adiiciunt hic* = codd. U V W Z insert the word *hic* at that point, giving *incidit **hic** quaestio circa duo* — which is why the note names no lemma: the printed superscript already fixes the insertion point. **The 2026-07-28 handoff's premise — that the note had no locator and no placeable position — was false; the locator is the superscript.**

Column order is now correct (note 1 precedes note 2 down the left column); under the old assignment note 1 stood *after* note 2, which is the tell that should have caught this earlier.

**Where the two old errors came from.** `[^p329-1]` and `[^p329-2]` had been bound to the two *Notae* superscript positions — right positions, wrong notes — while `[^p329-3]` was anchored to the COMMENTARIUS lemma *Illud quoque praetermittendum non est etc.* on the reasoning that `Vat. quod` matched `quoque`. That reading is wrong twice over: the lemma line carries **no superscript at all** (verified on `vol3-p329-R-1.png`), and footer 3's variant is the littera's `ut dicatur etiam, quia ³ corpus eius non erat verum` (*quia* / Vat. *quod*), with its second clause pointing forward to `Ergo et tristis fuit` in the same littera column. All three defs have been moved to `bon-sent-III-d15-littera` and their anchors restored there.

Marker pairing: **2 La anchors = 2 En anchors = 2 defs**, identical order, each once. No unanchored defs remain.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up (from `bon-sent-III-d15-littera`):* the **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM** sub-block only (`1 Intellige cum edd. 1, 2 infra dist. 16.` / `2 Codd. U V W Z adiiciunt hic.`). **Corrected 2026-07-28:** the original hand-off also transferred p. 329 footers **1–3**, and this chunk claimed them on the reasoning that they were "commentary-region footers." They are not — all four main footers anchor in the littera above, and they were returned to it. No body-text seam issue: the littera tail (`…nihil occurrit contradictionis⁴.`, raw 23082) and this chunk's opener (`COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV.`, raw 23084) are cleanly separated by the chapter/commentary boundary.
- *Forwarded (to `bon-sent-III-d15-a1-q1`):* **ARTICULUS I** opener (`De defectibus assumtis a Christo in generali.`) + **QUAESTIO I** (`Utrum congruum fuerit, tales defectus in Christo reperiri.`) begin at raw **23125** (printed p. 330, PDF 352). The ARTICULUS I title is short (no further sub-divisio); per the chunking convention it folds into a1-q1, not a standalone chunk. No footer migrates forward from p. 329 (p. 329 is fully accounted for: littera = footer 4; divisio = footers 1–3 + Notae). The a1-q1 apparatus restarts on p. 330.

**[?] flags.** None — the divisio region is fully legible at 450 dpi; all three footer anchors are confirmed (footer 3's `quoque`→`quod` variant pattern fixes its lemma at the COMMENTARIUS opener).


title: Dist. 15, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 330 -->

### Articulus I. *De defectibus assumtis a Christo in generali.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum congruum fuerit, tales defectus in Christo reperiri.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum congruum fuerit, tales defectus in Christo reperiri. Et quod sic, videtur.

*Fundamenta.* 1. Ad Hebraeos secundo[^p330-1]: *Debuit per omnia fratribus assimilari, ut misericors fieret et fidelis pontifex ad Deum:* si ergo decebat, Christum in se habere illa quae faciunt ad fidelitatem et misericordiam, et haec sunt illa, in quibus nobis assimilatur secundum statum miseriae, cuiusmodi sunt defectus et poenalitates: ergo huiusmodi in Christo reperiri debent.

2. Item, ad Hebraeos quarto[^p330-2]: *Non habemus pontificem, qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris, tentatum per omnia pro similitudine absque peccato.* Ex isto verbo arguitur ita: bonus pontifex debet compati his *qui ignorant et errant;* sed Christus assumsit humanam naturam, ut fieret noster pontifex: ergo debuit ea in se assumere, quae faciunt ad compassionem. Huiusmodi autem sunt defectus et poenalitates nostrae naturae: ergo etc.

3. Item, Christus ad hoc assumsit naturam humanam, ut nobis in illa mereretur vitam aeternam, quam primus parens nobis abstulerat; sed meritum praecipuum consistit in tolerantia passionum et defectuum humanorum: si ergo decuit Christum praecipuo merito mereri, decuit per consequens, huiusmodi defectus et passiones in ipso reperiri[^p330-3].

4. Item, ad hoc assumsit Christus humanam naturam, ut eam curaret satisfaciendo, et curando satisfaceret; sed praecipuum, quod facit ad culpae curationem et satisfactionem, est poenalis humiliatio[^p330-4]: ergo videtur, quod decuit huiusmodi reperiri in Christo.

*Ad oppositum.* **Sed contra:** 1. Sicut summae iustitiae repugnat defectus culpae, sic summae potentiae repugnat defectus fragilitatis et impotentiae; sed Deum summe iustum non decuit habere defectum culpae, nec in se nec in natura assumta: ergo pari ratione nec defectum poenalitatis et impotentiae.

2. Item, sicut culpa sine poena subsequente est inordinata, sic poena sine culpa praecedente[^p330-5]; sed non decet Deum facere aliquid inordinatum circa se nec circa naturam sibi unitam: ergo si nullam habuit culpam, nec in se nec in natura sibi unita; videtur, quod nullos debuit defectus assumere neque passibilitates ad culpam consequentes secundum rectum ordinem.

3. Item, Christus assumsit humanam naturam ad curandum eam non solum a culpa, sed etiam a defectibus et passionibus culpam consequentibus; sed contraria contrariis curantur, tam in corporalibus quam in spiritualibus: ergo magis debuit assumere fortitudinem et impassibilitatem ad curandam nostram debilitatem et infirmitatem quam defectus nostros naturales. Et hoc est quod videtur Propheta petere, Isaiae quinquagesimo primo[^p330-6]: *Consurge, consurge; induere fortitudinem brachium Domini.*

4. Item, Christus venit ad pugnandum et devincendum adversarium[^p330-7]; sed defectus huiusmodi plus sunt ordinati ad deficiendum quam ad vincendum, maxime cum pugnatur contra fortem adversarium: ergo videtur, quod potius tales defectus debuit Christus reiicere quam in se assumere.

### Conclusio.

> Congruum fuit, Christum assumere naturam nostram cum defectibus et passibilitatibus.

*Conclusio.* **Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio congruum fuit, Christum assumere naturam nostram cum defectibus et passibilitatibus; et hoc triplici ex causa, *Triplex ratio,* principaliter videlicet propter *pretium* nostrae salutis, propter *exemplum* virtutis et propter *fulcimentum* nostrae fragilitatis.

*Prima.* Propter *pretium* nostrae salutis, quia proposuerat nos redimere *non corruptibilibus auro et argento, sed pretioso sanguine suo*[^p330-8], et animam suam ponere pro animabus nostris. Ad hoc autem non esset idoneus, nisi naturam deficientem et passibilem assumsisset; et propterea defectus nostros et poenalitates debuit in se ipso habere.

<!-- page 331 -->

*Secunda.* — Alia etiam ex causa congruum fuit hoc ipsum, videlicet propter *exemplum* virtutis, specialiter autem humilitatis, patientiae et pietatis, quibus mediantibus pervenitur ad caelum, et in quibus Christus voluit nos imitari ipsum, secundum illud Matthaei undecimo[^p331-1]: *Discite a me, quia mitis sum et humilis corde.* —

*Tertia.* Tertia ratio est propter *fulcimentum* nostrae fragilitatis, ob quam natura rationalis habet in se difficultatem ad *credendum vera,* et irascibilis ad *sperandum ardua,* et concupiscibilis ad *amandum bona.* Et ideo voluit Christus non tantum nobis similari in natura, sed etiam in defectibus et poenalitatibus, ut, manifestando in se *veritatem* humanae naturae, praeberet fulcimentum nostrae rationali ad *credendum;* ostendendo nihilominus immensitatem suae misericordiae per susceptionem nostrae miseriae, praeberet irascibili fulcimentum ad *sperandum;* ostendendo magnitudinem suae benevolentiae, praeberet concupiscibili incitamentum ad *se amandum.* — Et ideo licet incongruum videatur, huiusmodi defectus reperiri in Christo, si per se considerentur; tamen, si ad finem referantur, magna reperitur congruitatis condecentia[^p331-2]. — Et ideo concedendae sunt rationes, quae sunt ad partem istam.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod sicut summam iustitiam dedecet[^p331-3] iniquitatem, sic summam potentiam dedecet infirmitatem; dicendum, quod huiusmodi similitudo tenet, si comparetur infirmitas et culpa ad naturam *divinam;* in natura enim divina, sicut nulla potest esse iniustitia, sic nulla potest esse impotentia. *Notandum.* Si autem comparentur ad naturam *assumtam,* sic non habet veritatem, pro eo quod ipsa infirmitas potest esse materia exercendae virtutis; virtus enim *fortitudinis* exercetur potissime in perpessione terribilium, eorum maxime, quae mortem inducunt[^p331-4]. Culpa vero et iniquitas omnino adversatur iustitiae et vituperabile reddit subiectum, in quo est; infirmitas vero reddit magis laudabile, quando coniuncta est interiori virtuti animi secundum statum meriti. Et ideo non est simile hinc et inde.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod poena sine culpa est inordinata; dicendum, quod est poena *necessitate inflicta,* et est poena *voluntate assumta.* *Poena duplex.* Prima ergo poena inordinata est, nisi culpa praecesserit in eo qui punitur; secunda vero ordinem habet, sive culpa praecesserit in eo qui punitur, sive in eo, pro quo ipse velit puniri; et sic est in proposito. Nam Christus voluit huiusmodi defectus et poenalitates in se habere pro reparanda humana natura[^p331-5].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Christus assumsit humanam naturam, ut eam curaret; dicendum, quod verum est. — Quod *obiicit,* quod contraria contrariis curantur; dicendum, quod illud veritatem habet, si fiat comparatio medicinae ad causam et principium aegritudinis; et sic non habet instantiam in proposito, quia principium corruptionis totius humanae naturae fuit delectatio inordinata in esu ligni vetiti. Et ideo defectus et poenalitates nostrae aegritudini contrariantur et adversantur, pensata eius causa et origine[^p331-6]. *Aliter.* — Aliter potest dici, quod cum dicitur: contraria contrariis curantur, hoc intelligitur quantum ad *prima* curantia, sicut est gratia, quae curat culpam; quantum vero ad *proxima* veritatem non habet, quia dolor est medicina doloris[^p331-7]. Sic et in proposito est intelligendum.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod defectus plus valent ad deficiendum quam ad vincendum; dicendum, quod est *virtus naturalis,* et est *virtus moralis;* et secundum hoc, duplex est pugna, et duplex est *victoria:* una, quae virtutem *naturalem* respicit; altera, quae virtutem *moralem.* *Virtus duplex.* Pugna igitur et victoria contra peccatum spectat ad virtutem moralem. Christus autem, cum venit ad vincendum adversarium, venit ad expugnandum et devincendum peccatum; et ideo competebat ei virtus moralis, ut posset superare. Virtus autem naturalis in nullo conferebat ad hanc victoriam, quin potius eius oppositum; maxime enim vincitur et diabolus et peccatum in humilitate et patientia. *Notandum.* Propter quod dicitur: *Virtus in infirmitate perficitur,* secundae ad Corinthios duodecimo[^p331-8]. — Cum ergo dicitur, quod defectus plus valent ad succumbendum quam ad vincendum; dicendum, quod illud non habet veritatem, nisi intelligatur de pugna et victoria in eodem genere, in quo sunt illi defectus; et ideo non habet locum in proposito, ubi est victoria per fortitudinem iustitiae, non per fortitudinem potentiae. Et de hac fortitudine dicebat Propheta: *Induere fortitudinem brachium Domini.* — *Aliter.* Posset tamen intelligi de fortitudine potentiae. Ad fortitudinem enim iustitiae in praesenti in merito subsequitur fortitudo potentiae in praemio, sicut patet in Christo, quia, etsi *passus est ex infirmitate, surrexit tamen ex virtute*[^p331-9].

<!-- page 332 -->

english:
### Article I. *On the defects assumed by Christ in general.*
### Question I. *Whether it was fitting that such defects be found in Christ.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus and it is asked whether it was fitting that such defects be found in Christ. And that it was so, seems [to be the case].

*Fundamenta.* 1. To the Hebrews, chapter two[^p330-1]: *He had in all things to be made like his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest toward God:* if, therefore, it was becoming that Christ have in himself those things which make for fidelity and mercy, and these are the things in which he is made like us according to the state of misery, of which kind are defects and penalties: therefore such things ought to be found in Christ.

2. Likewise, to the Hebrews, chapter four[^p330-2]: *We have not a high priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, tempted in all things by way of likeness, without sin.* From this word one argues thus: a good high priest ought to have compassion on those *who are ignorant and err;* but Christ assumed human nature, that he might become our high priest: therefore he ought to assume in himself those things which make for compassion. But such are the defects and penalties of our nature: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, Christ assumed human nature for this, that in it he might merit eternal life for us, which the first parent had taken away from us; but the chief merit consists in the bearing of human sufferings and defects: if, therefore, it was becoming that Christ merit by a chief merit, it was becoming consequently that such defects and sufferings be found in him[^p330-3].

4. Likewise, for this Christ assumed human nature, that he might heal it by making satisfaction, and that in healing he might satisfy; but the chief thing that makes for the healing of fault and for satisfaction is penal humiliation[^p330-4]: therefore it seems that it was becoming that such things be found in Christ.

*To the opposite.* **On the contrary:** 1. Just as the defect of fault is repugnant to the highest justice, so the defect of frailty and impotence is repugnant to the highest power; but it was not becoming for God, supremely just, to have the defect of fault, neither in himself nor in the assumed nature: therefore by parity of reasoning neither the defect of penalty and impotence.

2. Likewise, just as fault without a penalty following is disordered, so [is] penalty without a fault preceding[^p330-5]; but it is not becoming for God to do anything disordered concerning himself or concerning the nature united to himself: therefore if he had no fault, neither in himself nor in the nature united to himself; it seems that he ought to assume no defects nor passibilities consequent upon fault, according to right order.

3. Likewise, Christ assumed human nature to heal it not only from fault, but also from the defects and passions consequent upon fault; but contraries are healed by contraries, both in bodily and in spiritual matters: therefore he ought rather to assume fortitude and impassibility to heal our weakness and infirmity than our natural defects. And this is what the Prophet seems to ask, Isaiah fifty-one[^p330-6]: *Arise, arise; put on strength, O arm of the Lord.*

4. Likewise, Christ came to fight and utterly conquer the adversary[^p330-7]; but such defects are more ordered to failing than to conquering, especially when one fights against a strong adversary: therefore it seems that Christ ought rather to cast off such defects than to assume them in himself.

### Conclusio.

> It was fitting that Christ assume our nature with defects and passibilities.

*Conclusion.* **I respond:** It must be said that without doubt it was fitting that Christ assume our nature with defects and passibilities; and this for a threefold cause, *A threefold reason,* principally namely on account of the *price* of our salvation, on account of the *example* of virtue, and on account of the *support* of our frailty.

*First.* On account of the *price* of our salvation, because he had purposed to redeem us *not with corruptible gold and silver, but with his own precious blood*[^p330-8], and to lay down his soul for our souls. But for this he would not be fit, unless he had assumed a deficient and passible nature; and therefore he had to have our defects and penalties in himself.

*Second.* — From another cause too this same thing was fitting, namely on account of the *example* of virtue, and especially of humility, patience, and piety, by means of which one comes to heaven, and in which Christ willed us to imitate himself, according to that [word] of Matthew, chapter eleven[^p331-1]: *Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart.* —

*Third.* The third reason is on account of the *support* of our frailty, by reason of which the rational nature has in itself a difficulty toward *believing true things,* and the irascible toward *hoping for arduous things,* and the concupiscible toward *loving good things.* And therefore Christ willed not only to be made like us in nature, but also in defects and penalties, so that, by manifesting in himself the *truth* of human nature, he might furnish a support to our reason for *believing;* by showing nonetheless the immensity of his mercy through the taking up of our misery, he might furnish to the irascible a support for *hoping;* by showing the greatness of his benevolence, he might furnish to the concupiscible an incitement for *loving himself.* — And therefore although it seems unfitting that such defects be found in Christ, if they be considered in themselves; yet, if they be referred to their end, a great seemliness of fittingness is found[^p331-2]. — And therefore the reasons that are for this side are to be granted.

*Solution of the opposing arguments.* 1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that just as iniquity ill-befits the highest justice[^p331-3], so infirmity ill-befits the highest power; it must be said that such a likeness holds, if infirmity and fault be compared to the *divine* nature; for in the divine nature, just as there can be no injustice, so there can be no impotence. *Note.* But if they be compared to the *assumed* nature, then it does not hold true, for the reason that infirmity itself can be the matter of exercising virtue; for the virtue of *fortitude* is exercised most of all in the enduring of terrible things, and most of all of those which bring on death[^p331-4]. But fault and iniquity are wholly opposed to justice and render blameworthy the subject in which they are; whereas infirmity renders [the subject] more praiseworthy, when it is joined to the interior virtue of the soul according to the state of merit. And therefore the two cases are not alike.

2. To that which is objected, that penalty without fault is disordered; it must be said that there is a penalty *inflicted by necessity,* and there is a penalty *assumed by will.* *Penalty twofold.* The first penalty, then, is disordered, unless fault has preceded in the one who is punished; but the second has order, whether fault has preceded in the one who is punished, or in the one for whom he himself wills to be punished; and so it is in the matter at hand. For Christ willed to have such defects and penalties in himself for the repairing of human nature[^p331-5].

3. To that which is objected, that Christ assumed human nature to heal it; it must be said that this is true. — As to what it *objects,* that contraries are healed by contraries; it must be said that this holds true if the comparison be made of the medicine to the cause and principle of the sickness; and so it has no force against the matter at hand, because the principle of the corruption of the whole of human nature was the disordered delight in eating of the forbidden tree. And therefore the defects and penalties are contrary and opposed to our sickness, its cause and origin being weighed[^p331-6]. *Otherwise.* — Otherwise it can be said that when it is said: contraries are healed by contraries, this is understood as to the *first* healing agents, such as is grace, which heals fault; but as to the *proximate* [agents] it does not hold true, because pain is the medicine of pain[^p331-7]. So too is it to be understood in the matter at hand.

4. To that which is objected, that defects avail more for failing than for conquering; it must be said that there is a *natural* virtue and there is a *moral* virtue; and according to this, the fight is twofold, and the *victory* is twofold: one which regards *natural* virtue, the other which [regards] *moral* virtue. *Virtue twofold.* The fight, therefore, and the victory against sin pertains to moral virtue. But Christ, when he came to conquer the adversary, came to vanquish and utterly conquer sin; and therefore moral virtue was suited to him, that he might be able to overcome. But natural virtue contributed nothing to this victory, but rather its opposite; for both the devil and sin are most of all conquered in humility and patience. *Note.* On account of which it is said: *Virtue is made perfect in infirmity,* second to the Corinthians, chapter twelve[^p331-8]. — When, therefore, it is said that defects avail more for succumbing than for conquering; it must be said that this does not hold true, unless it be understood of the fight and victory in the same genus in which those defects are; and therefore it has no place in the matter at hand, where there is victory through the fortitude of justice, not through the fortitude of power. And of this fortitude the Prophet was speaking: *Put on strength, O arm of the Lord.* — *Otherwise.* It could nonetheless be understood of the fortitude of power. For upon the fortitude of justice in the present life, in merit, there follows the fortitude of power in the reward, as is plain in Christ, because, although *he suffered from infirmity, yet he rose from power*[^p331-9].

la: Vers. 17.

en: Verse 17.

la: Vers. 15. — Verba deinde subnexa tangunt eiusdem Epist. c. 5, 1. 2: *Omnis namque pontifex ex hominibus assumtus... qui condolere possit iis qui ignorant* etc.

en: Verse 15. — The words then appended touch the same Epistle, c. 5, vv. 1–2: *For every high priest taken from among men... who can have compassion on those who are ignorant* etc.

la: Luc. 24, 26: *Nonne haec oportuit pati Christum* etc. — In *maiori* pro *assumsit* edd. 1, 2 cum nonnullis codd. *sumsit.*

en: Luke 24, 26: *Ought not Christ to have suffered these things* etc. — In the major [premise], for *assumsit* editions 1, 2 with some codices [read] *sumsit.*

la: Cfr. infra d. 20. q. 2. seqq. — Pro *praecipuum* Vat. *pretium.*

en: Cf. below d. 20. q. 2 and following. — For *praecipuum* the Vatican [edition reads] *pretium.*

la: Vide II. Sent. 36. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

en: See II. Sent. 36. a. 2. q. 1 and following.

la: Vers. 9. In textu allegato pro *brachium* codd. F G 1 L T U V aa bb substituunt *brachii.* — De hoc arg. cfr. supra pag. 261, nota 2.

en: Verse 9. In the text alleged, for *brachium* codices F G 1 L T U V aa bb substitute *brachii.* — On this argument cf. above p. 261, note 2.

la: Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. XIX. c. 1, et ibid. Comment. a. 1. q. 3.

en: Cf. below the text of the Master, d. XIX. c. 1, and there the Commentary, a. 1. q. 3.

la: Epist. I. Petr. 1, 18. seq. — Ioan. 10, 15: *Animam meam pono pro ovibus meis.*

en: 1 Epistle of Peter 1, 18 and following. — John 10, 15: *I lay down my soul for my sheep.*

la: Vers. 29. Cfr. supra pag. 263, nota 3.

en: Verse 29. Cf. above p. 263, note 3.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Cod. U *congruitas et condecentia.* Pro *magna* cod. S *maxima.*

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1. — Codex U [reads] *congruitas et condecentia.* For *magna* codex S [reads] *maxima.*

la: Codd. K M O annectunt *assumere.* Paulo inferius pro *si comparetur* cod. bb *si comparentur,* et deinde pro *Si autem comparentur* codd. G H Z et edd. 1, 2 *Si autem comparetur.* Proxime post pro *assumtam* cod. U *humanam.*

en: Codices K M O annex *assumere.* A little below, for *si comparetur* codex bb [reads] *si comparentur,* and then for *Si autem comparentur* codices G H Z and editions 1, 2 [read] *Si autem comparetur.* Immediately after, for *assumtam* codex U [reads] *humanam.*

la: Ut exponit Aristot., III. Ethic. c. 6. seq. — Circa finem solut. pro *interiori* edd. *inferiori,* perperam.

en: As Aristotle expounds, III. Ethics c. 6 and following. — Near the end of the solution, for *interiori* the editions [read] *inferiori,* wrongly.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 36. a. 2. q. 2. in corp.

en: See II. Sent. d. 36. a. 2. q. 2 in the body [of the article].

la: Cfr. supra d. 12. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1. — Aliquanto superius pro *medicinae* codd. A H I Z *medicamenti,* nonnulli codd. et edd. 1, 2 *medici.*

en: Cf. above d. 12. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1. — Somewhat higher up, for *medicinae* codices A H I Z [read] *medicamenti,* some codices and editions 1, 2 [read] *medici.*

la: Hieronym., Epist. 117. (alias 47.) n. 2: *Venena serpentino pelluntur antidoto. Quod satis dolet maiori dolore expellitur.* — Paulo superius pro *prima* edd. *praevia.*

en: Jerome, Letter 117 (otherwise 47), n. 2: *Poisons are driven off by a serpentine antidote. What pains enough is expelled by a greater pain.* — A little higher up, for *prima* the editions [read] *praevia.*

la: Vers. 9. — Paulo superius ante *eius oppositum* cod. Z interserit *ad;* subinde pro *maxime* edd. exhibent *magis.*

en: Verse 9. — A little higher up, before *eius oppositum* codex Z inserts *ad;* thereupon for *maxime* the editions exhibit *magis.*

la: Epist. II. Cor. 13, 4: *Nam etsi crucifixus est ex infirmitate, sed vivit ex virtute Dei.* — Post *fortitudo potentiae* cod. S subdit *in futuro.*

en: 2 Epistle to the Cor. 13, 4: *For although he was crucified from infirmity, yet he lives from the power of God.* — After *fortitudo potentiae* codex S adds *in futuro.* ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Circa materiam huius et seq. distinctionis errores inter se oppositi exorti sunt, reprobati ab Ecclesia. Nam impium et immanem errorem, qui *negavit,* Christum secundum *divinitatem* fuisse *impassibilem,* ita ut « Dei Filius passionem crucis secundum Deitatem sustinuerit », Nicolaus I. an. 863 in Synodo Romana (can. 8.) exsecratus est. E contrario a pluribus *animae* et *carni* Christi vera passibilitas abiudicata est (cfr. infra d. 16. a. 1. q. 4. et supra pag. 328, nota 2.). Uterque error configitur iam a S. Damaso in Synodo Romana (an. 378 vel 379) 14. anathematismo: « Si quis dixerit, quod in passione crucis dolorem sustinebat Filius Dei *Deus,* et non *caro cum anima,* qua induerat formam servi, quam sibi acceperat, sicut ait Scriptura, a. s. ». — De conclusionibus trium huius articuli quaestionum non potest inter catholicos esse dubium.

**II.** De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 5. m. 1. 3. — Scot., III. Sent. d. 7. q. 3. n. 3; Report. ibid. q. 4, et hic q. unica passim. — S. Thom., hic a. 1; S. III. q. 14. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. 2. — Durand., de hac et 2. seqq. qq. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2. seqq. qq. hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

**III.** In solutione seq. (2.) quaestionis a B. Alberto (hic a. 5.) docetur primus modus distinguendi defectus, de quo dicit auctor, quod « habeat calumniam ». Hunc tamen modum vult defendere Dionys. Carth. hac ratione, quod « aegritudines illae causantur potius ex complexionis defectu et corruptione, quam ex ipsa complexione; item causantur ex ea magis concomitanter quam directe causaliter ».

De hac 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 2. — Scot., tangit rem in utroque Scripto III. Sent. d. 21. q. unica. — S. Thom., hic a. 2; S. loc. cit. a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. a. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the matter of this and the following distinction, mutually opposed errors arose, reprobated by the Church. For the impious and monstrous error which *denied* that Christ was *impassible* according to his *divinity,* so that « the Son of God endured the passion of the cross according to the Deity », Nicholas I in the year 863, in the Roman Synod (canon 8), execrated. On the contrary, by many the true passibility of the *soul* and *flesh* of Christ was denied (cf. below d. 16. a. 1. q. 4. and above p. 328, note 2). Each error is transfixed already by St. Damasus in the Roman Synod (in the year 378 or 379), in the 14th anathematism: « If anyone shall say that in the passion of the cross the Son of God *as God* sustained pain, and not the *flesh with the soul,* with which he had clothed himself in the form of a servant which he had taken to himself, as Scripture says, let him be anathema ». — Concerning the conclusions of the three questions of this article there can be no doubt among Catholics.

**II.** On the 1st question: Alex. of Hales, *S.* p. III. q. 5. m. 1. 3. — Scotus, III. Sent. d. 7. q. 3. n. 3; *Report.* ibid. q. 4, and here q. unica throughout. — St. Thomas, here a. 1; *S.* III. q. 14. a. 1. — B. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 1. 2. — Durandus, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 1. — Dionysius Carthusianus, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the following questions, here q. unica.

**III.** In the solution of the following (2nd) question, by B. Albert (here a. 5) there is taught the first mode of distinguishing the defects, of which the author says that « it labors under a calumny ». This mode, however, Dionysius Carthusianus wishes to defend by this reasoning, that « those sicknesses are caused rather from a defect and corruption of the complexion than from the complexion itself; likewise they are caused by it more concomitantly than directly and causally ».

On this 2nd question: Alex. of Hales, *loc. cit.* m. 2. — Scotus, touches the matter in both his Writings, III. Sent. d. 21. q. unica. — St. Thomas, here a. 2; *S. loc. cit.* a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, *loc. cit.* a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, *loc. cit.* a. 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p33{0,1,2}-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`), L column top→bottom then R column, body then footers; offset `pdf = printed + 22`. Cross-checked against IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` raw 23125→23410), which the Quaracchi footers' per-page restart confirms. Running heads verified eyes-on: p.330 `330 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.331 `DIST. XV. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 331`; p.332 `332 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`. The short **ARTICULUS I** opener (`De defectibus assumtis a Christo in generali.`) is folded into this a1-q1 chunk per the Vol II/III convention (no standalone `d15-a1-divisio`).

**Page-split map.**
- p.330: ARTICULUS I + QUAESTIO I headers, opener, 4 *Fundamenta*, *Sed contra* args 1–2, CONCLUSIO, Respondeo opening + *prima ratio* (price). Apparatus `[^p330-1..8]` (8 footers).
- p.331: Respondeo *secunda/tertia rationes* (example, support) + *solutio oppositorum* (replies 1–4). Apparatus `[^p331-1..9]` (9 footers).
- p.332: Scholion **I–III** only. **No footers** on p.332 within this chunk (the page-332 footer band is empty above the QUAESTIO II body, which opens partway down p.332 R and belongs to a1-q2). Apparatus count for this chunk: **17** (8 + 9 + 0).

**Scholion.** This chunk carries the article's full scholion (I–III). It **forward-covers q2 and q3**: §I closes "De conclusionibus trium huius articuli quaestionum non potest inter catholicos esse dubium" (the three questions of the whole article); §II is "De 1. quaestione"; §III treats "De hac 2. quaestione." Accordingly **a1-q2 (and a1-q3) carry no scholion of their own** — the source-citation lists for those questions live here.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* **NONE.** Per the d15-divisio resume, no footer migrates forward from p.329 (p.329 fully accounted for: littera footer 4; divisio footers 1–3 + the NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM block). The a1-q1 apparatus restarts cleanly on p.330. Clean boundary seam at raw 23121→23125 (divisio TRACTATIO tail → ARTICULUS I header).
- *Forwarded to d15-a1-q2:* **QUAESTIO II** (`Utrum Christus assumserit omnes defectus nostros praeter peccatum.`) begins at raw **23275** (printed **p.332**, PDF 354), opening partway down p.332 R column immediately after the scholion. **No p.332 footer migrates** (the p.332 footer band is empty above the QUAESTIO II body; q2's first footer is `[^p333-1]` on the next page). The a1-q2 scholion is **already carried here** (§II/§III of this chunk's scholion) — q2 will have `has_scholion: false`.

**[?] flags.** NONE. Region fully legible at 450 dpi across all three pages; footer readings cross-confirmed by the IA djvu OCR.

**Alignment check.** Opener `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum congruum fuerit, tales defectus in Christo reperiri` matches `title_la` — confirmed q1 (not q2/q3). No q-swap.