title: Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 281 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum gratia singularis personae in Christo fuerit plena gratia atque perfecta.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum gratia singularis personae in Christo fuerit gratia plena atque perfecta. Et quod sic, videtur[^p281-1].

1. Isaiae undecimo[^p281-2]: *Replebit eum spiritu timoris Domini* — dicitur de Christo; constat, quod secundum humanam naturam — sed cetera dona gratiae sunt aequalia: ergo pari ratione replevit ipsum spiritu amoris, gratiae, et sic de aliis. Sed dona talia spectant ad gratiam singularis personae: ergo etc.

2. Item, Ioannis primo[^p281-3]: *Vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam quasi Unigeniti a Patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis*; sed Christus secundum divinam naturam non est susceptibilis gratiae, immo eius principium effectivum: ergo hoc dicitur secundum humanam naturam, quod habuerit in se gratiam plenam.

3. Item, capacitas carens plenitudine caret et perfectione, ergo ubi est ponere perfectionem est ponere plenitudinem; sed in Christo, secundum quod est singularis persona, est ponere omnimodam perfectionem virtutis et gratiae[^p281-4]: ergo et gratiae plenitudinem.

4. Item, nullus potest aliis gratiam perfecte communicare et influere sine defectu et diminutione, nisi prius in se perfectam habeat gratiae plenitudinem; sed de Christi plenitudine omnes accepimus[^p281-5], et omnes, si plures essent, possent accipere, nec aliquis defectus intervenit: ergo videtur, quod Christus in se plenitudinem gratiae habuerit.

**Sed contra:** 1. Plenitudo gratiae consistit in omnibus habitibus virtutum; sed Christus non habuit fidem et spem[^p281-6]: ergo Christus non habuit omnis gratiae plenitudinem.

2. Item, status viatoris est ordinatus ad proficiendum; sed Christus fuit in statu viatoris: ergo potuit proficere[^p281-7]. Sed qui potest proficere in gratia nondum est gratia plenus: ergo videtur, quod Christus in hac vita plenitudinem gratiae non habuerit.

<!-- page 282 -->

3. Item, Filius Dei ideo naturam humanam assumsit, ut daret nobis exemplum perveniendi ad patriam; sed via perveniendi ad gloriam est per ascensum de virtute in virtutem[^p282-1]; sed qui de virtute in virtutem ascendit proficit paulative et non habet gratiae plenitudinem: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod Christus videbatur proficere exterius, sicut dicit Gregorius et Magister[^p282-2], et ideo exemplum dabat; *contra:* aut ergo secundum veritatem proficiebat interius, aut non. Si sic: ergo non erat plenus gratia. Si non: ergo aliter ostendebat, quam res se haberet: ergo mendax erat. Sed hoc est inconveniens circa ipsam veritatem mendacium ponere: ergo etc.

4. Item, Christus multa bona opera faciebat, aut ergo veraciter in eo crescebat donum gratiae, aut non. Si non: ergo cum bonitas operum ordinetur ad profectum spiritus, frustra operabatur. Si proficiebat: ergo a plenitudine deficiebat.

5. Item, sicut anima Christi unita fuit Deitati, ita et corpus; et sicut ad perfectionem unionis requiritur perfectio gratiae, ita ad perfectionem naturae perfectio aetatis; sed Christus secundum corpus crescebat veraciter et implebatur quotidie nec habuit a principio plenitudinem naturae, sive aetatis: ergo nec plenitudinem gratiae[^p282-3].

6. Item, de nulla re potest capacitas aliqua impleri, ex cuius adventu capacitas non minuitur, sed augetur; sed gratia adveniens non minuit, sed auget capacitatem animae: ergo videtur, quod numquam posset ipsam implere: ergo nec in Christo nec in alio est reperire gratiae plenitudinem.

### Conclusio.

> Gratia Christi ab instanti suae conceptionis fuit perfecta et consummata secundum plenitudinem superabundantiae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio in Christo secundum humanam naturam ab ipsius conceptionis primordio fuit gratiae perfecta[^p282-4] et consummata plenitudo. Non enim decebat Verbum increatum uniri animae perfectissima unione, qualis est unio in unitatem personae, quin anima esset deiformis, secundum quod erat possibile. Et ideo non tantum deiformitatem habuit gratiae et gloriae, sed etiam super omnem gratiam et gloriam. Nec tantum fuit in eo plenitudo *sufficientiae*, sicut in Sanctis, de qua plenitudine dicitur Actuum sexto[^p282-5]: *Stephanus plenus gratia et fortitudine*; nec tantum plenitudo *praerogativae*, sicut in Virgine Maria, de qua plenitudine dicitur Lucae primo: *Ave Maria, gratia plena* etc.; nec tantum plenitudo *numerositatis et copiae*, sicut est in tota Ecclesia, de qua plenitudine ad Ephesios quarto: *Ascendit super caelos, ut adimpleret omnia* etc.; sed etiam plenitudo *superabundantiae*, de qua Ioannis primo: *Vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam quasi Unigeniti a Patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis*; plenum, inquam, plenitudine superabundantiae, propter quod subdit ad hoc probandum: *Et de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus.* — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes hoc ostendentes, Christum ab instanti conceptionis fuisse gratia plenum et habuisse in se plenitudinem gratiae.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod non habuit fidem et spem; dicendum, quod fides et spes habent secum iunctam imperfectionem, habent et nihilominus aliquid perfectionis; et ratione eius quod habent de imperfectione, plenitudini plus obviant, quam ad plenitudinem faciant — unde evacuantur in gloria[^p282-6] — sed ratione eius quod perfectionis est in eis, si quid est reperiri, habent esse in Christo. Et ideo illarum virtutum absentia plus attestatur plenitudini quam diminutioni.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Christus fuit in statu viatoris; dicendum, quod Christus fuit simul in statu viatoris et comprehensoris, sed in statu comprehensoris secundum partem superiorem, in statu viatoris secundum partem inferiorem et secundum carnem[^p282-7]. Et quoniam gratia secundum suam essentiam et complementum respicit partem superiorem et mentem; hinc est, quod Christus magis habuit gratiam perfectam quam diminutam, quia gratia magis respiciebat statum perfectum.

3. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de exemplo Christi, dicendum, quod Christus dedit nobis exemplum in operibus[^p282-8] exterioribus et in operibus virtutis perfectae; sed illa opera in Christo erant perfectionem indicantia, in nobis vero sunt ad perfectionem perducentia. Et quamvis opera exteriora praetenderent eius profectum, non tamen erat mendax, quia nullam perfectionem indicabant, quae non esset in eo. Si vero per opera non indicabat per-

<!-- page 283 -->

fectionem suam summam, hoc non erat falsitatem praetendere, sed veritatem occultare; quod quidem licet et expedit propter nostram utilitatem.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod multa bona opera faciebat; dicendum, quod propter illa in gratia non crescebat; nec tamen operabatur frustra, quia non propter suum incrementum, sed propter nostrum illa faciebat; unde et nos maximum commodum reportamus.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpus habuit defectum plenitudinis in aetate; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia defectus aetatis in corpore faciebat ad humiliationem et verae naturae ostensionem, et sic ad fidei confirmationem; sed defectus gratiae in anima in nullo nobis prodesset nec Deum deceret; et ideo non est simile[^p283-1]. Praeterea, alia ratio est; quia dispositio ad unionem se tenet ex parte animae, non ex parte carnis, sicut prius[^p283-2] ostensum est; ideo magis perfectam oportuit esse animam quam carnem.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod gratia ampliat capacitatem; dicendum, quod capacitatem ampliari contingit dupliciter: aut ratione possibilitatis maioris in suscipiendo, aut ratione virtutis in cooperando. Eadem enim est potentia, quae gratiam suscipit et gratiae susceptae cooperatur. Si loquamur de ampliatione capacitatis quantum ad *virtutem cooperandi*, sic verum est, quod gratia adveniens auget liberum arbitrium sive voluntatis bonam habilitatem et capacitatem[^p283-3]. Si vero loquamur de *possibilitate in suscipiendo*, sic habet falsitatem, quoniam gratia est sicut actus et complementum, et quanto plus datur alicui de actualitate, tanto plus recedit a possibilitate: unde et nos dicimus, quod quae multum habent de specie, cui competit agere, parum habent de materia, cui competit pati et suscipere[^p283-4]. Et quoniam in Christo ipsa habilitas ad bonum est per gratiam perfectam ad complementum producta; hinc est, quod eius capacitas est impleta; sicut dicimus de forma caeli, quod complet appetitum materiae, quia materia eius non appetit esse sub ulteriori forma, adeo forma ipsam statuit in actualitate completa[^p283-5]. Sic in gratia Christi suo modo intelligendum est; unde hic seducit mala imaginatio, quia non impletur anima dono gratiae, sicut locus vacuus impletur corpore, sed potius sicut possibilitas materiae completur actualitate formae[^p283-6].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether the grace of the singular person in Christ was full and perfect grace.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the grace of the singular person in Christ was full and perfect grace. And that it was so, seems to be the case[^p281-1].

1. Isaiah eleven[^p281-2]: *He shall fill him with the spirit of the fear of the Lord* — this is said of Christ; it is established that it is according to his human nature — but the other gifts of grace are equal: therefore by parity of reasoning he filled him with the spirit of love, of grace, and so of the rest. But such gifts pertain to the grace of the singular person: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, John one[^p281-3]: *We saw his glory, the glory as it were of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth*; but Christ according to his divine nature is not capable of receiving grace, but rather is its effective principle: therefore this is said according to his human nature, that he had in himself full grace.

3. Likewise, a capacity lacking fullness lacks also perfection; therefore where one is to posit perfection one is to posit fullness; but in Christ, insofar as he is a singular person, one is to posit every kind of perfection of virtue and of grace[^p281-4]: therefore also fullness of grace.

4. Likewise, no one can perfectly communicate and pour out grace to others without defect and diminution, unless he first has in himself the perfect fullness of grace; but of Christ's fullness we have all received[^p281-5], and all, if there were more, could receive, nor does any defect intervene: therefore it seems that Christ had in himself the fullness of grace.

**On the contrary:** 1. The fullness of grace consists in all the habits of the virtues; but Christ did not have faith and hope[^p281-6]: therefore Christ did not have the fullness of all grace.

2. Likewise, the state of the wayfarer is ordered to making progress; but Christ was in the state of the wayfarer: therefore he could make progress[^p281-7]. But one who can make progress in grace is not yet full of grace: therefore it seems that Christ in this life did not have the fullness of grace.

3. Likewise, the Son of God assumed human nature for this reason, that he might give us an example of arriving at the fatherland; but the way of arriving at glory is through ascent from virtue to virtue[^p282-1]; but one who ascends from virtue to virtue makes progress little by little and does not have the fullness of grace: therefore etc. If you say that Christ seemed to make progress outwardly, as Gregory and the Master say[^p282-2], and therefore was giving an example; *on the contrary:* then either he was truly making progress inwardly, or not. If so: then he was not full of grace. If not: then he showed otherwise than the matter stood: therefore he was a liar. But it is unfitting to posit lying with regard to Truth itself: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, Christ did many good works, then either the gift of grace was truly growing in him, or not. If not: then since the goodness of works is ordered to the advancement of the spirit, he was working in vain. If he was making progress: then he was falling short of fullness.

5. Likewise, just as the soul of Christ was united to the Godhead, so also the body; and just as for the perfection of the union there is required perfection of grace, so for the perfection of the nature there is required perfection of age; but Christ according to his body grew truly and was filled daily, nor did he have from the beginning the fullness of his nature or of age: therefore neither the fullness of grace[^p282-3].

6. Likewise, no capacity can be filled by anything from whose coming the capacity is not diminished but increased; but grace as it comes does not diminish but increases the capacity of the soul: therefore it seems that it could never fill it: therefore neither in Christ nor in another is the fullness of grace to be found.

### Conclusion.

> The grace of Christ from the instant of his conception was perfect and consummate according to the fullness of superabundance.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt in Christ according to his human nature, from the very beginning of his conception, there was the perfect[^p282-4] and consummate fullness of grace. For it was not fitting that the uncreated Word be united to a soul by a most perfect union, such as is the union into the unity of person, without the soul being deiform, according as that was possible. And therefore he had not only deiformity of grace and of glory, but even above all grace and glory. Nor only was there in him the fullness of *sufficiency*, as in the Saints, of which fullness it is said in Acts six[^p282-5]: *Stephen full of grace and fortitude*; nor only the fullness of *prerogative*, as in the Virgin Mary, of which fullness it is said in Luke one: *Hail Mary, full of grace* etc.; nor only the fullness of *number and abundance*, as is in the whole Church, of which fullness it is said to the Ephesians four: *He ascended above the heavens, that he might fill all things* etc.; but also the fullness of *superabundance*, of which John one: *We saw his glory, the glory as it were of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth*; full, I say, with the fullness of superabundance, on account of which he adds to prove this: *And of his fullness we have all received.* — Therefore the reasons showing this are to be granted, that Christ from the instant of his conception was full of grace and had in himself the fullness of grace.

1. To that, then, which is first objected, that he did not have faith and hope; it must be said that faith and hope have joined to them an imperfection, and yet they have also something of perfection; and by reason of that which they have of imperfection, they stand more opposed to fullness than they make for fullness — whence they are emptied out in glory[^p282-6] — but by reason of that which is of perfection in them, if anything is to be found there, they have being in Christ. And therefore the absence of those virtues attests more to fullness than to diminution.

2. To that which is objected, that Christ was in the state of the wayfarer; it must be said that Christ was at once in the state of the wayfarer and of the comprehensor, but in the state of the comprehensor according to the higher part, in the state of the wayfarer according to the lower part and according to the flesh[^p282-7]. And since grace according to its essence and completion regards the higher part and the mind; hence it is that Christ had grace perfect rather than diminished, because grace regarded rather the perfect state.

3. To that, then, which is objected concerning the example of Christ, it must be said that Christ gave us an example in outward works[^p282-8] and in works of perfect virtue; but those works in Christ were indicative of perfection, whereas in us they are leading toward perfection. And although the outward works displayed his advancement, nevertheless he was not a liar, because they indicated no perfection which was not in him. But if through his works he did not indicate his highest perfection, this was not to display falsehood, but to conceal the truth; which indeed is permitted and is expedient on account of our benefit.

4. To that which is objected, that he did many good works; it must be said that on account of those he was not growing in grace; nor yet was he working in vain, because he did those things not on account of his own increase, but on account of ours; whence we too reap the greatest benefit.

5. To that which is objected, that the body had a defect of fullness in age; it must be said that it is not alike, because the defect of age in the body made for humiliation and for the showing forth of the true nature, and thus for the confirmation of faith; but a defect of grace in the soul would profit us in nothing nor would it befit God; and therefore it is not alike[^p283-1]. Furthermore, there is another reason; because the disposition to the union holds itself on the part of the soul, not on the part of the flesh, as was shown before[^p283-2]; therefore the soul had to be more perfect than the flesh.

6. To that which is objected, that grace enlarges the capacity; it must be said that the capacity is enlarged in two ways: either by reason of greater possibility in receiving, or by reason of power in cooperating. For it is the same potency which receives grace and cooperates with the grace received. If we speak of the enlargement of capacity as regards the *power of cooperating*, then it is true that grace as it comes increases free choice, that is, the good aptitude and capacity of the will[^p283-3]. But if we speak of the *possibility in receiving*, then it holds falsehood, since grace is like an act and a completion, and the more of actuality is given to anything, the more it recedes from possibility: whence we too say that those things which have much of the species, to which it belongs to act, have little of matter, to which it belongs to be acted upon and to receive[^p283-4]. And since in Christ the very aptitude for good is brought to its completion through perfect grace; hence it is that his capacity is filled; just as we say of the form of heaven, that it fulfills the appetite of matter, because its matter does not desire to be under a further form, so completely does the form establish it in completed actuality[^p283-5]. So in the grace of Christ it must be understood in its own way; whence here a bad imagining deceives, because the soul is not filled with the gift of grace as an empty place is filled with a body, but rather as the possibility of matter is completed by the actuality of form[^p283-6].

---

la: Respicitur illud Rom. 8, 20: *Vanitati enim creatura subiecta est*, et illud Hebr. 13, 9: *Optimum est enim gratia stabilire cor.* Cfr. II. Sent. d. 26. q. 2. arg. 8. ad oppos.

en: Reference is made to that of Rom. 8:20: *For the creature was made subject to vanity*, and to that of Heb. 13:9: *For it is best that the heart be established with grace.* Cf. II Sent., d. 26, q. 2, arg. 8 ad oppositum.

la: Vers. 3. Vulgata: *Replebit eum spiritus* etc.

en: Verse 3. The Vulgate: *The spirit shall fill him* etc.

la: Vers. 14. — In fine arg. pro *quod habuerit* codd. N T U V *quod habuit*, cod. Z *ergo habuit*.

en: Verse 14. — At the end of the argument, for *quod habuerit* codices N T U V have *quod habuit*, codex Z *ergo habuit*.

la: Cfr. quaest. praeced.

en: Cf. the preceding question.

la: Ioan. 1, 16. Cfr. infra a. 2. q. 1. — Mox pro *possent* non pauci codd. *possunt*, subinde pro *nec* cod. K *nisi*, et in fine arg. pro *habuerit* iidem codd. *habuit*.

en: John 1:16. Cf. below, a. 2, q. 1. — Shortly, for *possent* not a few codices have *possunt*, then for *nec* codex K *nisi*, and at the end of the argument for *habuerit* the same codices *habuit*.

la: Vide infra d. 31. a. 2. q. 2. ad 1. — In maiori cod. A pro *in omnibus habitibus* substituit *in habitibus omnium*.

en: See below, d. 31, a. 2, q. 2 ad 1. — In the major premise codex A substitutes for *in omnibus habitibus* the reading *in habitibus omnium*.

la: Luc. 2, 52: *Et Iesus proficiebat sapientia et aetate et gratia apud Deum et homines.* — In fine arg. pro *habuerit* non pauci codd. *habuit*.

en: Luke 2:52: *And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men.* — At the end of the argument, for *habuerit* not a few codices have *habuit*.

la: Psalm. 83, 8: *Ibunt de virtute in virtutem.*

en: Psalm 83:8: *They shall go from virtue to virtue.*

la: Hic, ante medium, ubi invenis et verba Gregorii (revera sunt Bedae). Pro *Gregorius* Vat. substituit *Glossa*, edd. 1, 2 exhibent *Bernardus*. — Paulo inferius pro *ostendebat* codd. I L aa *ostendebatur*, cod. O *se ostendebat*.

en: Here, before the middle, where you find also the words of Gregory (which in fact are Bede's). For *Gregorius* the Vatican edition substitutes *Glossa*, editions 1 and 2 give *Bernardus*. — A little below, for *ostendebat* codices I L aa have *ostendebatur*, codex O *se ostendebat*.

la: De principiis huius arg. vide supra d. 2. a. 3. q. 1. et d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. Fulgent., l. ad Trasim. c. 8, exponens illud Luc. 2, 52: *Iesus proficiebat sapientia* etc., ait: *Nam sicut carnis est aetate proficere, sic est animae sapientia et gratia profecisse, quae tamen in sapientia nullatenus proficeret, si naturalem intelligentiam, quae hominibus rationis causa concessa est, non haberet* etc. Cfr. ibid. III. c. 18.

en: On the principles of this argument see above, d. 2, a. 3, q. 1 and d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 1. Fulgentius, in his book to Trasimund, c. 8, expounding that of Luke 2:52: *Jesus advanced in wisdom* etc., says: *For just as it belongs to the flesh to advance in age, so it belongs to the soul to have advanced in wisdom and grace, which nevertheless would in no way advance in wisdom if it did not have the natural understanding which is granted to men for the sake of reason* etc. Cf. ibid., III, c. 18.

la: Vat. et nonnulli codd. adiiciunt *et ordinata*. Mox pro *in unitatem* codd. A K *in unitate*.

en: The Vatican edition and some codices add *and ordered*. Shortly, for *in unitatem* codices A K have *in unitate*.

la: Vers. 8. Seq. Script. testimonium est Luc. 1, 28; tertium Eph. 4, 10; quartum Ioan. 1, 14; ultimum Ioan. 1, 16. — Proxime ante hoc ultim. testimon. cod. K pro *propter quod* substituit *propter quam*.

en: Verse 8. The following Scripture testimony is Luke 1:28; the third, Eph. 4:10; the fourth, John 1:14; the last, John 1:16. — Immediately before this last testimony codex K substitutes for *propter quod* the reading *propter quam*.

la: Cfr. infra d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. seq. — Post pauca ante *est reperiri* cod. F interserit *ibi*.

en: Cf. below, d. 31, a. 2, q. 1 and following. — Shortly after, before *est reperiri* codex F inserts *ibi*.

la: Cod. S *in bonis operibus*. Inferius post *Si vero per opera* codd. H (K a secunda manu) P Q bb subdunt *praecedentia*.

en: Codex S reads *in bonis operibus*. Below, after *Si vero per opera* codices H (K by a second hand) P Q bb add *praecedentia*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. in corp. et ad 4. — In principio solut. post *quod corpus* edd. supplent *suum*.

en: Cf. above, d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 1, in the body and ad 4. — At the beginning of the solution, after *quod corpus* the editions supply *suum*.

en: Distinction 2, a. 3, q. 1.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 26. q. 6. et d. 28. a. 2. q. 3. — Paulo ante pro *liberum arbitrium* cod. X *liberi arbitrii*.

en: See II Sent., d. 26, q. 6 and d. 28, a. 2, q. 3. — A little before, for *liberum arbitrium* codex X has *liberi arbitrii*.

la: Aristot., II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 53. (c. 9.): *Materiae enim est pati et moveri; movere autem et facere alterius potentiae* [scil. formae sive speciei]. — Paulo inferius pro *producta* cod. U *perducta*.

en: Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 53 (c. 9): *For it belongs to matter to be acted upon and to be moved; but to move and to act belongs to another potency* [namely that of form or species]. — A little below, for *producta* codex U has *perducta*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., l. Phys. text. 81. (c. 9.), et l. de Caelo et mundo, text. 92-98. (c. 9.). Vide II. Sent. d. 12. a. 2. q. 1. (de empyreo), d. 19. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. (de anima). Superius pro *adeo forma* codd. et edd. inepte *adeo formam*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* text 81 (c. 9), and *On the Heaven and the World*, texts 92–98 (c. 9). See II Sent., d. 12, a. 2, q. 1 (on the empyrean), d. 19, a. 1, q. 1 in the body (on the soul). Above, for *adeo forma* the codices and editions ineptly have *adeo formam*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.281–283 (PDF 303–305; offset `pdf = printed + 22`), read Left column top→bottom then Right column, body then footers (Vol II/III PDF-priority inversion: the IA djvu OCR cascade-fragments the Respondeo and every page-footer, so the column-band PDF read is authoritative here). OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`, lines 19825–19958) used only for clean prose and marker spacing. Raw span: QUAESTIO III header raw 19825 → just before ARTICULUS II (raw 19959) / its QUAESTIO I (raw 19969). `type: quaestio`.

**Alignment check — PASS.** Opener `Tertio quaeritur, utrum gratia singularis personae in Christo fuerit gratia plena atque perfecta` = ARTICULUS I QUAESTIO III, the *gratia plena*/fullness question. NOT q1 (*creata, vel increata*, raw 19464), NOT q2 (*finita, vel immensa*, raw 19641), NOT an ART. II question (ART. II = *de gratia capitis*, opens raw 19959). No auto-chunker swap.

**Running heads confirmed eyes-on** (450 dpi bands, never OCR'd digits): `QUAEST. III. 281` (q3 opens lower on p.281, beneath q2's Ad-6 tail + q2's Scholion I–III) / `282 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` / `DIST. XIII. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 283` (q3's Ad 4–6 tail occupies the top of p.283 L + the whole of p.283 R; ART. II q1 opens lower on p.283 L, hence the running head reads ART. II).

**Page-split map:**
- **p.281** (lower L/R, beneath q2's Scholion): QUAESTIO III title + opener + *videtur* args 1–4 + Sed contra 1–2 start. Footers nn.1–7 → `[^p281-1]`–`[^p281-7]` (all q3's — see hand-off below).
- **p.282**: Sed contra 3 (`ascensum de virtute`) + 4 (bona opera) + 5 (corpus/aetas) + 6 (capacitas) + Conclusio + Respondeo (quadruplex plenitudo: sufficientiae / praerogativae / numerositatis / superabundantiae) + Solutio Ad 1–3 start. Footers nn.1–8 → `[^p282-1]`–`[^p282-8]`.
- **p.283** (top L + R col only): Ad 3 cont. + Ad 4 + Ad 5 + Ad 6. Footers nn.1–6 → `[^p283-1]`–`[^p283-6]`; **nn.7–9 (`Vers. 22.` / `Pro ergo edd…` / `Ioan. 1, 16…`) anchor in ARTICULUS II QUAESTIO I → FORWARDED to d13-a2-q1.**

**Hand-offs picked up:** ALL printed **p.281 footers** (nn.1–7) — q3's *fundamenta* open on the lower half of p.281 (the page shared with q2's Scholion); per the d13-a1-q2 hand-off (commits 7d7d521 + e3e0941), q2 carried NO p.281 footers (its Scholion I–III is the last q2 material on the page), so the entire p.281 footer block is q3's first body-footer sequence.

**Hand-offs forwarded** (to d13-a2-q1, raw 19969): the **p.283 footers nn.7–9** (`Vers. 22.`; `Pro ergo edd. cum cod. cc inepte et.`; `Ioan. 1, 16: Et de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus, et gratiam pro gratia. — Post accepimus cod. K supplet gratiam.`) — these anchor in ARTICULUS II QUAESTIO I's body, which opens on the lower half of p.283 L. q3 consumed only p.283 nn.1–6 (its Ad 5–6). ART. II q1 also picks up the ARTICULUS II opener (*De gratia capitis*, raw 19959) folded in per the locked convention.

**Scholion coverage.** `has_scholion: false` — q3 has NO scholion of its own. Coverage lives in **q2's Scholion III**, which explicitly directs itself *ad seq. (3.) quaestionem* (the *responsio ad seq. (3.) quaestionem* sentence prints in q2's Scholion III on p.281, anchored there per the d13-a1-q2 hand-off); and q3's own p.283 footer n.6 reads *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* — confirming q3's fullness discussion is scholion-covered by q2.

**`[?]` flags:** NONE. OCR confirmed line-by-line against the 450 dpi p.281/282/283 column bands; all footers and the quadruplex-plenitudo Respondeo fully legible.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 13, Art. 2, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 283 -->

### Articulus II. *De gratia capitis.*

Consequenter quaeritur de gratia capitis, de qua quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur de ipsa quantum ad essentiam, quid sit.

Secundo quantum ad differentiam, utrum differat ab alia gratia.

Tertio quantum ad influentiam, utrum redundet in totam Ecclesiam.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum gratia capitis sit quid creatum, vel increatum.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, quid sit gratia capitis secundum essentiam, utrum videlicet sit quid creatum, vel increatum. Et quod sit quid creatum, videtur.

1. Omnis gratia, quae coepit esse in Christo, est quid creatum; sed gratia capitis coepit esse in Christo, quia Christus coepit esse caput, secundum quod dicitur ad Ephesios primo[^p283-7]: *Ipsum dedit caput super omnem Ecclesiam:* ergo etc.

2. Item, omnis gratia, quae est in Christo, secundum quod homo, est gratia creata; sed gratia capitis est huiusmodi: ergo etc. Maior patet; minor probatur per hoc, quod gratia capitis inest Christo, secundum quod caput; sed unius naturae sunt caput et membra: ergo[^p283-8] Christus est caput secundum humanam naturam: ergo etc.

3. Item, illa est gratia capitis, de cuius plenitudine accepimus[^p283-9]; sed de gratia Christi creata accepimus gratiam pro gratia — ipse enim omnibus meruit et pro omnibus satisfecit — ergo etc.

<!-- page 284 -->

4. Item, illa est gratia capitis, secundum quam attenditur universitas sensuum — in Christo enim sicut in capite omnes sensus reperiuntur[^p284-1] — sed gratia, secundum quam attenditur diversitas sensuum et secundum quam colliguntur in Christo, est gratia creata: ergo etc.

**Sed contra:**
1. Nihil creatum influit motum et sensum gratiae in membra[^p284-2]; sed gratia capitis est, secundum quam est influentia motus et sensus in membra Christi: ergo gratia capitis non potest esse quid creatum.

2. Item, nihil creatum unum numero[^p284-3] est omnino incircumscriptum; sed Christus, in quantum est caput, est a quolibet suorum membrorum indivisus: ergo non potest esse caput secundum aliquid creatum. Si ergo caput est secundum aliquam gratiam, videtur, quod illa sit gratia increata.

3. Item, caput est membrorum principium et origo; sed Christus non potest esse animarum principium nisi secundum divinam naturam: ergo est caput secundum illam: ergo si caput dicit quid increatum, videtur similiter, quod gratia capitis quid increatum sit secundum suam essentiam.

4. Item, caput est simul cum membris, vel antecedit membra: ergo gratia capitis gratiam membrorum vel praecedit, vel concomitatur; sed gratia Christi creata non antecessit[^p284-4] gratiam membrorum — natura enim humana in Christo non prius fuit, quam esset in multis Sanctis, sed longe post — ergo gratia capitis non potest esse gratia creata.

### Conclusio.

> Gratia capitis ratione conformitatis naturae et influxus per modum praeparantis, aut merentis competit Christo ratione humanae naturae et dicit quid creatum; ratione vero principii et influxus per modum efficientis dicit quid increatum.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod caput in spiritualibus transumtive dicitur a capite in corporalibus; «omnes autem transferentes secundum aliquam similitudinem transferunt[^p284-5]»: et ideo caput in spiritualibus dicitur secundum concomitantiam ad aliquam proprietatem capitis materialis. In capite autem materiali haec tria reperimus, scilicet quod est membris conforme, est membrorum principium, est etiam influxivum sensus et motus[^p284-6]. Et propterea in ipso reperiuntur omnes sensus perfectiori modo quam in aliis membris. — Omnes autem has proprietates est in Christo reperire respectu bonorum; et ideo valde rationabiliter sancta Scriptura[^p284-7] dicit, Christum esse caput Ecclesiae. — Sed prima proprietas, scilicet conformitas, competit ei ratione humanae naturae. Unde Augustinus super Ioannem[^p284-8]: «Unius naturae sunt vitis et palmites. Propter quod, cum Deus esset, cuius naturae non sumus, factus est homo, ut in illo esset vitis humana natura, cuius et nos esse palmites possemus»; omnino enim idem est de capite quod de vite intelligendum.

Secunda autem proprietas, scilicet principiandi, competit ratione divinae naturae, secundum quod est omnium principium. Unde ad Colossenses primo[^p284-9]: *Ipse caput corporis Ecclesiae, qui est principium* etc.; ibi Glossa: «Qui est principium secundum divinitatem, id est fundator Ecclesiae, quia omnes iusti, qui ab Abel usque ad ultimum iustum generantur, virtute divinitatis illuminantur».

Tertia vero proprietas, scilicet influendi motum et sensum, competit ei ratione divinitatis et ratione humanitatis. Dupliciter enim contingit sensum et motum gratiae influere: aut per modum praeparantis, aut per modum impartientis. Si per modum praeparantis, sic est ipsius Christi ratione humanae naturae, in qua passus est propter nos et patiendo satisfecit et removit inimicitias et disposuit ad suscipiendam gratiam perfectam[^p284-10]. Si per modum impartientis et conferentis, sic est ipsius Christi ratione divinae naturae, qui «solus Deus est, qui illuminat pias mentes», solus est, qui baptizat interius, pro eo quod «mens nostra immediate ab ipsa Veritate formatur», sicut saepe dicit Augustinus[^p284-11]. Et ita influere per modum praeparantis est Christi hominis, per modum impartientis est Christi Dei. — Vel per alia verba, et in idem redit, influere per modum merentis, Christi hominis; per modum efficientis, Christi Dei; vel influere quantum ad remissionem poenae, Christi hominis, quantum ad remissionem culpae, Christi Dei. Et sic influentia uno modo respicit Christum secundum naturam creatam[^p285-1], alio modo secundum naturam increatam. —

<!-- page 285 -->

Si ergo gratia capitis dicitur illa gratia, secundum quam Christus habet influere motum et sensum in membra; restat hoc esse ponendum, quod gratia capitis uno modo nominat gratiam increatam, alio etiam modo nominat non tantum increatam, sed etiam creatam, sicut ostendunt rationes ad primam partem; et ideo sunt concedendae.

**Ad argumenta:**
*Ad 1.* Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod non potest esse gratia creata, quia non posset[^p285-2] influere; iam patet responsio, quia, quamvis non possit influere effective et causative, potest tamen influere meritorie et dispositive secundum naturam humanam.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Christus, secundum quod caput, est indivisus; dicendum, quod est unio per unitatem naturae, et est unio per fidem et dilectionem. Dicendum est igitur, quod unio Christi ad corpus Ecclesiae est per fidem et dilectionem. Cum ergo dicitur, quod caput est indivisum a membris; dicendum, quod indivisio non privat distantiam localem sive separationem corporum, sed separationem et disconvenientiam mentium et affectionum. Et ideo ex hoc non ponitur, quod Christus, secundum quod caput, sit incircumscriptus, quia idem potest esse in uno loco tantum, et tamen per cognitionem et amorem in cordibus diversorum. Unde ad Ephesios tertio[^p285-3]: *Habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus nostris.*

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caput est membrorum principium; dicendum, quod ut caput sit principium quantum ad esse naturae, hoc est de veritate[^p285-4] capitis et expressa proprietate; nec hanc est reperire in Christo secundum humanam naturam, sed secundum divinam, ut praedictum est supra. — Posset tamen dici aliquo modo Christus principium membrorum suorum quantum ad esse gratiae etiam secundum humanam naturam, quia nunquam aliquis fuit gratiam assecutus, nisi haberet Christum in corde ut fundamentum, quod collocatur per fidem. Fundamentum enim aliud nemo potest in membris Christi ponere praeter illud quod positum est, quod est Christus Iesus[^p285-5], et sine hoc fundamento nemo potuit habere gratiam, quia nunquam fuit alicui salus sine fide Mediatoris. Et hoc est quod dicitur ad Colossenses primo[^p285-6]: *Qui est principium* etc.; Glossa: «Secundum humanitatem dici potest principium Ecclesiae, quia super fidem humanitatis eius Ecclesia fundata est».

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod gratia capitis, vel concomitatur, vel praecedit; dicendum, quod sicut dictum est[^p285-7] de unione, quod caput spirituale non oportet uniri materialiter et naturaliter, sed spiritualiter per cognitionem et amorem; sic etiam intelligendum est de antecessione. Unde ad hoc, quod Christus sit caput iustorum praecedentium, non oportuit, quod comitaretur re, sed fide; et sic utique fuit, quia fides Christi praecessit in cordibus salvandorum. — Et sic patet, quod capitis ratio et gratia similiter quantum ad perfectam similitudinem respicit in Christo aliquid increatum; respicit etiam aliquid creatum, ita quod ad perfectam rationem capitis intelligendam necesse est utrumque concurrere.

english:
### Article II. *On the grace of the Head.*

Next the grace of the Head is inquired into, concerning which three things are asked.

First it is asked of it with respect to essence, what it is.

Second, with respect to difference, whether it differs from another grace.

Third, with respect to influence, whether it overflows into the whole Church.

### Question I. *Whether the grace of the Head is something created or uncreated.*

Concerning the first, one proceeds thus, and it is asked, what the grace of the Head is according to essence, namely whether it is something created or uncreated. And that it is something created seems [the case].

1. Every grace which began to be in Christ is something created; but the grace of the Head began to be in Christ, since Christ began to be Head, according to what is said in Ephesians, chapter one[^p283-7]: *He gave Him as Head over the whole Church:* therefore etc.

2. Likewise, every grace which is in Christ, insofar as He is man, is a created grace; but the grace of the Head is of this kind: therefore etc. The major is evident; the minor is proved by this, that the grace of the Head belongs to Christ insofar as He is Head; but head and members are of one nature: therefore[^p283-8] Christ is Head according to His human nature: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, that is the grace of the Head of whose fullness we have received[^p283-9]; but of the created grace of Christ we have received grace for grace — for He merited for all and made satisfaction for all — therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that is the grace of the Head according to which the totality of the senses is regarded — for in Christ, as in the head, all the senses are found[^p284-1] — but the grace according to which the diversity of the senses is regarded, and according to which they are gathered together in Christ, is a created grace: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. Nothing created infuses the motion and sensation of grace into the members[^p284-2]; but the grace of the Head is that according to which there is an influence of motion and sensation into the members of Christ: therefore the grace of the Head cannot be something created.

2. Likewise, nothing created and one in number[^p284-3] is altogether uncircumscribed; but Christ, insofar as He is Head, is undivided from each of His members: therefore He cannot be Head according to something created. If, therefore, He is Head according to some grace, it seems that that grace is uncreated.

3. Likewise, the head is the principle and origin of the members; but Christ cannot be the principle of souls except according to His divine nature: therefore He is Head according to it: therefore if "head" signifies something uncreated, it seems likewise that the grace of the Head is something uncreated according to its essence.

4. Likewise, the head is either simultaneous with the members, or precedes the members: therefore the grace of the Head either precedes or accompanies the grace of the members; but the created grace of Christ did not precede[^p284-4] the grace of the members — for the human nature in Christ did not exist prior to its existing in many of the Saints, but long afterward — therefore the grace of the Head cannot be a created grace.

### Conclusion.

> The grace of the Head, by reason of conformity of nature and of influx by way of preparing or meriting, belongs to Christ by reason of His human nature and signifies something created; but by reason of being a principle and of influx by way of efficiency, it signifies something uncreated.

**I respond:** For the understanding of what has been said, it must be noted that "head" in spiritual things is said by transference from "head" in corporeal things; "for all who transfer [a term] transfer it according to some likeness[^p284-5]": and so "head" in spiritual things is said according to a concomitance with some property of the material head. Now in the material head we find these three things, namely that it is conformed to the members, is the principle of the members, and is also that which infuses sensation and motion[^p284-6]. And therefore in it all the senses are found in a more perfect manner than in the other members. — Now all these properties are to be found in Christ with respect to the good; and therefore very reasonably does Holy Scripture[^p284-7] say that Christ is the Head of the Church. — But the first property, namely conformity, belongs to Him by reason of His human nature. Hence Augustine, on John[^p284-8]: «The vine and the branches are of one nature. On account of which, since He was God, of whose nature we are not, He was made man, so that in Him the human nature might be the vine, of which we too could be the branches»; for entirely the same is to be understood of the head as of the vine.

But the second property, namely being a principle, belongs to Him by reason of His divine nature, according as He is the principle of all things. Hence in Colossians, chapter one[^p284-9]: *He is the Head of the body, the Church, who is the principle* etc.; there the Gloss: «Who is the principle according to divinity, that is, the founder of the Church, since all the just, who are begotten from Abel to the last just one, are illumined by the power of the divinity».

But the third property, namely the infusing of motion and sensation, belongs to Him by reason of the divinity and by reason of the humanity. For grace happens to infuse sensation and motion in two ways: either by way of preparing, or by way of imparting. If by way of preparing, then it is Christ's own by reason of His human nature, in which He suffered for us, and by suffering made satisfaction, and removed enmities, and disposed [us] to receive perfect grace[^p284-10]. If by way of imparting and conferring, then it is Christ's own by reason of His divine nature, who «alone is God, who illumines devout minds», He alone it is who baptizes interiorly, in that «our mind is formed immediately by Truth itself», as Augustine often says[^p284-11]. And so to infuse by way of preparing belongs to Christ as man, by way of imparting belongs to Christ as God. — Or, in other words, and it comes to the same, to infuse by way of meriting belongs to Christ as man; by way of efficiency, to Christ as God; or to infuse with respect to the remission of punishment belongs to Christ as man, with respect to the remission of guilt, to Christ as God. And thus the influence in one way regards Christ according to created nature[^p285-1], in another way according to uncreated nature. —

If, therefore, the grace of the Head is said to be that grace according to which Christ has [the power] to infuse motion and sensation into the members; it remains that this must be laid down, that the grace of the Head in one way names an uncreated grace, and in another way names not only an uncreated but also a created grace, as the arguments for the first part show; and therefore they are to be conceded.

**To the arguments:**
*To 1.* As for what is objected, that it cannot be a created grace, because it could not[^p285-2] infuse; the response is already clear, since, although it cannot infuse effectively and causally, it can nevertheless infuse meritoriously and dispositively according to the human nature.

*To 2.* As for what is objected, that Christ, insofar as He is Head, is undivided; it must be said that there is a union by unity of nature, and there is a union by faith and love. It must therefore be said that the union of Christ to the body of the Church is by faith and love. When, then, it is said that the head is undivided from the members; it must be said that the lack of division does not exclude local distance or separation of bodies, but the separation and disagreement of minds and affections. And therefore from this it is not posited that Christ, insofar as He is Head, is uncircumscribed, since the same can be in one place only, and yet through knowledge and love in the hearts of diverse persons. Hence Ephesians, chapter three[^p285-3]: *That Christ may dwell through faith in your hearts.*

*To 3.* As for what is objected, that the head is the principle of the members; it must be said that, for the head to be a principle with respect to the being of nature, this belongs to the truth[^p285-4] of the head and to its express property; nor is this to be found in Christ according to the human nature, but according to the divine, as was said above. — Yet Christ could in some way be said to be the principle of His members with respect to the being of grace even according to the human nature, since no one ever attained grace unless he had Christ in his heart as a foundation, which is laid by faith. For no one can lay any other foundation in the members of Christ than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus[^p285-5], and without this foundation no one could have grace, since there was never salvation for anyone without faith in the Mediator. And this is what is said in Colossians, chapter one[^p285-6]: *Who is the principle* etc.; the Gloss: «According to His humanity He can be called the principle of the Church, since the Church is founded upon the faith of His humanity».

*To 4.* As for what is objected, that the grace of the Head either accompanies or precedes; it must be said that, just as was said[^p285-7] of the union, that the spiritual head need not be united materially and naturally, but spiritually through knowledge and love; so too it must be understood concerning precedence. Hence, for Christ to be the Head of the just who preceded, it was not required that He accompany them in reality, but in faith; and so indeed it was, since the faith of Christ went before in the hearts of those to be saved. — And so it is evident that the character of the Head and likewise the grace, with respect to the perfect likeness, regards in Christ something uncreated; it also regards something created, so that for understanding the perfect character of the Head it is necessary that both concur.

la: Vers. 22.

en: [Ephesians 1,] v. 22.

la: Pro *ergo* edd. cum cod. cc inepte *et*.

en: For *ergo* (therefore) the editions, with codex cc, ineptly read *et* (and).

la: Ioan. 1, 16: *Et de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus, et gratiam pro gratia.* — Post *accepimus* cod. K supplet *gratiam*.

en: John 1,16: *And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.* — After *accepimus* (we have received) codex K supplies *gratiam* (grace).

la: Cfr. verba August., quae habentur hic lit. Magistri, in principio.

en: Cf. the words of Augustine, which are found here in the Master's text, at the beginning.

la: Codd. M O subnectunt *Christi*.

en: Codices M and O append *Christi* (of Christ).

la: Nonnulli codd. *uno numero*; edd. *Item, nihil unum creatum uno numero.* Nostra lectio est codd. A H K M N O Z bb.

en: Several codices read *uno numero* (one in number); the editions, *Likewise, nothing created and one in number.* Our reading is that of codices A H K M N O Z bb.

la: Cod. G K *antecedit*.

en: Codices G and K read *antecedit* (precedes).

la: Aristot., VI. Topic. c. 2. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 4, nota 8. — Pro *omnes autem* codd. A L aa *omnes enim*.

en: Aristotle, *Topics* VI, c. 2. Cf. vol. I, p. 4, note 8. — For *omnes autem* (now all) codices A L aa read *omnes enim* (for all).

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. de Histor. animal. c. 7, II. de Partib. animal. c. 10. et IV. c. 10. Cfr. etiam August., Enarrat. in Ps. 29. enarrat. 2. n. 2, et de Agon. christian. c. 20. n. 22.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *History of Animals* I, c. 7, *Parts of Animals* II, c. 10, and IV, c. 10. Cf. also Augustine, *Enarration on Psalm 29*, enarration 2, n. 2, and *On the Christian Struggle* c. 20, n. 22.

la: Eph. 1, 22; 5, 23; Coloss. 1, 18. — Mox pro *conformitas* codd. A N U V *conformitatis*.

en: Ephesians 1,22; 5,23; Colossians 1,18. — Presently, for *conformitas* (conformity) codices A N U V read *conformitatis* (of conformity).

la: Tract. 80. n. 1. In Vat. nec non in textu origin. hoc testimonium terminatur sic: *cuius et nos homines palmites esse possemus.* In principio testimon. pro *vitis et palmites* edd. 1, 2 cum multis codd. *vitis et palmes*.

en: *Tractate* 80, n. 1. In the Vatican edition, as also in the original text, this citation ends thus: *of which we men too could be the branches.* At the beginning of the citation, for *vitis et palmites* (vine and branches) editions 1 and 2, with many codices, read *vitis et palmes* (vine and branch).

la: Vers. 18. — Glossa, quae est *ordinaria*, habetur apud Strabum et Lyranum, ubi tamen pro *omnes iusti* legitur *omnes iustos* et post *virtute divinitatis* sic pergitur: *et misericordiae suae dono illuminavit* (cfr. August., Serm. 341. [alias 40. de Temp.] c. 9. n. 11.). — Paulo superius post *competit* cod. U supplet *ei*.

en: [Colossians 1,] v. 18. — The Gloss, which is the *ordinary* one, is found in Strabo and Lyra, where, however, for *omnes iusti* (all the just, nom.) is read *omnes iustos* (all the just, acc.), and after *virtute divinitatis* (by the power of the divinity) it continues thus: *and by the gift of His mercy He illumined* (cf. Augustine, *Sermon* 341 [otherwise 40, On the Seasons], c. 9, n. 11). — Slightly above, after *competit* (belongs) codex U supplies *ei* (to Him).

la: Cfr. infra d. 19. a. 1. q. 1. seqq.

en: Cf. below, d. 19, a. 1, q. 1, and following.

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 265, nota 4. et 5. Verba *baptizat interius* idem dicunt quod illa verba Ioan. 1, 33: *Hic est, qui baptizat in Spiritu sancto.* — Verbis *ab ipsa Veritate* codd. K M O adiiciunt *prima*. Paulo inferius tum post *merentis* tum post *efficientis* cod. F supplet *est*.

en: Cf. vol. II, p. 265, notes 4 and 5. The words *baptizes interiorly* say the same as those words of John 1,33: *This is He who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.* — To the words *ab ipsa Veritate* (by Truth itself) codices K M O add *prima* (first). Slightly below, both after *merentis* (meriting) and after *efficientis* (efficiency) codex F supplies *est* (is).

la: Edd. *secundum humanam naturam creatam... secundum naturam divinam increatam*.

en: The editions read *according to created human nature... according to uncreated divine nature*.

la: Edd. *posset*.

en: The editions read *posset* (could).

la: Vers. 17. — Vat. *Habitat Christus per* etc. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 31. p. II. a. 2. q. I.

en: [Ephesians 3,] v. 17. — The Vatican edition reads *Christ dwells through* etc. Cf. I Sentences, d. 31, p. II, a. 2, q. I.

la: In corp. quaest. — Paulo superius pro *quod ut caput sit* edd. *quod caput esse*, multi codd. *quod caput sit*. Subinde pro *de veritate* codd. B C D G I K L N O T U V aa *diversitate*, perperam. Paulo inferius pro *aliquo modo Christus principium* [cod. Y *Christum esse principium*] edd. *alio modo Christus* [Vat. *est*] *caput*.

en: In the body of the question. — Slightly above, for *quod ut caput sit* (that, for the head to be) the editions read *quod caput esse*, many codices *quod caput sit*. Then for *de veritate* (of the truth) codices B C D G I K L N O T U V aa read *diversitate* (of the diversity), wrongly. Slightly below, for *aliquo modo Christus principium* (in some way Christ the principle) [codex Y *Christum esse principium*] the editions read *alio modo Christus* [Vat. *est*] *caput* (in another way Christ is the Head).

la: Epist. I. Cor. 3, 11. Cfr. supra pag. 236, nota 10. — Mox pro *potuit* edd. cum paucis codd. *potest*.

en: Epistle I Corinthians 3,11. Cf. above, p. 236, note 10. — Presently, for *potuit* (could) the editions, with a few codices, read *potest* (can).

la: Vers. 18. — Glossam ut *ordinariam* exhibent Strabus et Lyranus.

en: [Colossians 1,] v. 18. — Strabo and Lyra present the Gloss as the *ordinary* one.

la: Hic in solut. ad 2. — Paulo inferius pro *comitaretur* codd. K W X *concomitaretur*. In fine solut. pro *utrumque* edd. *utramque*.

en: Here, in the solution to [objection] 2. — Slightly below, for *comitaretur* (accompany) codices K W X read *concomitaretur*. At the end of the solution, for *utrumque* (both) the editions read *utramque*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Ex ipsa s. Scriptura constat, Christum esse caput Ecclesiae; quod communiter intelligitur de tota omnino Ecclesia secundum totius temporis decursum et triplicem eiusdem statum i. e. prout est militans, patiens et triumphans. — Triplicem analogiam inter caput naturale et mysticum refert hic S. Bonav., scilicet quatenus caput est conforme membris, eorum principium atque influens sensum et motum. Paulo aliter S. Thom. in Sum. (III. q. 8. a. 1.) eandem analogiam considerat tripliciter: secundum ordinem, ut prima pars hominis, incipiendo a superiori; secundum perfectionem, quia in capite vigent omnes sensus; secundum virtutem, quia influit motum et sensum in membra. Idem autem in Comment. (hic q. 2. a. 1.) quatuor notat similitudines, scilicet quoad dignitatem triplicem, quoad influxum in membra, quoad directionem aliorum membrorum, quoad conformitatem naturae respectu eorundem. — Observat autem Alex. Hal. (S. p. III. q. 12. m. 2. a. 1. § 1.), quod hoc loco «propria ratione dicitur caput per rationem influentiae... quatenus Christus in Ecclesiam influit sensum et motum spiritualiter, sensum quidem influit per fidem, motum vero per amorem». Idem plures alias graves quaestiones de gratia capitis habet, quae a S. Bonav. non tractantur. — Licet Christus etiam secundum divinam naturam possit dici caput Ecclesiae, tamen, proprie loquendo, est caput secundum humanam naturam (Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2; S. Thom., hic loc. cit.), scilicet quatenus Christus per humanam naturam rationem capitis implet; unde praepositio *secundum* accipitur specificative, non reduplicative, ut supra d. 10. a. 2. q. I. in scholio dictum est.

**II.** Quoad solutionem ipsius quaestionis, utrum gratia capitis consistat in sola gratia unionis, an in sola gratia habituali, an in utraque, et quomodo; fuit quaedam differentia opinandi vel dicendi inter doctores; qui tamen nunc satis videntur convenire in hoc, quod gratia capitis proprie et essentialiter sit ipsa gratia <!-- page 286 --> habitualis, sed prout connotat gratiam unionis, vel, ut alii loquuntur, ita ut radicaliter praeexigatur gratia unionis sive personalis (cfr. infra q. 2. ad 3. i. et d. 20. a. I. q. 4.).

**III.** Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 1. a. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1; S. loc. cit. a. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. I. — Durand., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4. — Biel, hic q. unica in fine.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** From Holy Scripture itself it is established that Christ is the Head of the Church; which is commonly understood of the whole Church without exception, according to the course of all time and the threefold state of the same, i.e. as it is militant, suffering, and triumphant. — St. Bonaventure here reports a threefold analogy between the natural and the mystical head, namely insofar as the head is conformed to the members, their principle, and that which infuses sensation and motion. Somewhat differently St. Thomas in the *Summa* (III, q. 8, a. 1) considers the same analogy in three ways: according to order, as it is the first part of man, beginning from above; according to perfection, since in the head all the senses flourish; according to power, since it infuses motion and sensation into the members. The same author, however, in his *Commentary* (here, q. 2, a. 1) notes four likenesses, namely as to the threefold dignity, as to the influx into the members, as to the direction of the other members, as to the conformity of nature with respect to them. — Alexander of Hales (*Summa*, pt. III, q. 12, m. 2, a. 1, § 1) observes that in this place «He is called Head by a proper account through the account of influence... insofar as Christ infuses sensation and motion into the Church spiritually — sensation indeed He infuses through faith, but motion through love». The same author has several other weighty questions on the grace of the Head, which are not treated by St. Bonaventure. — Although Christ can also be called the Head of the Church according to His divine nature, nevertheless, properly speaking, He is Head according to His human nature (Alexander of Hales, in the place cited, § 2; St. Thomas, here in the place cited), namely insofar as Christ through His human nature fulfills the account of Head; whence the preposition *according to* is taken specificatively, not reduplicatively, as was said above in d. 10, a. 2, q. I, in the scholion.

**II.** As to the solution of the question itself — whether the grace of the Head consists in the grace of union alone, or in habitual grace alone, or in both, and in what manner — there was a certain difference of opinion or of expression among the doctors; who nevertheless now seem to agree sufficiently in this, that the grace of the Head is properly and essentially the very habitual grace, but as it connotes the grace of union, or, as others say, in such a way that the grace of union or personal grace is radically presupposed (cf. below, q. 2, ad 3, i, and d. 20, a. I, q. 4).

**III.** Alexander of Hales, in the place cited, m. 1, a. 1. — St. Thomas, here, q. 3, a. 1; S., in the place cited, a. 5. — Bl. Albert, here, a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 3, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. 3, q. I. — Durandus, on this and the following questions, here, q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 4. — Biel, here, the single question at the end.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF crops (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{283,284,285,286}-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`), Left column top→bottom then Right column, body then footers, per the Vol II/III PDF-priority inversion (IA djvu OCR cascade-shattered the two-column body, Respondeo, and every page footer). Offset `pdf = printed + 22`. Running heads confirmed eyes-on: p.283 `DIST. XIII. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 283` (q1 opens on the lower half of p.283 L, beneath d.13 a.1 q.3's Ad-tail; the page head reads QUAEST. I because q1 opens here); p.284 `284 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.285 `DIST. XIII. ART. II. QUAEST. I.`; p.286 `286 SENTENTIARUM` (q1's Scholion II–III tail tops p.286 L, then QUAESTIO II opens). Never trusted OCR'd page digits.

**Alignment.** PASS. ART. II opener (raw 19959, *Consequenter quaeritur de gratia capitis… Primo quid sit; Secundo utrum differat; Tertio utrum redundet in totam Ecclesiam*) folds into this q1 per the locked chunking convention (no standalone a2-divisio chunk). q1 opener (raw 19969) `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, quid sit gratia capitis secundum essentiam, utrum videlicet sit quid creatum, vel increatum` = ART. II q1 (*quid sit / creatum vel increatum*); NOT q2 *differentia* (raw 20154, *Utrum gratia capitis sit alia quam gratia singularis personae et unionis*) and NOT q3 *influentia* (raw 20305). No q-swap. Raw span 19959–20153.

**Page-split map.**
- p.283 (lower L + R): ART. II opener + q1 args 1–3 (+ arg 4 opening). Footers nn.7–9.
- p.284 (full): q1 arg 4 + Sed contra 1–4 + Conclusio + Respondeo (three properties). Footers nn.1–11.
- p.285 (full): Respondeo tail + Ad 1–4 + Epilogus + start of Scholion. Body footers nn.1–7.
- p.286 (top L): Scholion II tail + Scholion III. Then QUAESTIO II opens (→ d13-a2-q2).

**Apparatus (21 entries, per-page restart, page-suffixed slugs).** p.283 nn.7–9 → `[^p283-7]`–`[^p283-9]` (**picked up** per hand-off from d13-a1-q3, commits ae36932 + 2af3d66; q3 consumed only p.283 nn.1–6); p.284 nn.1–11 → `[^p284-1]`–`[^p284-11]`; p.285 nn.1–7 → `[^p285-1]`–`[^p285-7]`. Marker pairing 21/21 clean in both bodies.

**Scholion coverage.** `has_scholion: true`. Scholion I–III prints after q1's Epilogus (p.285 R → p.286 L top) and pertains to **this** question (the *gratia capitis / created-or-uncreated* question — §I on the head/member analogy and the *secundum* specificative reading; §II on the habitual-vs-union solution; §III the doctor-citations). It does NOT forward-cover q2/q3 — each has its own scholion. The Scholion carries **no numbered footnote apparatus of its own** (the next numbered footer block, beginning on p.286, is QUAESTIO II's). d.13 a.1 q.3's p.283 footer n.6 (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) is q3's own back-reference and stays with q3, not picked up here.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* (a) the ARTICULUS II opener (*De gratia capitis*, raw 19959), folded in; (b) p.283 footers nn.7–9 (this q1's first body-footers), forwarded by d13-a1-q3.
- *Forwarded to d13-a2-q2:* QUAESTIO II (*Utrum gratia capitis sit alia quam gratia singularis personae et unionis*) opens on printed **p.286** (PDF 308), raw line **20154**, immediately after this q1's Scholion III. q1 consumed ALL of p.285's footers (nn.1–7); q2's first body-footers are the fresh p.286 footer sequence — no q1 footer migrates forward. q2 has its own scholion (set per that chunk).

**`[?]` flags.** None. OCR-vs-PDF reconciled column-by-column against the 450 dpi p.283/284/285/286 bands; all footers and body readings confirmed eyes-on.

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. 13, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 286 -->

### Articulus II. *De gratia capitis.*
### Quaestio II. *Utrum gratia capitis sit alia quam gratia singularis personae et unionis.*

Secundo quaeritur de gratia capitis quantum ad differentiam, utrum videlicet sit alia quam gratia singularis personae et gratia unionis. Et quod sit alia, videtur.

1. Communiter secundum doctores in Christo consuevit differentia gratiae poni, scilicet gratia singularis personae, gratia unionis et gratia capitis: si ergo divisio esse debet per opposita, vel saltem disparata[^p286-1]; videtur, quod ista differentia gratiae ab aliis sit diversa.

2. Item, gratia capitis aliis communicatur[^p286-2]; gratiam vero singularis personae, vel unionis Christus aliis non communicat, quia respiciunt ipsum solum: ergo sunt differentes gratiae.

3. Item, quod sit alia quam gratia singularis personae, videtur, quia, esto quod humanitas separetur a divinitate, adhuc tamen remanet gratia singularis personae; sed non remanet gratia capitis nec gratia unionis: ergo gratia capitis differt a gratia singularis personae.

4. Item, quod sit alia quam gratia unionis, videtur, quia gratia unionis non habuit esse nec efficaciam nisi in plenitudine temporum[^p286-3], gratia capitis a primordio habuit effectum in Sanctis: ergo necesse est, eas ab invicem differre.

**Sed contra:** 1. In unica anima una est gratia gratum faciens, sicut una est vita[^p286-4]: ergo si anima Christi est una, aut gratia capitis non est gratum faciens, aut non differt a gratia unionis et singularis personae. Sed est gratum faciens: ergo etc.

2. Item, idem est habitus scientiae, quo quis novit in se, et quo potens est docere alios ut magister[^p286-5]: ergo pari ratione idem est habitus gratiae, quo in se perficitur et Deo unitur, et quo influit in membra et eis unitur; sed primus habitus gratiae dicitur gratia singularis personae et unionis, secundus vero dicitur gratia capitis: ergo gratia capitis et unionis sunt una gratia cum gratia singularis personae.

3. Item, eo ipso est ille homo caput Ecclesiae, quo assumtus est a Verbo in unitatem personae; sed hoc est per gratiam unionis: ergo gratia unionis et capitis sunt una gratia. Minor manifesta est; maior probatur per illud quod dicitur ad Ephesios primo[^p286-6]: *Ipsum dedit caput* etc.; Glossa: «Nullum maius donum praestare posset Deus hominibus, quam ut Verbum suum, per quod condidit omnia, faceret illis caput, ut esset filius Dei et filius hominis, unus Deus cum Patre, unus homo cum hominibus». Ex hoc expresse habetur, quod eo est ille homo caput, quo a Verbo Dei assumtus in unitatem personae.

4. Item, «quod per superabundantiam dicitur, uni soli convenit»[^p286-7]; sed «gratia unionis est summa gratia», ut dicit Augustinus decimo tertio de Trinitate, et habetur in principio praecedentis distinctionis: «In rebus per tempus ortis» etc.; gratia capitis est summa, sicut habetur in auctoritate praemissa: ergo gratia capitis non differt a gratia unionis.

5. Item, quod nec[^p286-8] a gratia singularis personae, videtur: quoniam Christus est caput secundum illam gratiam, secundum quam est in ipso sensuum integritas et perfectio; et hoc est secundum gratiam singularis personae: ergo etc.

6. Item, secundum illam gratiam Christus est caput, secundum quam pro nobis satisfecit nobisque promeruit, gratiam quantum ad motum et sensum ad nos derivari; sed hoc fuit secundum gratiam personae singularis, quia quantum ad illam attenditur meritum: ergo idem quod prius.

<!-- page 287 -->

> **Conclusio.** Gratia capitis a gratia unionis et singularis personae secundum diversas comparationes vel differt, vel est eadem, sed ut habitus non importat alium habitum, sed alias comparationes.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod gratia singularis personae proprie nominat habitum, secundum quem anima est Deo similis et accepta. Sed gratia unionis dicitur tripliciter, sicut praedictum fuit supra[^p287-1]. Uno namque modo dicitur gratia unionis gratia faciens unionem; et sic nominat divinam essentiam, quae sola est illius unionis causa. Alio modo gratia unionis dicitur gratia disponens ad unionem de congruo; et sic nominat qualitatem creatam, scilicet habitum animae. Tertio modo dicitur gratia unionis, id est ipsa unio gratis facta; et sic nominat ipsam relationem.

Secundum hoc etiam intelligendum, quod gratia capitis potest his tribus modis accipi. Uno modo potest nominare principium effectivum sensus et motus spiritualis in membris Christi; et sic nominat ipsum Deum et per appropriationem Spiritum sanctum. Alio modo nominat ipsum, quod disponit per modum meriti et praeparationis ad influentiam motus et sensus respectu cuiuslibet membri; et sic nominat habitum animae Christi, per quem Christus nobis meruit. Tertio modo gratia capitis potest dici ipsa gratuita praesidentia, quam Deus gratis fecit, dum Verbum suum nobis praeposuit, sicut caput membris. Omnibus his modis in diversis Sanctorum auctoritatibus et Glossis invenitur gratia capitis accipi[^p287-2].

Si igitur gratia capitis et unionis nominat principium effectivum illius coniunctionis et nostrae sanctificationis spiritualis; sic idem nominant et idem sunt quantum ad principale significatum, scilicet ipse Deus, vel Spiritus sanctus; et est differentia solum quantum ad connotatum, quia gratia unionis connotat effectum circa Christum, gratia capitis effectum circa membra Christi; et differunt a gratia singularis personae, sicut increatum a creato, sicut divina essentia ab habitu gratiae, quem infundit. — Si vero dicatur gratia unionis et capitis ipsa unio gratuita et praesidentia; sic sunt diversae relationes et comparationes, quae tamen non sunt fundatae super aliud et aliud, sed super idem. Homo enim ille eo ipso est caput aliorum hominum, quo est Verbo Dei unitus. Et hoc modo differt gratia unionis et capitis a gratia singularis personae, sicut illud, ad quod ordinatur dispositio, differt ab ipsa dispositione[^p287-3]. Gratia enim singularis personae sua perfectione reddit illam naturam idoneam, ut Deo uniatur, ac per hoc ceteris Sanctis praeficiatur, sicut caput membris. — Si vero gratia unionis et capitis dicatur habitus disponens ad unionem et aliorum sensificationem[^p287-4], sicut gratia singularis personae dicitur habitus faciens animae et Dei assimilationem; hoc modo ista triplex gratia non est triplex ratione diversitatis habituum, sed ratione diversae comparationis eiusdem habitus. Nam ille habitus dicitur gratia singularis personae, in quantum disponit ad Dei assimilationem et in quantum facit animam deiformem, et per hoc ipsum consequenter[^p287-5] disponit ad unionem personalem, et dicitur gratia unionis; et consequenter per hoc ipsum disponit ad redundantiam sive influentiam motus et sensus in cetera membra Christi, et sic dicitur gratia capitis. — Et sic patet, quod gratia capitis, in quantum habitus, non differt a gratia singularis personae, vel unionis secundum habituum diversitatem, sed secundum comparationum multiplicitatem[^p287-6]. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hanc partem.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod in Christo ponitur gratia secundum triplicem differentiam; dicendum, quod illa divisio non est data penes differentiam gratiae quantum ad diversitatem habituum, sed quantum ad diversitatem comparationum atque respectuum, sive effectuum consequenter se habentium, qui non diversificant essentialiter habitus.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod gratia capitis communicatur; dicendum, quod gratia capitis non sic communicatur aliis, ut eis sit gratia capitis, sed sic, ut efficaciam habeat circa alios; et hoc quidem absque dubio competit gratiae singularis personae et unionis, quia ratione eius nobis meruit et pro nobis satisfecit. Quamvis autem gratia Christi, quocumque modo dicta, efficaciam habeat in nos, tamen non quocumque nomine datur intelligi eius efficacia in nos, sed solum per hoc nomen, quod est gratia capitis. Sic enim nominatur propter virtutem et efficaciam influendi.

<!-- page 288 -->

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod remaneret gratia singularis personae, si deponeretur natura assumta, sed non gratia capitis; dicendum, quod verum est; sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod gratia capitis ab illa differat per essentiam; sed verum est, quod[^p288-1] aliquam comparationem et efficaciam dicit, quam, inquam, non esset reperire post separationem. Gratia enim capitis, quae attenditur in influentia et praesidentia Christi respectu aliorum, naturali ordine praesupponit unionem, ratione cuius ille homo ceteris ineffabiliter antecellit.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod gratia unionis habet efficaciam solum in fine temporum; dicendum, quod si efficacia gratiae unionis attendatur in hoc, quod animam Christi reddat idoneam ad unionem, verum est, quod solum in plenitudine temporum efficaciam habuit. Si autem efficacia gratiae unionis attendatur, quantum[^p288-2] ab aliis creditur, qui mediante illa fide iustificantur, sic efficaciam habuit a principio, et hoc ipso gratia capitis potest appellari. Et sic patet, quod gratia capitis secundum unam suam acceptionem, quae communior est, secundum essentiam habitus non differt ab aliis, sed solum secundum comparationem, ut visum est.

english:
### Article II. *On the grace of the Head.*
### Question II. *Whether the grace of the Head is other than the grace of the singular person and of the union.*

Secondly, inquiry is made about the grace of the Head with respect to its difference, namely whether it is other than the grace of the singular person and the grace of the union. And that it is other, it seems.

1. Commonly, according to the doctors, in Christ a difference of grace is wont to be posited, namely the grace of the singular person, the grace of the union, and the grace of the Head: if therefore the division ought to be made through opposites, or at least through disparates[^p286-1], it seems that this difference of grace is distinct from the others.

2. Likewise, the grace of the Head is communicated to others[^p286-2]; but the grace of the singular person, or of the union, Christ does not communicate to others, because they regard him alone: therefore they are different graces.

3. Likewise, that it is other than the grace of the singular person, it seems, because, granted that the humanity be separated from the divinity, nevertheless the grace of the singular person still remains; but the grace of the Head does not remain, nor the grace of the union: therefore the grace of the Head differs from the grace of the singular person.

4. Likewise, that it is other than the grace of the union, it seems, because the grace of the union had neither being nor efficacy except in the fullness of times[^p286-3], whereas the grace of the Head had its effect in the Saints from the beginning: therefore it is necessary that they differ from one another.

**On the contrary:** 1. In a single soul there is one grace making-pleasing, just as there is one life[^p286-4]: therefore if the soul of Christ is one, either the grace of the Head is not grace-making-pleasing, or it does not differ from the grace of the union and of the singular person. But it is grace-making-pleasing: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the habit of knowledge by which one knows in himself, and by which he is able to teach others as a master, is the same[^p286-5]: therefore by parity of reasoning the habit of grace by which one is perfected in himself and united to God, and by which he flows into the members and is united to them, is the same; but the first habit of grace is called the grace of the singular person and of the union, while the second is called the grace of the Head: therefore the grace of the Head and of the union are one grace with the grace of the singular person.

3. Likewise, that man is Head of the Church by the very fact by which he is assumed by the Word into unity of person; but this is through the grace of the union: therefore the grace of the union and of the Head are one grace. The minor is manifest; the major is proved through what is said to the Ephesians, first chapter[^p286-6]: *Him he gave as head* etc.; the Gloss: «No greater gift could God bestow on men than that he should make his Word, through which he founded all things, their head, so that he might be the Son of God and the Son of man, one God with the Father, one man with men». From this it is expressly had that that man is Head by that whereby he was assumed by the Word of God into unity of person.

4. Likewise, «what is said by superabundance belongs to one alone»[^p286-7]; but «the grace of the union is the highest grace», as Augustine says in the thirteenth book *On the Trinity*, and as is had at the beginning of the preceding distinction: «In things arisen through time» etc.; the grace of the Head is the highest, as is had in the authority cited above: therefore the grace of the Head does not differ from the grace of the union.

5. Likewise, that neither [is it other][^p286-8] than the grace of the singular person, it seems: for Christ is Head according to that grace, according to which there is in him the integrity and perfection of the senses; and this is according to the grace of the singular person: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, Christ is Head according to that grace according to which he made satisfaction for us and merited for us that grace, as to motion and sense, should be derived to us; but this was according to the grace of the singular person, since the merit is regarded with respect to it: therefore the same as before.

> **Conclusion.** The grace of the Head, according to diverse comparisons, either differs from the grace of the union and of the singular person, or is the same, but as a habit does not import another habit, but other comparisons.

**I respond:** For an understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that the grace of the singular person properly names a habit according to which the soul is like God and acceptable. But the grace of the union is said in three ways, as was said above[^p287-1]. For in one way the grace of the union is called the grace that makes the union; and thus it names the divine essence, which alone is the cause of that union. In another way the grace of the union is called the grace disposing to the union by congruity; and thus it names a created quality, namely a habit of the soul. In a third way the grace of the union is said, that is, the union itself freely made; and thus it names the relation itself.

According to this it must also be understood that the grace of the Head can be taken in these three ways. In one way it can name the effective principle of sense and of spiritual motion in the members of Christ; and thus it names God himself and, by appropriation, the Holy Spirit. In another way it names that which disposes, by way of merit and preparation, to the influx of motion and sense with respect to any member whatever; and thus it names the habit of Christ's soul, through which Christ merited for us. In a third way the grace of the Head can be called the gratuitous presidency itself, which God freely made when he set his Word over us, as a head over members. In all these ways, in diverse authorities of the Saints and in Glosses, the grace of the Head is found to be taken[^p287-2].

If therefore the grace of the Head and of the union names the effective principle of that conjunction and of our spiritual sanctification; thus they name the same thing and are the same as to their principal signification, namely God himself, or the Holy Spirit; and there is a difference only as to the connotation, because the grace of the union connotes an effect about Christ, the grace of the Head an effect about the members of Christ; and they differ from the grace of the singular person, as the uncreated from the created, as the divine essence from the habit of grace which it infuses. — But if the grace of the union and of the Head be called the gratuitous union and presidency itself; thus they are diverse relations and comparisons, which nevertheless are not founded upon one thing and another, but upon the same. For that man is Head of other men by the very thing by which he is united to the Word of God. And in this way the grace of the union and of the Head differs from the grace of the singular person, as that to which a disposition is ordained differs from the disposition itself[^p287-3]. For the grace of the singular person by its perfection renders that nature fit to be united to God, and through this is set before the other Saints, as a head over the members. — But if the grace of the union and of the Head be called a habit disposing to the union and to the making-sensible of others[^p287-4], as the grace of the singular person is called a habit making the soul's assimilation to God; in this way this threefold grace is not threefold by reason of a diversity of habits, but by reason of the diverse comparison of the same habit. For that habit is called the grace of the singular person, inasmuch as it disposes to assimilation to God and inasmuch as it makes the soul deiform, and through this very thing it consequently[^p287-5] disposes to the personal union, and is called the grace of the union; and consequently through this very thing it disposes to the redundance or influx of motion and sense into the other members of Christ, and thus it is called the grace of the Head. — And thus it is plain that the grace of the Head, inasmuch as it is a habit, does not differ from the grace of the singular person, or of the union, according to a diversity of habits, but according to a multiplicity of comparisons[^p287-6]. — Hence the reasons for this side are to be granted.

1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that in Christ a grace is posited according to a threefold difference; it must be said that that division is not given on the basis of a difference of grace as to a diversity of habits, but as to a diversity of comparisons and respects, or of effects following one upon another, which do not essentially diversify the habits.

2. To that which is objected, that the grace of the Head is communicated; it must be said that the grace of the Head is not communicated to others in such a way that it is to them the grace of the Head, but in such a way that it has efficacy about others; and this indeed without doubt belongs to the grace of the singular person and of the union, since by reason of it he merited for us and made satisfaction for us. But although the grace of Christ, said in whatever way, has efficacy in us, nevertheless its efficacy in us is not given to be understood under whatever name, but only through this name, which is the grace of the Head. For thus it is named on account of the virtue and efficacy of influencing.

3. To that which is objected, that the grace of the singular person would remain if the assumed nature were laid aside, but not the grace of the Head; it must be said that this is true; but from this it does not follow that the grace of the Head differs from it by essence; but it is true that[^p288-1] it states a certain comparison and efficacy, which, I say, would not be found after the separation. For the grace of the Head, which is regarded in the influx and presidency of Christ with respect to others, in the natural order presupposes the union, by reason of which that man ineffably surpasses the rest.

4. To that which is objected, that the grace of the union has efficacy only at the end of times; it must be said that if the efficacy of the grace of the union be regarded in this, that it renders the soul of Christ fit for the union, it is true that it had efficacy only in the fullness of times. But if the efficacy of the grace of the union be regarded inasmuch as[^p288-2] it is believed by others, who are justified through that faith, thus it had efficacy from the beginning, and by this very thing it can be called the grace of the Head. And thus it is plain that the grace of the Head, according to one of its acceptations, which is more common, according to the essence of the habit does not differ from the others, but only according to comparison, as has been seen.

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 937, nota 5. De *disparatis* vide supra pag. 225, nota 5. De *gratia singularis personae* vide art. praeced.

en: Cf. vol. II, p. 937, note 5. On *disparates* see above p. 225, note 5. On the *grace of the singular person* see the preceding article.

la: Influendo motum et sensum in membra Ecclesiae, ut dictum est in quaest. praeced. — Paulo inferius pro *respiciunt* edd. *respicit.*

en: By flowing motion and sense into the members of the Church, as was said in the preceding question. — A little below, for *respiciunt* the editions read *respicit.*

la: Gal. 4, 4: At ubi venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum etc. De subnexis cfr. quaest. seq. ad 6.

en: Gal. 4:4: But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son etc. On what follows, cf. the next question, ad 6.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 26. q. 5. et d. 27. a. I. q. I. — Pro *una est gratia... una est vita* codd. H U *unica est gratia... unica est vita.*

en: Cf. II *Sent.* d. 26, q. 5, and d. 27, a. I, q. I. — For *one is the grace... one is the life* codices H U read *single is the grace... single is the life.*

la: Aristot., I. Metaph. c. I: Et prorsus signum scientis est posse docere. Cfr. V. Ethic. c. I, ubi Aristot. docet, eandem esse virtutem, qua quis in se perfectus sit, et iustitiam legalem, qua perficiatur in ordine ad bonum commune.

en: Aristotle, *Metaphysics* I, c. I: And altogether the sign of one who knows is the ability to teach. Cf. *Ethics* V, c. I, where Aristotle teaches that the virtue by which one is perfect in himself is the same as legal justice, by which one is perfected in order to the common good.

la: Vers. 22. — Glossa, quae sumta est ex August., Enarrat. in Ps. 85. n. 1, habetur apud Petr. Lombardum in hunc loc. Textus origin. post *faceret illis caput* addit *et illos ei tanquam membra coaptaret.* — In fine arg. cod. A omittit *Dei* post *quo a Verbo;* cod. H pro *Dei* substituit *dicitur* et edd. 1, 2 cum pluribus codd. perperam mutarunt *Dei* in *Deus.* Subinde post *assumtus* codd. Y bb supplent *est.*

en: Verse 22. — The Gloss, which is taken from Augustine, *Enarrat. in Ps.* 85, n. 1, is had in Peter Lombard on this passage. The original text after *he should make them a head* adds *and fit them to him as members.* — At the end of the argument cod. A omits *of God* after *whereby [assumed] by the Word;* cod. H substitutes *is said* for *of God,* and edd. 1, 2 with several codices wrongly changed *Dei* into *Deus.* Then after *assumed* codd. Y bb supply *is.*

la: De hoc dicto Aristot. cfr. supra pag. 43, nota 2, et verba August. (XIII. de Trin. c. 19. n. 24.) vide in praeced. dist. lit. Magistri, c. I. — Auctoritas, quae deinde respicitur, est Glossa in fundam. praeced. allegata.

en: On this dictum of Aristotle cf. above p. 43, note 2, and for the words of Augustine (*On the Trinity* XIII, c. 19, n. 24) see in the preceding distinction, the text of the Master, c. I. — The authority next referred to is the Gloss cited in the preceding fundamentum.

la: Supple cum cod. M *differat;* in codd. G N U W cc et edd. 1, 2 perperam scriptum est *quod nec sit gratia,* in Vat. legitur *quod haec sit a gratia.* Quoad *minorem* huius arg. et *maiorem* seq. vide quaest. praeced.

en: Supply with cod. M *differs;* in codd. G N U W cc and edd. 1, 2 it is wrongly written *that there is not a grace,* in the Vatican edition it reads *that this is from a grace.* As to the *minor* of this argument and the *major* of the following one, see the preceding question.

la: Dist. 2. a. 3. q. 2. ad 6. — Paulo superius pro *secundum quem* cod. F *per quem.*

en: D. 2, a. 3, q. 2, ad 6. — A little above, for *according to which* cod. F reads *through which.*

la: Auctoritates pro primo et secundo modo accipiendi gratiam capitis habes in corp. quaest. praeced., pro tertio modo hic in fundam. 3. — Paulo superius pro *potest dici* cod. F *dicitur.*

en: Authorities for the first and second way of taking the grace of the Head you have in the body of the preceding question, for the third way here in fundamentum 3. — A little above, for *can be said* cod. F reads *is said.*

la: Edd. cum cod. cc *disponente.*

en: The editions, with cod. cc, read *disposing.*

la: Edd. cum paucis codd. *sanctificationem.*

en: The editions, with a few codices, read *sanctification.*

la: Codd. L M O X Z aa bb *convenienter* (cfr. supra d. 2. a. 3. q. 2.). Paulo inferius pro *et consequenter* codd. L X aa bb iterum exhibent *et convenienter.*

en: Codd. L M O X Z aa bb read *suitably* (cf. above d. 2, a. 3, q. 2). A little below, for *and consequently* codd. L X aa bb again exhibit *and suitably.*

la: Edd. cum uno alteroque cod. *comparationem multiplicem.*

en: The editions, with one or another codex, read *a manifold comparison.*

la: Pro *quod* non pauci codd. et edd. 1, 2 *per.* Paulo inferius post *respectu aliorum* cod. F subiicit *hominum,* et in fine solut. pro *ceteris* Vat. cum aliquot codd. substituit *ceteros.*

en: For *that* not a few codices and edd. 1, 2 read *through.* A little below, after *with respect to others* cod. F adds *of men,* and at the end of the solution, for *the rest* the Vatican edition with several codices substitutes *the others.*

la: Codd. P Q *in quantum.* Circa finem solut. pro *secundum essentiam habitus* multi codd. habent *secundum suam essentiam habitus,* edd. *secundum suam essentiam habitu.*

en: Codd. P Q read *inasmuch as.* Toward the end of the solution, for *according to the essence of the habit* many codices have *according to its essence of the habit,* the editions *according to its essence by the habit.*

latin_scholion:
**I.** De triplici modo, quo dicitur gratia unionis, cfr. supra d. 2. a. 3. q. 2. ad 6. et d. 4. a. 2. q. 3. in corp. A Petro a Tar. (hic q. 3. a. I.) his tribus modis additur etiam quartus, quo significetur «effectus consequens unionem, id est attributorum communicatio gratuita». — Principia ad solvendas has duas quaestiones coniunctas iam in praecedenti quaestione tacta sunt. In solutione concordant S. Thom., Alex. Hal., Petr. a Tar., aliique communiter. — Ex solut. ad 3.–4. licet arguere, quod S. Bonav. cum communi sententia gratiam capitis proprie dictam ponat in gratia Christi habituali.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 12. m. I. a. 2, m. 3. a. I. — Scot. rem tangit III. Sent. d. 9. q. unica n. 9. seqq. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1.2; S. III. q. 8. a. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. I. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** On the threefold way in which the grace of the union is said, cf. above d. 2, a. 3, q. 2, ad 6, and d. 4, a. 2, q. 3, in the body. By Peter of Tarentaise (here q. 3, a. I) a fourth way is also added to these three, by which is signified «the effect following the union, that is, the gratuitous communication of attributes». — The principles for solving these two conjoined questions have already been touched upon in the preceding question. In the solution there agree St. Thomas, Alexander of Hales, Peter of Tarentaise, and others commonly. — From the solution to [objections] 3–4 it is permissible to argue that St. Bonaventure, with the common opinion, places the grace of the Head, properly so called, in the habitual grace of Christ.

**II.** Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. III, q. 12, m. I, a. 2, m. 3, a. I. — Scotus touches on the matter, III *Sent.* d. 9, q. unica, n. 9 ff. — St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 2, little-question 1.2; *Summa* III, q. 8, a. 5. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2, little-question I. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p{286,287,288}-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`), Left column top→bottom then Right column, body then footers, per the Vol II/III PDF-priority inversion. OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`, raw lines 20154–20304) used as base for clean running prose + footnote-marker spacing. Printed pages confirmed eyes-on from running-head TEXT (never OCR digits): `286 SENTENTIAR[UM LIB. III.]` (L-col top; q1's Scholion II–III tail above, then `QUAESTIO II.` opens) / `DIST. XIII. ART. II. QUAEST. II.` + `QUAEST. II. 287` / `288 SENTENTIAR[UM]` + `[SENTEN]TIARUM LIB. III.` (R-col running head). Offset `pdf = printed + 22` (PDF 308–310).

**Alignment.** PASS. Opener `Secundo quaeritur de gratia capitis quantum ad differentiam, utrum videlicet sit alia quam gratia singularis personae et gratia unionis` = ART. II q2, the *differentia* question. NOT q1 (*quid sit / creatum vel increatum*, raw 19969) and NOT q3 (*influentia / utrum Deus mediante gratia capitis influat sensum in omnem creaturam*, raw 20305). No q-swap.

**Page-split map.**
- p.286 (PDF 308): q2 opener + arguments 1–4 + Sed contra 1–6. Footers nn.1–8 → `[^p286-1]`–`[^p286-8]` (L-col nn.1–5, R-col nn.6–8). FRESH sequence — no footer migrates from a2-q1 (q1 consumed all of p.285).
- p.287 (PDF 309): Conclusio + Respondeo (full body) + replies (Ad 1, Ad 2). Footers nn.1–6 → `[^p287-1]`–`[^p287-6]` (L-col nn.1–2, R-col nn.3–6).
- p.288 (PDF 310): Ad 3, Ad 4, then Scholion I–II (L-col + R-col top; q2 ends mid-page, QUAESTIO III opens in the R column lower down). Footers: n.1 (`Pro quod… per`, anchors q2 Ad 3 `quod¹`) and n.2 (`Codd. P Q in quantum`, anchors q2 Ad 4 `quantum²`) → `[^p288-1]`–`[^p288-2]`. **p.288 footer n.3 (`Vers. 9. seq. — Verba Glossae, quae ordinaria…`) anchors in QUAESTIO III's first fundamentum (Ad Ephesios `Proposuit omnia instaurare in Christo… Vers. 9`) → FORWARDED to d13-a2-q3.**

**Apparatus count.** 16 entries (p.286: 8; p.287: 6; p.288: 2). Per-page restart, page-suffixed slugs. Marker pairing 16/16 clean (16 defs = 16 La anchors = 16 En anchors).

**Scholion.** `has_scholion: true`. Scholion I–II prints after q2's Ad 4 (p.288 L-col tail → R-col top) and pertains to THIS question (§I = triple/quadruple sense of *gratia unionis* + the two conjoined questions' shared principles + Bonaventure placing the grace-of-Head in habitual grace; §II = doctor-citations). The Scholion carries NO numbered apparatus of its own (the next numbered footer block on p.288 belongs to q3). q3 has its own scholion — q2's does NOT forward-cover it.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* NONE migrated from d13-a2-q1 — q1 consumed all of p.285's footers; q2's first body-footers are the fresh p.286 sequence (commit 67ef976 hand-off).
- *Forwarded to d13-a2-q3:* p.288 footer n.3 (`Vers. 9. seq.` — the Glossa ordinaria on Eph. 1, anchoring in q3's fund. 1). QUAESTIO III (*Utrum Deus mediante gratia capitis influat sensum in omnem creaturam habentem gratiam, sive angelicam, sive humanam*, raw 20305) opens in the lower R column of printed p.288 (PDF 310) with its own fresh footer sequence.

**[?] flags.** None — text fully legible at 450 dpi, confirmed column-by-column against the p.286/287/288 bands.