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

title_alt: Whether the fittingness is greater in the whole species than in one individual

source_text:
<!-- page 42 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum maior sit congruitas ad unionem in tota specie quam in uno individuo.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum maior sit congruitas in tota specie[^1] quam in uno individuo. Et quod maior sit in tota humana specie, videtur:

1. Quia tota indigebat curatione. Et Damascenus[^2] dicit, « quod erat inassumtibile erat incurabile »: ergo si propter curationem generis humani Deus naturam assumsit, videtur, quod magis congruum fuerit totam speciem assumere quam unam naturam singularem.

2. Item, maioris potestatis debuit esse reparator quam primus praevaricator; sed in primo praevaricatore Deus posuit totam humanam speciem, ita quod nihil erat extra ipsum Adam[^3], sed omnes in ipso erant: ergo videtur, quod magis congruerit, Dei Filium totam massam, quam Adam corruperat, assumere, quam aliquam eius partem.

3. Item, « bonum est diffusivum sui[^4] », ergo magis bonum magis diffusivum, ergo in maximo effectu bonitatis maxime se debet Deus diffundere; sed maximus effectus bonitatis divinae fuit redemptio generis humani: ergo congruebat, quod maxime se diffunderet: igitur magis congruum fuit, ut assumeret speciem quam aliquam naturam particularem.

4. Item, Filius missus est in *mentem*, et missus est in *carnem*; sed missio Filii Dei in *mentem* non tantum respicit unam animam singularem, sed omnem animam filiorum Dei per adoptionem: ergo pari ratione missio in *carnem* non debet esse in unum corpus singulare, sed in omnia corpora humana, vel saltem in aliqua, quae coniuncta sunt animabus, ad quas mittitur divina sapientia[^5].

**Contra:** 1. « Natura non facit per plura quae potest facere per pauciora[^6] » — et hoc facit ad eius commendationem — similiter ergo Deus, qui est institutor naturae: sed genus humanum potuit sufficienter reparari per unum hominem: ergo magis congruebat, quod unum assumeret quam plures.

2. Item, decet humanam naturam assumtam haberi in praecipuo honore; sed si omnes[^7] assumsisset, non esset magis honorabilis unus quam alter; hoc quidem derogaret honori et dignitati mediatoris, et nihil tale congruit fieri: ergo etc.

3. Item, si omnes assumsisset, ergo assumsisset peccatores; sed si nullo modo convenit, mediatorem esse peccatorem[^8], ergo non convenit, Filium Dei assumere omnem hominem.

4. Item, si omnes homines aut multos assumsisset, aut esset inter eos aliqua germanitatis *affinitas*, aut *nulla*. Si *nulla*, non videtur, quod hoc conveniret, cum inter personas divinas summa attendatur germanitas, ut dicit Richardus[^9]. Si autem esset *affinitas*, ita quod unus pater et alter filius, iam esset proprietatum confusio. Et ideo, si hoc non decet nec congruit, videlicet proprietates confundi in Trinitate; videtur, quod multitudo hominum non haberet congruitatem ad unionem, quemadmodum natura singularis.

### Conclusio.

> Non ita congruit, totam speciem, sive individuorum multitudinem assumi a Filio Dei, sicut congruit, ipsam assumi in natura singulari.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio non ita congruit, totam speciem, sive individuorum multitudinem assumi a Filio Dei, sicut competit ipsum assumere in natura singulari[^10]; et hoc tum ratione ipsius unionis in se, tum ratione reparationis nostrae, tum ratione exaltationis naturae assumtae. — Ratione unionis in se magis congruebat, quod assumeret unam naturam quam plures, sicut decens erat, unum uniri uni, et Unigenitum Patris fieri Unigenitum matris, ut sic per unionem naturae nec fieret recessus ab unitate, nec fieret confusio in personali proprietate.

Ratione vero reparationis nostrae magis congruebat, quia unio fiebat propter mediatorem. Mediator autem unus est[^11], ut reducat ad unitatem et

<!-- page 43 -->

concordiam Deum et hominem. Si enim plures essent, aut unus *sufficeret*, aut *non*. Si *sufficeret*, tunc alii superfluerent. Si *non sufficeret*, iam imperfectus mediator esset. Unde sicut Christus semel pro peccatis mortuus est, quia *una oblatione consummavit in sempiternum sanctificatos*[^12]; ita semel et in unica natura debuit incarnari.

Ratione vero *exaltationis naturae assumtae* magis congruebat, quia decebat illum hominem, qui Deus erat, sic exaltari, ut daretur ei *nomen, quod est super omne nomen*[^13]. Et quoniam illud « quod per superabundantiam dicitur, uni soli convenit »; sicut Deus est unus, qui non habet aliam naturam aequalem, sed summus est inter omnia, sic natura assumta unica est, cui non aequatur aliqua creatura, sed ipsa excellit inter omnia creata, tanquam cui *data est omnis potestas in caelo et in terra*[^14]. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ostendentes, quod magis decens fuerit assumere unam naturam singularem quam totam speciem.

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod tota indigebat curatione; dicendum, quod tota indigebat curatione, et tota curari poterat per unum hominem, sicut totum corpus curari potest per cauterium, quod fit circa unum membrum; ideo non oportuit, assumi totum genus humanum. — Nec valet illud quod obiicit de Damasceno: « Quod erat inassumtibile erat incurabile »; loquitur enim de assumtibili in se, vel in suo simili; sic tota humana natura assumta fuit in Christo, sicut patebit infra[^15]. Et nihil in homine indigebat curatione, quod non sit assumtum a Deo in unitate personae.

2. Ad illud quod opponitur, quod tota humana species fuit in praevaricatore; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia praevaricator corrupit et corruptionem transfudit mediante generatione carnali[^16]; Christus autem sanat per gratiam et mediante regeneratione spirituali; et ideo non oportet, quod illi qui curandi sunt, sint in carne Christi, sicut fuerunt in natura hominis primi. Sufficit enim renasci in Ecclesia per eius Sacramenta, in qua Christus regenerat filios virginitate integra.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod bonum est diffusivum sui in praecipuo effectu bonitatis; dicendum, quod magnitudo diffusionis potest intelligi *intensive*, vel *extensive*; sed in effectu bonitatis praecipuo non oportet esse diffusionem bonitatis per *extensionem*, sed per *intensionem*. Unde quanto maiora sunt dona, tanto paucioribus communicantur. Et quia gratia unionis est maxima in termino[^17], ita quod non potest esse maior nec cogitari; hinc est, quod uni singulari naturae debuit communicari.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod missio in mentem non respicit unam personam tantum; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia missio *in mentem* attenditur secundum effectum gratiae inhabitantem, quae[^18] communis est omnibus iustis; sed missio Filii *in carnem* est secundum gratiam unionis, quae facit, hominem esse Deum. Quamvis autem congruum sit, quod multis communicet iustitiae bonitatem, non tamen convenit, quod multis communicet divinitatis nomen et dignitatem. Decet enim Deum habere multos servos et filios adoptivos, sed non decet, multos homines esse naturales Dei filios sive deos, vel, ut proprius loquar, esse Deum vel Dei Filium unigenitum[^19].

---

english:
<!-- page 42 -->

### Question III. *Whether the fittingness toward union is greater in the whole species than in one individual.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the fittingness is greater in the whole species[^1] than in one individual. And that it is greater in the whole human species seems to be the case:

1. Because the whole [nature] was in need of healing. And Damascene[^2] says that "what was unassumable was incurable": therefore, if God assumed the nature for the healing of the human race, it seems that it would have been more fitting to assume the whole species than one singular nature.

2. Likewise, the repairer ought to have been of greater power than the first transgressor; but in the first transgressor God placed the whole human species, in such a way that nothing was outside Adam himself[^3], but all were in him: therefore it seems that it would have been more fitting for the Son of God to assume the whole mass which Adam had corrupted, than some part of it.

3. Likewise, "the good is diffusive of itself[^4]," therefore the greater good is more diffusive, therefore in the greatest effect of goodness God ought most to diffuse himself; but the greatest effect of divine goodness was the redemption of the human race: therefore it was fitting that he should diffuse himself most; therefore it was more fitting that he should assume the species than some particular nature.

4. Likewise, the Son is sent into the *mind*, and is sent into the *flesh*; but the sending of the Son of God into the *mind* does not regard only one singular soul, but every soul of the sons of God by adoption: therefore by parity of reasoning the sending into the *flesh* ought not to be into one singular body, but into all human bodies, or at least into some, which are conjoined to souls, to which the divine wisdom is sent[^5].

**On the contrary:** 1. "Nature does not do through many things what it can do through fewer[^6]" — and it does this for its own commendation — therefore likewise God, who is the institutor of nature: but the human race could be sufficiently repaired through one man: therefore it was more fitting that he should assume one [nature] than many.

2. Likewise, it is fitting that the assumed human nature be held in the highest honor; but if he had assumed all[^7], one would not be more honorable than another; this indeed would derogate from the honor and dignity of the mediator, and nothing of the sort is fitting to be done: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if he had assumed all, then he would have assumed sinners; but if it in no way befits the mediator to be a sinner[^8], then it does not befit the Son of God to assume every man.

4. Likewise, if he had assumed all men or many, either there would be among them some *kinship* of consanguinity, or *none*. If *none*, it does not seem that this would befit, since among the divine persons the highest kinship is regarded, as Richard says[^9]. But if there were *kinship*, such that one were father and another son, there would now be a confusion of properties. And therefore, if this is not seemly nor fitting, namely that the properties be confounded in the Trinity, it seems that a multitude of men would not have a fittingness toward union, as does a singular nature.

### Conclusion.

> It is not so fitting that the whole species, or the multitude of individuals, be assumed by the Son of God, as it is fitting that it be assumed in a singular nature.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt it is not so fitting that the whole species, or the multitude of individuals, be assumed by the Son of God, as it befits him to assume it in a singular nature[^10]; and this both by reason of the union in itself, and by reason of our reparation, and by reason of the exaltation of the assumed nature. — By reason of the union in itself it was more fitting that he should assume one nature than many, just as it was seemly that one be united to one, and that the Only-begotten of the Father become the Only-begotten of the mother, so that thus through the union of nature there be neither a withdrawal from unity, nor a confusion in the personal property.

But by reason of our reparation it was more fitting, because the union came about for the sake of the mediator. But the mediator is one[^11], that he may lead back to unity and

<!-- page 43 -->

concord God and man. For if there were many, either one would *suffice*, or *not*. If he *sufficed*, then the others would be superfluous. If he did *not suffice*, then he would now be an imperfect mediator. Hence, just as Christ died once for sins, because *by one offering he has consummated for ever those who are sanctified*[^12]; so once and in a single nature he ought to have been incarnate.

But by reason of *the exaltation of the assumed nature* it was more fitting, because it was seemly that that man, who was God, be so exalted that there be given to him *a name which is above every name*[^13]. And since that "which is said by way of superabundance befits one alone"; just as God is one, who has no other nature equal to him, but is highest among all things, so the assumed nature is unique, to which no creature is equal, but it itself excels among all created things, as one to whom *all power in heaven and on earth has been given*[^14]. — Therefore the reasons are to be granted which show that it was more seemly to assume one singular nature than the whole species.

1. But to that which is objected to the contrary, that the whole [nature] was in need of healing; it must be said that the whole was in need of healing, and the whole could be healed through one man, just as the whole body can be healed through a cautery which is applied around one member; therefore it was not necessary that the whole human race be assumed. — Nor does that avail which is objected from Damascene: "What was unassumable was incurable"; for he speaks of the assumable in itself, or in its like; thus the whole human nature was assumed in Christ, as will be made clear below[^15]. And nothing in man was in need of healing which has not been assumed by God in unity of person.

2. To that which is opposed, that the whole human species was in the transgressor; it must be said that it is not similar, because the transgressor corrupted and transmitted the corruption by means of carnal generation[^16]; but Christ heals through grace and by means of spiritual regeneration; and therefore it is not necessary that those who are to be healed be in the flesh of Christ, as they were in the nature of the first man. For it suffices to be reborn in the Church through its Sacraments, in which Christ regenerates sons with virginity intact.

3. To that which is objected, that the good is diffusive of itself in the chief effect of goodness; it must be said that the magnitude of diffusion can be understood *intensively* or *extensively*; but in the chief effect of goodness there need not be a diffusion of goodness through *extension*, but through *intension*. Hence the greater the gifts, the fewer they are communicated to. And because the grace of union is greatest at the terminus[^17], so that there cannot be a greater nor can a greater be conceived; hence it is that it ought to be communicated to one singular nature.

4. To that which is objected, that the sending into the mind does not regard one person only; it must be said that it is not similar, because the sending *into the mind* is regarded according to the indwelling effect of grace, which[^18] is common to all the just; but the sending of the Son *into the flesh* is according to the grace of union, which makes man to be God. But although it is fitting that he communicate to many the goodness of justice, nevertheless it does not befit that he communicate to many the name and dignity of divinity. For it befits God to have many servants and adoptive sons, but it does not befit that many men be natural sons of God, that is, gods, or, to speak more properly, that they be God or the Only-begotten Son of God[^19].

---

la: Vat. *congruitas ad unionem in tota specie humana.*

en: The Vatican edition reads *fittingness toward union in the whole human species.*

la: Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 6. et 18. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. in fine. — Paulo inferius post *Deus naturam* cod. K adiicit *humanam.*

en: Book III of *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 6 and 18. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1, at the end. — A little below, after *God ... the nature*, codex K adds *human.*

la: Anselm., de Conceptu virg. et orig. pecc. c. 2: *Tota natura humana in illis* [Adam et Eva] *erat, et extra illos de illa nihil erat.* Cfr. II. Sent. d. 30. a. 1. q. 2.

en: Anselm, *On the Conception of the Virgin and Original Sin*, c. 2: "The whole human nature was in them" [Adam and Eve], "and outside of them there was nothing of it." Cf. II Sent. d. 30, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Secundum Dionys., de Caelest. Hierarch. c. 4. § 1, et de Div. Nom. c. 4. § 1. seq.

en: According to Dionysius, *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, c. 4, § 1, and *On the Divine Names*, c. 4, § 1 ff.

la: Respicitur illud Sap. 9, 10: *Mitte illam* [sapientiam] *de caelis sanctis tuis* etc. — Pro *in aliqua* codd. G H K M O Z bb *in illa.*

en: Reference is made to that text of Wisdom 9:10: "Send her" [wisdom] "from your holy heavens" etc. — For *into some*, codices G H K M O Z bb read *into that.*

la: Axioma hoc fundatur in locis Aristotelis, tom. II. pag. 44, nota 5, pag. 741, nota 4. et pag. 778, nota 2. allatis.

en: This axiom is founded on the passages of Aristotle cited in tom. II, p. 44, note 5, p. 741, note 4, and p. 778, note 2.

la: Codd. G H (K a secunda manu) Y (Z a prima manu) bb *omnes Sanctos.*

en: Codices G H (K by a second hand) Y (Z by a first hand) bb read *all the Saints.*

la: August., X. Confess. c. 43. n. 68: *Mediator ille Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus, inter mortales peccatores et immortalem iustum apparuit; mortalis cum hominibus, iustus cum Deo: ut, quoniam stipendium iustitiae vita et pax est, per iustitiam coniunctam Deo evacuaret mortem iustificatorum impiorum, quam cum illis voluit habere communem.*

en: Augustine, *Confessions* X, c. 43, n. 68: "That mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, appeared between mortal sinners and the immortal just one; mortal with men, just with God: so that, since the wage of justice is life and peace, by justice joined to God he might destroy the death of the justified ungodly, which he willed to have in common with them."

la: Libr. VI. de Trin. c. 2. et 4. seqq. — De seq. propos. cfr. supra pag. 17, notae 3. 7. 9. — Paulo inferius post *videtur* codd. N W subiiciunt *etiam.*

en: Book VI of *On the Trinity*, c. 2 and 4 ff. — On the following proposition cf. above, p. 17, notes 3, 7, 9. — A little below, after *it seems*, codices N W add *also.*

la: Edd. *naturam in singulari.* Post *assumere* in cod. K a secunda manu adiectum est *hominem.*

en: The editions read *the nature in the singular.* After *to assume*, in codex K a second hand has added *man.*

la: Epist. I. Tim. 2, 5: *Unus enim Deus, unus et mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus.* — Codd. K P Q R bb hic adiiciunt *ut dicit Apostolus.* Paulo superius pro *in personali proprietate* cod. Q *in personarum proprietate.* Dein post *fiebat* cod. F addit *haec.* Paulo inferius pro *Si enim* edd. *Si ergo.*

en: First Epistle to Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus." — Codices K P Q R bb here add *as the Apostle says.* A little above, for *in the personal property* codex Q reads *in the property of the persons.* Then after *came about* codex F adds *these things.* A little below, for *For if* the editions read *Therefore if.*

la: Hebr. 10, 14. Ibid. 9, 28: *Sic et Christus semel oblatus est ad multorum exhaurienda peccata.*

en: Hebrews 10:14. Ibid. 9:28: "So also Christ was offered once to take away the sins of many."

la: Phil. 2, 9. — Seq. testimonium est Aristotelis et habetur V. Topic. c. 3. (c. 5.), de quo vide ibid. VII. c. 1. et tom. I. pag. 542, nota 2.

en: Philippians 2:9. — The following testimony is from Aristotle and is found in *Topics* V, c. 3 (c. 5), on which see ibid. VII, c. 1, and tom. I, p. 542, note 2.

en: Matthew 28:18.

la: Art. seq. per totum et d. 5. a. 2. q. 1. et 3. — Codd. et edd. 1, 2 verba Damasceni gratuito dant ordine inverso: *quod erat incurabile erat inassumtibile.* Deinde pro *in Christo* codd. G H K O Z aa bb exhibent *a Christo*, et mox pro *Et nihil* codd. M O *ita quod nihil.* In fine solut. non pauci codd. *in unitate* mutaverunt *in unitatem.*

en: The following article throughout, and d. 5, a. 2, q. 1 and 3. — Codices and editions 1, 2 gratuitously give the words of Damascene in inverted order: "what was incurable was unassumable." Then for *in Christ* codices G H K O Z aa bb present *by Christ*, and presently for *And nothing* codices M O read *so that nothing.* At the end of the solution not a few codices changed *in unity* to *into unity.*

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Quomodo generatio et regeneratio inter se differant sintque contrariae inter se, exponit August., I. de Peccat. merit. et remiss. etc. c. 31. n. 60. et III. c. 2. n. 2. — In fine solut. Vat. et ed. 1 voci *virginitate* praefigunt *in.*

en: Cf. II Sent. d. 31, a. 2, q. 1 ff. — How generation and regeneration differ from one another and are mutually contrary, Augustine sets forth in *On the Merits and Remission of Sins* I, c. 31, n. 60, and III, c. 2, n. 2. — At the end of the solution the Vatican edition and edition 1 prefix *in* to the word *virginity.*

la: De hac *dictione*, quae est secundum Gilb. Porret., cfr. tom. II. pag. 787, nota 6. De *re ipsa* vide infra d. 6. a. 1. q. 2. seqq. et d. 13. a. 1. q. 2. seq. — Cod. A *magis in termino.* Aliquantulum ante deest in compluribus codd. *tanto.*

en: On this *expression*, which is according to Gilbert of Poitiers, cf. tom. II, p. 787, note 6. On *the matter itself* see below d. 6, a. 1, q. 2 ff., and d. 13, a. 1, q. 2 f. — Codex A reads *greater at the terminus.* A little before, in several codices *so much* is lacking.

la: Vat. *qui.*

en: The Vatican edition reads *who* [masculine].

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 42–43 (PDF 64–65; offset +22), per the Vol II/III override (the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters the Respondeo and every footer). OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 3515–3614) used for clean prose and exact `[^N]` marker spacing. English is a fresh literal translation per the formula/terminology tables.

**Alignment result: PASS.** Opener `Tertio quaeritur, utrum maior sit congruitas in tota specie quam in uno individuo` = ART. I TRACTATIO q3 (no auto-chunker q-swap). This is the LAST question of ARTICULUS I; ARTICULUS I is now COMPLETE.

**Page-split map.** Body spans pp. 42–43. p.42 (column head `QUAESTIO III.`): the four fundamenta, the four *Contra* objections, the Conclusio blockquote, and the Respondeo through *Ratio 2* (`Mediator autem unus est`). p.43 (running head L `DIST. II. ART. II.`, R `43`): continuation of *Ratio 2*, *Ratio 3* (exaltatio), and replies *Ad 1–4*. Reply *Ad 4* ends grammatically complete at `…esse Deum vel Dei Filium unigenitum[^19].` (raw 3614); `ARTICULUS II.` (raw 3615, subtitle *De natura assumta quoad suarum partium integritatem*) begins immediately after — folds into d2-a2-q1, NOT here. Tail + ART. II opener continuous (no cascade-merge splice).

**Marginal labels** (rendered inline as structural headings / not footnote anchors): *Ad oppositum* (fund region, p.42 L), *Fundamenta* (Contra, p.42 L), *Conclusio* (the blockquote and the Respondeo open, p.42 R), *Triplex ratio*, *Ratio 1*, *Ratio 2* (p.42 R), *Ratio 3* (p.43 L), *Solutio oppositorum* (p.43 L, the replies), *Distinctio* and *Notandum* (p.43 R, within reply *Ad 3*).

**Apparatus split (19 entries, continuous slugs [^1]–[^19]).** **p.42 footers 1–11 = [^1]–[^11]** (L-col 1–7: ¹Vat. *in tota specie* variant; ²Damascene *de Fide orthod*; ³Anselm *de Conceptu virg.*; ⁴Dionys. *Caelest. Hierarch.*; ⁵Sap. 9,10; ⁶Aristotle axiom; ⁷Codd. *omnes Sanctos*. R-col 8–11: ⁸August. X *Confess.*; ⁹Richard VI *de Trin.*; ¹⁰Edd. *naturam in singulari*; ¹¹Tim 2,5 mediator). **p.43 footers 1–8 = [^12]–[^19]** (¹²Hebr 10,14; ¹³Phil 2,9; ¹⁴Matth 28,18; ¹⁵Art. seq. + Damasceni inverted order; ¹⁶Cfr. II Sent. + generatio/regeneratio; ¹⁷*dictione* per Gilbert Porret.; ¹⁸Vat. *qui*; ¹⁹`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`). **p.43 footer 9** (`In multis codd. desideratur vox Christus…`) anchors `ARTICULUS II.`'s opener (`utrum Christus⁹ assumserit`) — OUT OF CHUNK; FORWARDED to d2-a2-q1, OMITTED here (not anchorless). Marker pairing: 19 La = 19 En = 19 defs, continuous 1–19, 0 anchorless / 0 defless.

**Scholion disposition: has_scholion: false — VERIFIED on PDF p.43.** Reply *Ad 4* ends at `unigenitum[^19]` and `ARTICULUS II.` begins immediately — there is NO SCHOLION block for q3. Confirmed by footer [^19] itself: `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` ("See the scholion to the preceding question") — q3's matter is treated in q2's scholion §III (`De sequenti (3.) quaestione…`, noted in the q2 hand-off, commit 1991e4b). No shared-page footer carried from q2: q2's scholion + p.41 footers were fully consumed; q3 opened a fresh per-page footer sequence at the top of p.42, exactly as the q2 hand-off predicted.

**Forward hand-off to d2-a2-q1 (ARTICULUS II opener folds in):**
1. **ARTICULUS II** (raw 3615, subtitle *De natura assumta quoad suarum partium integritatem*) — opener `Consequenter quaeritur de natura assumta quantum ad suarum partium integritatem. Et quantum ad hoc quaeruntur tria.` Then the TRACTATIO of three questions: q1 `Primo quaeritur, utrum Christus⁹ assumserit veram carnem.`; q2 `Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus habuerit veram animam rationalem.`; q3 `Tertio quaeritur, utrum Christus assumendo carnem humanam habuerit speciem communem.` The short ART. II opener + TRACTATIO fold into d2-a2-q1 (chunking convention — no standalone d2-a2-divisio). q1 begins on p.43.
2. **SHARED-PAGE FOOTER carries into d2-a2-q1.** p.43's footer ⁹ (`In multis codd. desideratur vox Christus, cuius loco codd. A F substituunt Verbum, qui et proxime post omittunt veram.`) anchors ART. II's TRACTATIO q1 opener `utrum Christus⁹ assumserit veram carnem`. d2-a2-q1 INHERITS this footer as its first apparatus entry, THEN continues with fresh p.43+ footers (per-page restart). q3 consumed p.43 footers 1–8 only.
3. **Page span:** q1 (raw 3615–~3814) starts on p.43 and runs onward; confirm pages via running heads (`DIST. II. ART. II. QUAEST. I.`). Final-page spill pattern likely (q1/q2/q3 of ART. I each spilled a page past the naive estimate). Check for an ART. II scholion on the PDF (per-question d.1 pattern).

**[?] flags:** none.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

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

title_alt:
Utrum Christus assumserit veram carnem
Whether Christ assumed true flesh

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 43 -->

### Articulus II. *De natura assumta quoad suarum partium integritatem.*

Consequenter quaeritur de natura assumta quantum ad suarum partium integritatem. Et quantum ad hoc quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum Christus[^1] assumserit veram carnem.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus habuerit veram animam rationalem.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Christus assumendo carnem humanam habuerit speciem communem.

<!-- page 44 -->

### Quaestio I. *Utrum Christus assumserit veram carnem.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum Christus assumserit veram carnem. Et quod sic, probatur:

1. Per illud quod dicitur Lucae ultimo[^2]: *Palpate et videte; quoniam spiritus carnem et ossa non habet:* si ergo Christus post resurrectionem veram carnem habuit, necessario sequitur, quod ante.

2. Item, Damascenus[^3]: « Quod erat inassumtibile erat incurabile »: ergo quod fuit curabile fuit assumtibile, et quod fuit curatum fuit assumtum; sed non tantum anima, sed etiam caro receperunt per Christum curationem: ergo etc.

3. Item, non nascitur homo ex homine nisi ex carne; sed Christus natus et conceptus fuit ex Maria Virgine[^4]: ergo veram ex ea traxit carnem.

4. Item, caro vera est necessario de vera constitutione hominis: ergo si Christus caruit vera carne, caruit vera humanitate; et si vera humanitate caruit, caruit vero sanguine et vero pretio redemptionis[^5]: ergo tota fides nostra est inanis. Quod si hoc dicere est haereticae impietatis, haereticum est et verae fidei adversarium ponere, Christum non habuisse veram carnem humanam.

**Sed contra:** 1. Ad Galatas quinto[^6]: *Caro concupiscit adversus spiritum;* sed in Christo non fuit aliqua concupiscentia vel inordinatio: ergo nec vera caro.

2. Item, Ioannis tertio[^7]: *Qui de terra est de terra loquitur; qui de caelo venit super omnes est.* In hoc autem assignatur differentia Christi ad alios homines; sed alii homines de terra sunt, quia corpus eorum est de terra: ergo corpus Christi non fuit de terra nec de aliis elementis, sicut alia corpora: ergo non videtur, quod habuerit veram carnem humanam.

3. Item, unio praesupponit in unibili rationem imaginis — unde creatura irrationalis non habet in se congruitatem ad unionem[^8] — sed humana caro non habet in se imaginem Dei, quia illa est in superiori portione rationis: ergo non videtur, quod a Verbo Dei habeat assumi.

4. Item, excellentior est gratia unionis quam fruitionis; sed fruitio non convenit ipsi[^9] carni: ergo multo minus nec unio ad deitatem: ergo Christus non assumsit veram carnem.

5. Item, unio facit communicationem idiomatum[^10]; sed caro Christi non recipit communicationem idiomatum quantum ad proprietates divinas, caro enim non est Deus: ergo non videtur, quod sit unita vel assumta a Verbo Dei.

### Conclusio

> Christus veram humanam carnem verumque corpus humanum habuit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circa hoc fuit triplex modus dicendi; et duo sunt haeretici[^11], tertius est catholicus.

Quidam dicere voluerunt, quod Christi caro non erat caro vera, sed caro phantastica; et hoc quidem dicebant, quia indecens eis videbatur, Deum uniri naturae corporeae. — Sed hi, dum voluerunt vitare apparens inconveniens, inciderunt in verum inconveniens; et dum voluerunt Deo reddere laudem apparenter, in blasphemiam inciderunt veraciter.

<!-- page 45 -->

Ponere enim, quod Christus carnem habuit[^12] phantasticam, est perfecto attribuere imperfectionem, et veritati deceptionem. Si enim verum corpus non habuit, perfectus homo non fuit. — Item, si verum corpus non habuit, vere passus non fuit: ergo cunctos credentes in eum decepit. Si igitur hoc dicere est Deum impie blasphemare, patet, quod manifestus error est ponere, quod verum corpus non assumsisset[^13].

Et ideo alii dixerunt, quod Christus verum corpus habuit et veram carnem; sed caro illa non fuit terrestris, sed caelestis. De caelo enim carnem illam attulisse Christum dixerunt, quia non decebat ipsum habere carnem peccatricem, tum quia concupiscit adversus spiritum, tum etiam quia auctorem habet diabolum. Et hunc suum errorem munire volunt per illud primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto[^14]: *Primus homo de terra terrenus, secundus homo de caelo caelestis;* et per illud quod dicitur Ioannis tertio: *Qui de caelo venit super omnes est.* — Sed hic error pessimus repugnat veritati incarnationis et reparationis: veritati incarnationis, quia Christus, secundum quod sacra Eloquia[^15] testantur, fuit ex semine David secundum carnem, qui natus fuit de Maria Virgine, quae fuit de stirpe David. — Repugnat autem veritati reparationis, quia, si non habuit carnem terrestrem, sed caelestem, non habuit passibilem; si etiam non habuit carnem terrestrem[^16], non habuit carnem de nostro genere; et si haec vera sunt, nec vere patiebatur, nec homo per ipsum vere redimebatur. Si ergo haec duo impietatis sunt et blasphemiae, planum est, quod iste modus dicendi falsus est et haereticus[^17].

Et ideo est tertius modus dicendi verus et catholicus, quod Christus veram humanam carnem habuit, ita quod caro illa et verum corpus fuit et vere carni nostrae in natura consimilis. — Non enim decebat in ipsa veritate invenire deceptionem et oculorum ludificationem, quia veritas non novit fallere. Nec decebat in perfectissimo Dei Filio invenire imperfectionem, quia perfectissimus non novit deficere; et ideo, sicut apparebat, sic verum corpus et perfectum[^18] de nostro genere et de utero beatae Virginis assumsit verissime. — Et concedendae sunt rationes hoc ostendentes.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, dicendum, quod illud verum est de carne, in qua viget fomes concupiscentiae, et talis caro est peccatrix[^19]; talis autem caro fuit in Adam post peccatum et in posteris concupiscentialiter genitis. Sed talis caro non fuit in Adam ante peccatum, nec in Christo, qui non fuit conceptus in libidine, sed Spiritus sancti virtute; et pro tanto dicitur eius caro esse caelestis et venire desursum, quia assimilatur altitudini humanae naturae, quae fuit in Adam quantum ad privationem omnis immunditiae[^20].

2. Et per hoc patet responsio ad sequens obiectum. Non enim dicitur Christus venire de caelo, quia caro eius descenderit de caelo, sed quia missus est a Patre; caro enim formata est secundum divinam operationem carens originali peccato et omni rebellione. Et in hoc erraverunt impii Manichaei, sicut superius ostensum est in secundo libro[^21]; quia crediderunt, quod caro terrestris de sui natura repugnaret spiritui, tanquam haberet ortum a Deo malo; et in hunc errorem inciderunt, quia nescierunt distinguere inter vitium et naturam.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod unio praesupponit rationem imaginis in suo unibili; dicendum, quod hoc verum est vel *in se*, vel *in ratione annexi*; et quamvis caro humana *in se* non habeat rationem imaginis, tamen unita est animae factae ad imaginem Dei.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod excellentior est gratia unionis quam fruitionis; dicendum, quod verum est per comparationem ad idem, utpote ad animam, quae Deo fruitur et Deo unitur, quia excellentior est gratia unionis quam fruitionis et eam praesupponit; tamen respectu corporis secus est, quia gratia fruitionis non est nata esse in corpore sive circa corpus, cum ponat solum *habitum creatum*, qui habet habilitare potentiam cognoscitivam. Sed gratia unionis in corpore non ponit alicuius habitus collationem, sed solum *substantificationem* ipsius corporis assumti in persona[^22] divina, sicut in hypostasi, quae quidem est ex mera et gratuita

<!-- page 46 -->

bonitate Dei; et propterea non sic repugnat nec sic est extranea, sicut gratia fruitionis.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de communicatione idiomatum, dicendum, quod, sicut infra[^23] patebit, idiomata non communicantur ipsi naturae assumtae, vel partibus eius, sed communicantur ipsi *rei naturae.* Nam haec est falsa: Filius Dei est caro, vel anima rationalis, quamvis haec sit vera: Filius Dei est homo.

english:
### Article II. *On the assumed nature with respect to the integrity of its parts.*

Next there is inquiry concerning the assumed nature with respect to the integrity of its parts. And concerning this three things are asked.

First it is asked, whether Christ[^1] assumed true flesh.

Second it is asked, whether Christ had a true rational soul.

Third it is asked, whether Christ, in assuming human flesh, had a common species.

### Question I. *Whether Christ assumed true flesh.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is asked, whether Christ assumed true flesh. And that he did is proved:

1. By that which is said in the last [chapter] of Luke[^2]: *Handle and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones:* if therefore Christ after the resurrection had true flesh, it necessarily follows that he had it before.

2. Likewise, Damascene[^3]: « What was unassumable was incurable »: therefore what was curable was assumable, and what was cured was assumed; but not only the soul, but also the flesh received healing through Christ: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, a man is not born of a man except from flesh; but Christ was born and conceived of the Virgin Mary[^4]: therefore he drew true flesh from her.

4. Likewise, true flesh belongs necessarily to the true constitution of a man: therefore if Christ lacked true flesh, he lacked true humanity; and if he lacked true humanity, he lacked true blood and the true price of redemption[^5]: therefore our whole faith is vain. But if to say this is of heretical impiety, it is heretical and an adversary of the true faith to hold that Christ did not have true human flesh.

**Sed contra:** 1. In the fifth [chapter] to the Galatians[^6]: *The flesh lusteth against the spirit;* but in Christ there was no concupiscence or disorder: therefore neither true flesh.

2. Likewise, in the third [chapter] of John[^7]: *He that is of the earth speaketh of the earth; he that cometh from heaven is above all.* But in this is marked the difference of Christ from other men; but other men are of the earth, because their body is of the earth: therefore Christ's body was not of the earth nor of the other elements, as are other bodies: therefore it does not seem that he had true human flesh.

3. Likewise, union presupposes in what is unitable the character of an image — whence an irrational creature does not have in itself a fittingness for union[^8] — but human flesh does not have in itself the image of God, because that is in the higher portion of reason: therefore it does not seem that it may be assumed by the Word of God.

4. Likewise, the grace of union is more excellent than [the grace] of fruition; but fruition does not belong to flesh[^9] itself: therefore much less union to the deity: therefore Christ did not assume true flesh.

5. Likewise, union effects a communication of idioms[^10]; but the flesh of Christ does not receive the communication of idioms with respect to the divine properties, for the flesh is not God: therefore it does not seem that it is united or assumed by the Word of God.

### Conclusio

> Christ had true human flesh and a true human body.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that concerning this there were three ways of speaking; and two are heretical[^11], the third is catholic.

Some wished to say that the flesh of Christ was not true flesh, but phantasmal flesh; and this indeed they said, because it seemed unfitting to them that God should be united to a corporeal nature. — But these, while they wished to avoid an apparent unfittingness, fell into a true unfittingness; and while they wished to render praise to God apparently, they fell into blasphemy truly.

For to hold that Christ had[^12] phantasmal flesh is to attribute imperfection to the perfect, and deception to the truth. For if he did not have a true body, he was not a perfect man. — Likewise, if he did not have a true body, he did not truly suffer: therefore he deceived all who believe in him. If therefore to say this is to blaspheme God impiously, it is plain that it is a manifest error to hold that he did not assume a true body[^13].

And therefore others said that Christ had a true body and true flesh; but that flesh was not earthly, but heavenly. For they said that Christ brought that flesh from heaven, because it was not fitting for him to have sinful flesh, both because it lusts against the spirit, and also because it has the devil as its author. And they wish to fortify this error of theirs by that text of the first [letter] to the Corinthians, the fifteenth [chapter][^14]: *The first man was of the earth, earthy; the second man, from heaven, heavenly;* and by that which is said in the third [chapter] of John: *He that cometh from heaven is above all.* — But this most wicked error contradicts the truth of the incarnation and of the reparation: the truth of the incarnation, because Christ, according as the sacred Scriptures[^15] testify, was of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was born of the Virgin Mary, who was of the stock of David. — But it contradicts the truth of the reparation, because, if he did not have earthly flesh, but heavenly, he did not have passible [flesh]; if also he did not have earthly flesh[^16], he did not have flesh of our kind; and if these things are true, neither did he truly suffer, nor was man truly redeemed through him. If therefore these two are of impiety and blasphemy, it is clear that this way of speaking is false and heretical[^17].

And therefore there is a third way of speaking, true and catholic, that Christ had true human flesh, in such wise that that flesh was both a true body and truly like to our flesh in nature. — For it was not fitting to find in the truth itself deception and a deluding of the eyes, because truth knows not how to deceive. Nor was it fitting to find imperfection in the most perfect Son of God, because the most perfect knows not how to fail; and therefore, as it appeared, so he most truly assumed a true and perfect[^18] body of our kind and from the womb of the blessed Virgin. — And the reasons showing this are to be granted.

1. To that, therefore, which is first objected to the contrary, it must be said that that is true of flesh in which the tinder of concupiscence is vigorous, and such flesh is sinful[^19]; but such flesh was in Adam after sin and in his posterity begotten concupiscently. But such flesh was not in Adam before sin, nor in Christ, who was not conceived in lust, but by the power of the Holy Spirit; and to that extent his flesh is said to be heavenly and to come from above, because it is likened to the height of human nature, which was in Adam with respect to the privation of all uncleanness[^20].

2. And by this the response to the following objection is plain. For Christ is not said to come from heaven because his flesh descended from heaven, but because he was sent by the Father; for the flesh was formed according to the divine operation, lacking original sin and all rebellion. And in this the impious Manichees erred, as was shown above in the second book[^21]; for they believed that earthly flesh by its own nature was repugnant to the spirit, as though it had its origin from an evil god; and they fell into this error, because they did not know how to distinguish between vice and nature.

3. To that which is objected, that union presupposes the character of an image in what is unitable; it must be said that this is true either *in itself*, or *in the character of what is annexed*; and although human flesh *in itself* does not have the character of an image, nevertheless it is united to a soul made to the image of God.

4. To that which is objected, that the grace of union is more excellent than [the grace] of fruition; it must be said that this is true by comparison to the same thing, namely to the soul, which enjoys God and is united to God, because the grace of union is more excellent than [that] of fruition and presupposes it; nevertheless with respect to the body it is otherwise, because the grace of fruition is not born to be in the body or about the body, since it posits only a *created habit*, which has [the function] of enabling the cognitive power. But the grace of union in the body does not posit the conferral of any habit, but only the *substantification* of the assumed body itself in the divine person[^22], as in a hypostasis, which indeed is from the mere and gratuitous

goodness of God; and therefore it does not so contradict nor is it so foreign, as the grace of fruition.

5. To that which is objected concerning the communication of idioms, it must be said that, as will appear below[^23], the idioms are not communicated to the assumed nature itself, or to its parts, but are communicated to the *thing of the nature* itself. For this is false: The Son of God is flesh, or a rational soul, although this is true: The Son of God is man.

la: In multis codd. desideratur vox *Christus*, cuius loco codd. A F substituunt *Verbum*, qui et proxime post omittunt *veram.*

en: In many codices the word *Christ* is wanting, in place of which codices A F substitute *Word*, which [codices] also immediately after omit *true.*

la: Vers. 39. Cfr. August., Serm. 237. (alias 145. de Tempore).

en: Verse 39. Cf. Augustine, *Sermon* 237 (alias 145, on the Season).

la: Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 6. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. in fine. — Iren., V. contra Haeres. c. 12. n. 6. Cfr. supra pag. 29, nota 7.

en: Book III, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 6. See here the text of the Master, c. 1, at the end. — Irenaeus, V *Against Heresies*, c. 12, n. 6. Cf. above p. 29, note 7.

la: Ut profitemur in Symbolo Apostol. Cfr. Luc. 1, 31. seqq.

en: As we profess in the Apostles' Creed. Cf. Luke 1, 31 ff.

la: Respicitur illud I. Petr. 1, 18. 19: *Scientes, quod non corruptibilibus auro vel argento redempti estis... sed pretioso sanguine* etc.; et subinde illud I. Cor. 15, 14: *Si autem Christus non resurrexit... inanis est et fides vestra.* Cfr. ibid. v. 17. Hoc argumento utitur Tertull., III. adversus Marcion. c. 8. dicens: *Vere autem pati phantasma non potuit. Eversum est igitur totum Dei opus. Totum christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors Christi negatur... Negata vero morte, dum caro negatur, nec de resurrectione constabit... Proinde resurrectione Christi infirmata, etiam nostra subversa est... atque ita inanis est fides nostra* etc. — Pro *impietatis* edd. *pravitatis.*

en: Reference is made to that text of I Peter 1, 18-19: *Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as gold or silver... but with the precious blood* etc.; and thereupon that text of I Cor. 15, 14: *But if Christ be not risen again... your faith is also vain.* Cf. ibid. v. 17. Tertullian uses this argument, III *Against Marcion* c. 8, saying: *But truly a phantasm could not suffer. The whole work of God is therefore overthrown. The whole weight and fruit of the Christian name, the death of Christ, is denied... but with his death denied, while his flesh is denied, neither will the resurrection stand... accordingly, with Christ's resurrection invalidated, ours too is subverted... and thus our faith is vain* etc. — For *impiety* the editions read *depravity.*

la: Vers. 17. — De minori cfr. infra d. 12. a. 2. q. 1. seq. et d. 13. a. 1. q. 2.

en: Verse 17. — On the minor [premise] cf. below d. 12, a. 2, q. 1 f., and d. 13, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Vers. 31. — Paulo inferius ante *nec de aliis* codd. F G H Z interserunt *item.*

en: Verse 31. — A little below, before *nor of the others*, codices F G H Z insert *likewise.*

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1, ubi et seq. arg. insinuatur. — De minori cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. — Vat. *ad unionem istam personalem.*

en: Cf. above a. 1, q. 1, where also the following argument is intimated. — On the minor [premise] cf. I *Sent.* d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 2. — The Vatican [edition] reads *to that personal union.*

la: Edd. *Christi.* Mox pro *deitatem* codd. G H L N T U V Z *divinitatem.*

en: The editions read *of Christ.* Presently, for *deity*, codices G H L N T U V Z [read] *divinity.*

la: De communicatione idiomatum cfr. supra pag. 14, nota 3. locum Damasceni.

en: On the communication of idioms cf. above p. 14, note 3, the passage of Damascene.

la: Has duas opiniones haereticas earumque auctores Tertull., de Carne Christi, c. 1. impugnat dicens: *Marcion, ut carnem Christi negaret, negavit etiam nativitatem; aut ut nativitatem negaret, negavit et carnem, scilicet ne invicem sibi testimonium redderent et responderent nativitas et caro, quia nec nativitas sine carne, nec caro sine nativitate. Quasi non eadem licentia haeretica et ipse potuisset aut, admissa carne, nativitatem negare, ut Apelles, discipulus et postea desertor ipsius* [qui volebat, ut ibid. c. 6. habetur, Christum carnem habuisse, non ex Virgine natam, sed de substantiis superioris mundi mutuatam]; *aut et carnem et nativitatem confessus, aliter illas interpretari, ut condiscipulus et condesertor eius Valentinus* [qui, ut ibid. c. 13. memoratur, Christum contendebat carnem habuisse spiritualem]. Cfr. etiam Tertull., III. adversus Marcion. c. 8. seqq., et adversus Valentinianos, c. 1. seqq.; Iren., contra Haeres., III-V. passim; August., de Haeresib. c. 11; Athanas., Epist. ad Epict., n. 7; Fulgent., I. ad Trasim. c. 5. — Paulo inferius pro *quidem* Vat. cum paucis codd. *quidam.*

en: Tertullian, *On the Flesh of Christ*, c. 1, attacks these two heretical opinions and their authors, saying: *Marcion, in order to deny Christ's flesh, denied also his nativity; or in order to deny his nativity, he denied also his flesh, namely lest nativity and flesh should render testimony to one another and answer mutually, since there is neither nativity without flesh, nor flesh without nativity. As though by the same heretical license he himself could not also either, having admitted the flesh, deny the nativity, like Apelles, his disciple and afterward his deserter* [who wished, as is held ibid. c. 6, that Christ had flesh, not born of the Virgin, but borrowed from the substances of the higher world]; *or, having confessed both flesh and nativity, interpret them otherwise, like his fellow-disciple and fellow-deserter Valentinus* [who, as is recorded ibid. c. 13, contended that Christ had spiritual flesh]. Cf. also Tertullian, III *Against Marcion* c. 8 ff., and *Against the Valentinians*, c. 1 ff.; Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, III-V passim; Augustine, *On Heresies* c. 11; Athanasius, *Letter to Epictetus*, n. 7; Fulgentius, I *to Trasimund* c. 5. — A little below, for *indeed* the Vatican [edition] with a few codices [reads] *certain ones.*

la: Cod. U *habuerit.* Mox pro *perfecto* codd. F H O U *perfectioni.*

en: Codex U [reads] *had.* Presently, for *to the perfect*, codices F H O U [read] *to perfection.*

la: Edd. bene *assumserit*, cod. bb *assumsit.* — De his duabus rationibus, quibus Marcionis doctrina haeretica refellitur, cfr. Iren., III. contra Haeres. c. 22. (alias 32.) n. 1. et V. c. 1. n. 2. nec non Tertull., locc. citt.

en: The editions rightly [read] *would assume*, codex bb *assumed.* — On these two reasons, by which the heretical doctrine of Marcion is refuted, cf. Irenaeus, III *Against Heresies* c. 22 (alias 32) n. 1, and V c. 1 n. 2, as well as Tertullian, the passages cited.

la: Vers. 47. — Seq. Script. loc. est Ioan. 3, 31. — Mox post *error pessimus* codd. A K U W subiiciunt *est et.*

en: Verse 47. — The following Scripture passage is John 3, 31. — Presently after *most wicked error* codices A K U W add *is and.*

la: Rom. 1, 3; Ioan. 7, 42; Matth. 1, 16. seqq.; Luc. 1, 27. seqq. — Paulo inferius pro *Repugnat autem* codd. G H E Z bb *Repugnat etiam.*

en: Rom. 1, 3; John 7, 42; Matt. 1, 16 ff.; Luke 1, 27 ff. — A little below, for *but it contradicts* codices G H E Z bb [read] *it also contradicts.*

la: Cod. K addit *sed caelestem.*

en: Codex K adds *but heavenly.*

la: Cfr. Iren., III. contra Haeres. c. 16. (alias 17.) seqq. et Tertull. locc. citt.

en: Cf. Irenaeus, III *Against Heresies* c. 16 (alias 17) ff. and Tertullian, the passages cited.

la: Post *perfectum* codd. G H K Z inserunt *et.*

en: After *perfect* codices G H K Z insert *and.*

la: Cod. bb supplet *quod caro concupiscit* etc.

en: Codex bb supplies *that the flesh lusteth* etc.

la: Cfr. infra d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 1, et August., Enarrat. in Ps. 80. n. 10; V. contra Iulian. Pelagian. c. 15. n. 54. seqq., ubi etiam videsis de responsione ad seq. obiectum.

en: Cf. below d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, and Augustine, *Exposition on Ps.* 80, n. 10; V *Against Julian the Pelagian* c. 15, n. 54 ff., where also you may see concerning the response to the following objection.

la: Dist. 1. p. I. a. 2. q. 1, d. 31. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. et d. 34. n. 1. q. 1. — Mox pro *de sui natura* codd. F G H K L P Q Z *de natura sua.*

en: Dist. 1, p. I, a. 2, q. 1; d. 31, a. 1, q. 1, in the body; and d. 34, n. 1, q. 1. — Presently, for *by its own nature* codices F G H K L P Q Z [read] *by its nature.*

la: Vat. *natura.* Paulo superius eadem Vat. pro *cognoscitivam* substituit *intellectivam* et dein *sustentificationem* pro *substantificationem.* Paulo inferius pro *sicut in hypostasi* codd. M O *sive in hypostasi.* — De habitu creato, potentiam cognoscitivam habilitante, vide infra d. 14. a. 1. q. 1. seqq.

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *nature.* A little above, the same Vatican [edition] substitutes *intellective* for *cognitive*, and then *sustentification* for *substantification.* A little below, for *as in a hypostasis* codices M O [read] *or in a hypostasis.* — On the created habit, enabling the cognitive power, see below d. 14, a. 1, q. 1 ff.

la: Dist. 6. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6. et d. 8-11. — Mox post *naturae assumtae* Vat. addit *id est in abstracto captae*, et post *rei naturae* subiungit *id est naturae in concreto acceptae.* — *Res naturae* idem est ac *suppositum*, et sumta est haec locutio ex Hilario (cfr. I. Sent. d. 23. a. 1. q. 2, d. 34. q. 1. et ibi scholia et loc. cit. II. Sent. d. 6. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6.).

en: Dist. 6, a. 1, q. 1, ad 6, and d. 8-11. — Presently after *the assumed nature* the Vatican [edition] adds *that is, taken in the abstract*, and after *thing of the nature* subjoins *that is, the nature taken in the concrete.* — *Thing of the nature* is the same as *supposit*, and this expression is taken from Hilary (cf. I *Sent.* d. 23, a. 1, q. 2; d. 34, q. 1, and the scholia there and the place cited, II *Sent.* d. 6, a. 1, q. 1, ad 6).

latin_scholion:
**I.** Conclusiones huius et seq. quaestionis sunt de fide, ut patet pluribus antiquis decretis Ecclesiae contra Doketas, manichaeismo vel gnosticismo addictos, et contra Apollinaristas docentes, ipsum Verbum Christo vice animae rationalis fungi. Uterque error etiam definitionibus Concilii Viennensis (an. 1311. 1312.) reprobatur his verbis: « Confitemur, unigenitum Dei Filium in iis omnibus, in quibus Deus Pater existit, una cum Patre aeternaliter subsistentem, partes nostrae naturae simul unitas, ex quibus in se verus Deus existens fieret verus homo, humanum videlicet *corpus passibile* et *animam intellectivam* seu rationalem, ipsum corpus vere per se et essentialiter informantem, assumsisse ex tempore in virginali thalamo ad unitatem suae hypostasis et personae ».

**II.** Utramque quaestionem multi antiqui doctores unica quaestione absolvunt, vel etiam non explicite tractant. De utraque igitur tractant: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 4. m. 4. — Scot., hic q. 2. 3, d. 16. q. 2. n. 7; Report., hic q. 1. 2, d. 16. q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1-3; S. III. q. 5. a. 1-4; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 30-33. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. et dub. lat. 1. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5. — Biel, hic q. unica.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The conclusions of this and the following question are of faith, as is plain from many ancient decrees of the Church against the Docetists, addicted to Manichaeism or Gnosticism, and against the Apollinarists who teach that the Word itself functioned in Christ in place of a rational soul. Each error is also reproved by the definitions of the Council of Vienne (a.d. 1311, 1312) in these words: « We confess that the only-begotten Son of God, subsisting eternally together with the Father in all those things in which God the Father exists, assumed in time, in the virginal chamber, the parts of our nature united together, from which, existing in himself as true God, he might become true man, namely a passible human *body* and an intellective *soul* or rational [soul], truly informing the body itself per se and essentially, unto the unity of his hypostasis and person ».

**II.** Many ancient doctors treat both questions in a single question, or even do not treat them explicitly. Both, therefore, are treated by: Alex. of Hales, *Summa*, p. III, q. 4, m. 4. — Scotus, here q. 2, 3; d. 16, q. 2, n. 7; *Reportata*, here q. 1, 2; d. 16, q. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3, quaestiunculae 1-3; *Summa* III, q. 5, a. 1-4; *Summa contra Gent.* IV, c. 30-33. — Bl. Albert, here a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here q. 1, a. 1, and dub. lat. 1. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5. — Biel, here q. unica.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of pp. 43–46 (PDF 65–68, offset +22), per the Vol II/III PDF-priority override for cascade-shattered Respondeo + footers. Raw OCR (`bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 3615–3814) used as base for clean running prose and exact footnote-marker spacing. Running heads confirm: p.43 R `…ART. II. 43`; p.44 L `…TIARUM LIB. III.`, R `QUAESTIO I. / Utrum Christus assumserit veram carnem.`; p.45 L `QUAEST. I. 45`; p.46 L `46 SENTENTIARU[M]`, R `…TIARUM LIB. III.`

**ART. II opener folded in.** Per the chunking convention (Vol II Override step 5), the short `ARTICULUS II.` opener (subtitle *De natura assumta quoad suarum partium integritatem*) + its TRACTATIO (3-question list: q1 veram carnem / q2 veram animam rationalem / q3 speciem communem) fold into this q1 chunk — no standalone d2-a2-divisio chunk. The opener + TRACTATIO print at the bottom of p.43; QUAESTIO I body begins on p.44.

**Alignment: PASS.** This chunk's opener = `Primo quaeritur, utrum Christus assumserit veram carnem` = ART. II TRACTATIO q1. Body opener `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum Christus assumserit veram carnem.` Confirmed against PDF p.43 L-col and p.44 R-col title. No q-swap.

**Page-split map.** ART. II opener + TRACTATIO on p.43 (bottom). QUAESTIO I: fundamenta 1–5 + Sed contra 1–5 + Conclusio + Respondeo (opinio 1 phantastica) on p.44; opinio 1 reprobatur + opinio 2 caelestis + opinio 3 catholica + Respondeo conclusion + replies *Ad 1–4* (through reply 4 tail `…ex mera et gratuita`) on p.45; reply 4 conclusion (`bonitate Dei…`) + reply 5 + SCHOLION §I–II on p.46. QUAESTIO II (`Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus assumserit animam rationalem`, raw 3818) begins lower on p.46 — NOT included.

**Incoming hand-off (from d2-a1-q3, commit a7f240f).** p.43 footer 9 (`In multis codd. desideratur vox Christus, cuius loco codd. A F substituunt Verbum…`) anchors the ART. II opener `Primo quaeritur, utrum Christus⁹ assumserit veram carnem` → rendered here as `[^1]` (this chunk's first apparatus entry). p.43 footers 1–8 were consumed by d2-a1-q3 (`[^12]`–`[^19]`) and are NOT re-rendered.

**Apparatus (23 entries, continuous slugs `[^1]`–`[^23]`).** Per-page footer accounting: p.43 f.9 = `[^1]` (inherited); p.44 f.1–10 = `[^2]`–`[^11]`; p.45 f.1–11 = `[^12]`–`[^22]`; p.46 f.1 = `[^23]` (reply-5 `infra` cross-ref + the *naturae assumtae* / *rei naturae* variant). p.46 footers 2–5 belong to d2-a2-q2 and are forwarded (not anchorless here).

**Forward hand-off to d2-a2-q2 (`bon-sent-III-d2-a2-q2`).** QUAESTIO II (`Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus assumserit animam rationalem`, title *Utrum Christus assumserit animam rationalem*) begins raw 3818 on the lower portion of p.46. Its opener body `Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus assumserit animam rationalem. Et quod sic, videtur.` (fund-1 `Matthaei vigesimo sexto: Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem`). **FOOTER SPLIT:** q1 consumed p.46 footer 1 only (the reply-5 `infra` cross-ref + `naturae assumtae`/`rei naturae` variant, here `[^23]`). **d2-a2-q2 INHERITS p.46 footers 2–5** (per-page restart): f.2 `Vers. 38. — De minori cfr. infra d. 15. a. 2. q. 2. et Fulgent., III. ad Trasim. c. 21.` (anchors q2 Sed contra-1 `Ioannis primo`); f.3 `De hoc et seq. arg. cfr. Athanas., II. contra Apollinar. n. 15. seqq. — Cod. W voci animam praefigit rationalem.`; f.4 `Vers. 14. — Cfr. Fulgent., I. ad Trasim. c. 17.`; f.5 `Sive, ut Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 49…— Pro denominatio codd. A G K L N T V X aa bb determinatio, codd. P Q determinatio vel nominatio.` THEN fresh p.47+ footers. **SCHOLION:** q1's scholion §I says the conclusions of *huius et seq. quaestionis* (this and the next question) are of faith, and §II lists parallel treatments of *both* questions together — but it does NOT translate/cover q2's body. d2-a2-q2 must verify its OWN scholion on the PDF (per-question pattern; q2's scholion likely after its replies). q2 alignment to verify: opener should be `Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus assumserit animam rationalem` = ART. II TRACTATIO q2.

**Scholion disposition: has_scholion: true.** VERIFIED on PDF p.46: SCHOLION prints after q1's reply 5, before QUAESTIO II. §I = the dogmatic note (conclusions of this + next question are de fide; anti-Docetist/anti-Apollinarist; Council of Vienne 1311/1312 definition quoted). §II = the parallel-treatments list for both q1 and q2 (treated together by many doctors), ending `…Biel, hic q. unica.` §I/§II reference q2 but do NOT cover/translate it (per-question pattern). Rendered La + En.

**Boundary lock.** q1's scholion §II ends grammatically complete at `…Biel, hic q. unica.` (p.46 R-col, raw 3812). `QUAESTIO II.` (raw 3815) / `Secundo quaeritur` (raw 3818) begin d2-a2-q2 on the lower portion of p.46 — NOT included. Scholion tail + q2 opener continuous (no cascade-merge splice).

**Marker pairing.** 23 La anchors = 23 En anchors = 23 defs, continuous `[^1]`–`[^23]`, 0 anchorless / 0 defless.

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

**Marginal labels** (rendered inline in the printed margin, NOT footnote anchors): *Fundamenta*, *Ad oppositum*, *Triplex assertio. duo haeretica, tertius catholicus*, *Opinio 1 haeretica*, *Reprobatur dupliciter*, *Opinio 2*, *Reprobatur dupliciter*, *Sententia catholica et conclusio*, *Duplex ratio*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *De Manichaeis*, *Distinctio*, *Notandum*.

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. 2, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 46 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum Christus assumserit animam rationalem.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus assumserit animam rationalem. Et quod sic, videtur.

*Fundamenta.*

1. Matthaei vigesimo sexto[^1]: *Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem*; sed si non haberet animam rationalem, non tristaretur: ergo etc.

2. Item, in symbolo Athanasii: « Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo, ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens »: ergo etc.

3. Item, Christus mortuus fuit; sed mors illa non fuit per separationem divinitatis a carne: ergo fuit per separationem animae a carne: ergo habuit animam[^2].

4. Item, Christus descendit ad inferos et tertia die resurrexit a mortuis: aut ergo ratione animae, aut ratione *corporis*, aut ratione *divinitatis*. Ratione *carnis* non, quia illa remansit in sepulcro; ratione *divinitatis* non, quia illa non potest mutare locum: ergo ratione *animae*: ergo etc.

*Ad oppositum.*

Sed contra: 1. Ioannis primo[^3]: *Verbum caro factum est*; ibi Ioannes sufficienter exprimit mysterium incarnationis: ergo nihil addendum est: ergo videtur, quod solam carnem assumsit.

2. Item, unio divinae naturae ad humanam dicitur *incarnatio*; sed denominatio semper debet fieri a digniori[^4]; et cum anima dignior sit carne, et incarnatio non dicatur *animatio*, sed potius *incarnatio*: ergo videtur, quod anima non sit assumta a Verbo.

3. Item, unio respicit peccati originem; sed originale habet ortum a carne[^5]: ergo videtur, quod Filio Dei carnem suffecerit assumere ad humani generis reparationem.

4. Item, « natura non facit per plura quod potest facere per pauciora[^6] »; sed in Christo divina persona potens erat in actum intelligendi et amandi et vivificandi, cum ipse Filius Dei non careat voluntate nec intelligentia nec vita: ergo videtur, quod Christus non habuerit rationalem animam.

### Conclusio

> Christus assumsit veram animam cum suis potentiis vegetabili, sensibili et rationali.

*Triplex assertio.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circa hoc fuit triplex modus dicendi, et duplex fuit haereticus, et tertius catholicus.

*Opinio 1, haeretica.*

Quidam namque dixerunt, sicut Eunomius[^7], quod Filius Dei assumsit carnem sine anima, quia divinitas erat ei in loco animae; et cum Verbum Dei vivificaret ipsam carnem, non indigebat alio spiritu vivificante.

<!-- page 47 -->

*Reprobatur.*

— Sed cum divina natura nullo modo possit esse forma perfectiva corporis, quia Deus nullius est forma perfectiva sive constitutiva; nullo etiam modo possit habere passiones tristitiae et doloris: impossibile est hoc dicere, quod Christus vixerit vita creata et dolores et mortem senserit, et non habuerit animam[^8].

*Opinio 2, haeretica.*

Et ideo fuit alius modus dicendi, quod Christus animam habuit, sed animam non quamcumque, sed solum animam vivificantem et sensificantem, cuiusmodi est anima sensibilis; anima autem rationali non indiguit, quia ad ceteros actus partis intellectivae sufficiebat virtus personae increatae[^9].

*Reprobatur.*

— Sed iste error adhuc pessimus est, quia si Christus animam rationalem non habuit, animam rationalem a peccato non redemit. — Et iterum, si animam rationalem non habuit, verus homo non fuit, quia non habuit hominis complementum. Et hoc dicere absque dubio est erroneum[^10].

*Sententia catholica et conclusio.*

Et ideo est tertius modus dicendi verus et catholicus, quod Christus assumsit verum corpus et veram animam cum suis potentiis vegetabili, sensibili et rationali.

*Ratio.*

— Et ratio huius est, quia Christus assumsit humanam naturam, ut esset mediator Dei et hominum. Et quia perfectus mediator, ideo perfectus Deus et perfectus homo; et quia perfectus homo non est, nisi habeat corpus cum omnibus membris et animam cum omnibus potentiis: ideo omnia haec assumsit. *Rursus*, quia perfectus *mediator* fuit, ideo perfectus *comprehensor* fuit et perfectus *viator*, perfectus in *contemplatione* et perfectus in *actione*, perfectus in *operatione* et perfectus in *passione*. Et ad omnia haec sequitur, quod habuit veram substantiam animae. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes hoc ostendentes.

*Solutio oppositorum.*

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur de verbo Ioannis, dicendum, quod illud dictum est per *synecdochen*, et caro accipitur ibi pro tota natura humana. — Et si tu quaeras, quare ipse usus est illa synecdochica locutione? dicendum, quod hoc ideo fecit, *Notandum.* quia natura assumta nobis est notior ex parte substantiae corporalis quam spiritualis. Et ideo, quia cognitio nostra incipit ab his quae sunt nobis magis nota[^11], mysterium unionis humanae naturae cum divina magis descripsit ex parte carnis. — Alia etiam ratio potest reddi: *Alia ratio.* quia in assumtione carnis clauditur assumtio animae rationalis. Si enim[^12] assumsit quod minus ad assumtionem erat idoneum et magis ab assumente distabat, multo magis assumsit illud quod magis erat idoneum et magis conveniebat.

2. Et per hoc patet responsio ad sequens, quare incarnatio potius dicitur quam animatio; fit enim denominatio a parte notiori et ab ea parte, in qua magis implicatur ratio totius. — Et quod dicitur, quod denominatio debet fieri a digniori; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, nisi alia ratio interveniat.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod unio ordinatur contra peccati originem; dicendum, quod si[^13] origo peccati sit a carne tanquam a deferente et sua infectione animam inficiente; nunquam tamen est in carne nisi ab anima, nec traductio carnis ex carne est nisi per virtutem animae; et ideo curatio non tantum debebat respicere carnem, sed et animam, immo principalius animam quam carnem. Et propterea non suffecit assumere solam carnem.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod persona Verbi sufficit ad vivificandum et regenerandum carnem per intellectum et voluntatem; dicendum, quod etsi personae Verbi conveniat vivificare per modum *efficientis*, non tamen convenit vivificare per modum *formae perficientis*, et hoc ratione summae perfectionis, quae est in Deo, propter quam non potest esse alicuius pars constitutiva[^14]; *Notandum.* et ideo secundum humanam naturam Christus formam creatam habuit completivam[^15], et sic certissime credendum est, Christum assumsisse et veram carnem et veram animam rationalem[^16].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether Christ assumed a rational soul.*

Secondly it is asked whether Christ assumed a rational soul. And that he did seems so.

*Arguments.*

1. Matthew, chapter twenty-six[^1]: *My soul is sorrowful even unto death*; but if he did not have a rational soul, he would not be made sorrowful: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, in the Symbol of Athanasius: « Perfect God, perfect man, subsisting from a rational soul and human flesh »: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, Christ died; but that death was not through the separation of the divinity from the flesh: therefore it was through the separation of the soul from the flesh: therefore he had a soul[^2].

4. Likewise, Christ descended to the dead and on the third day rose from the dead: therefore either by reason of the soul, or by reason of the *body*, or by reason of the *divinity*. Not by reason of the *flesh*, because that remained in the tomb; not by reason of the *divinity*, because that cannot change place: therefore by reason of the *soul*: therefore, etc.

*On the contrary.*

But on the contrary: 1. John, chapter one[^3]: *The Word was made flesh*; there John sufficiently expresses the mystery of the incarnation: therefore nothing is to be added: therefore it seems that he assumed flesh alone.

2. Likewise, the union of the divine nature with the human is called *incarnation*; but denomination ought always to be made from the more worthy[^4]; and since the soul is more worthy than the flesh, and the incarnation is not called *animation*, but rather *incarnation*: therefore it seems that the soul was not assumed by the Word.

3. Likewise, the union regards the origin of sin; but the original [sin] has its origin from the flesh[^5]: therefore it seems that it sufficed for the Son of God to assume flesh for the reparation of the human race.

4. Likewise, « nature does not do through many things what it can do through fewer[^6] »; but in Christ the divine person was able for the act of understanding and loving and giving life, since the Son of God himself lacks neither will nor intelligence nor life: therefore it seems that Christ did not have a rational soul.

### Conclusio

> Christ assumed a true soul with its powers, vegetative, sensitive, and rational.

*Threefold assertion.*

**Respondeo:** It must be said that concerning this there were three ways of speaking, and two were heretical, and the third catholic.

*First opinion, heretical.*

For some said, like Eunomius[^7], that the Son of God assumed flesh without a soul, because the divinity was to it in place of a soul; and since the Word of God gave life to that flesh, it did not need another life-giving spirit.

*Refuted.*

— But since the divine nature can in no way be a perfective form of the body, because God is the perfective or constitutive form of nothing; nor can it in any way have the passions of sorrow and grief: it is impossible to say this, that Christ lived a created life and felt griefs and death, and yet did not have a soul[^8].

*Second opinion, heretical.*

And so there was another way of speaking, that Christ had a soul, but not a soul of any kind, but only a soul giving life and giving sensation, of which kind is the sensitive soul; but he did not need a rational soul, because for the other acts of the intellective part the power of the uncreated person sufficed[^9].

*Refuted.*

— But this error is still worse, because if Christ did not have a rational soul, he did not redeem a rational soul from sin. — And again, if he did not have a rational soul, he was not a true man, because he did not have the completion of a man. And to say this is without doubt erroneous[^10].

*The catholic position and conclusion.*

And so there is a third way of speaking, true and catholic, that Christ assumed a true body and a true soul with its powers, vegetative, sensitive, and rational.

*The reason.*

— And the reason for this is that Christ assumed human nature, in order to be the mediator of God and men. And because [he was] a perfect mediator, therefore [he was] perfect God and perfect man; and because there is no perfect man unless he have a body with all its members and a soul with all its powers: therefore he assumed all these things. *Again*, because he was a perfect *mediator*, therefore he was a perfect *comprehensor* and a perfect *wayfarer*, perfect in *contemplation* and perfect in *action*, perfect in *operation* and perfect in *suffering*. And from all these things it follows that he had the true substance of a soul. — Hence the reasons demonstrating this are to be conceded.

*Solution of the opposing arguments.*

1. To that, therefore, which is objected first concerning the word of John, it must be said that this was said by *synecdoche*, and flesh is there taken for the whole human nature. — And if you ask why he used that synecdochic manner of speaking? it must be said that he did this *Note.* because the assumed nature is more known to us on the side of the bodily substance than of the spiritual. And therefore, because our knowledge begins from those things which are more known to us[^11], he described the mystery of the union of human nature with the divine more on the side of the flesh. — Another reason can also be given: *Another reason.* because in the assumption of the flesh is included the assumption of the rational soul. For if[^12] he assumed what was less suited to assumption and stood further from the one assuming, much more did he assume that which was more suited and more fitting.

2. And through this the response to what follows is clear, namely why it is called incarnation rather than animation; for the denomination is made from the more known part and from that part in which the formal character of the whole is more implicated. — And as to what is said, that the denomination ought to be made from the more worthy; it must be said that this is true, unless another reason intervenes.

3. To that which is objected, that the union is ordered against the origin of sin; it must be said that, if[^13] the origin of sin is from the flesh as from a bearer and infecting the soul by its infection; nevertheless it is never in the flesh except from the soul, nor is the derivation of flesh from flesh except through the power of the soul; and therefore the cure ought not to regard only the flesh, but also the soul, indeed the soul more principally than the flesh. And on this account it did not suffice to assume the flesh alone.

4. To that which is objected, that the person of the Word suffices to give life to and to regenerate the flesh through intellect and will; it must be said that, although it belongs to the person of the Word to give life by the mode of an *efficient [cause]*, nevertheless it does not belong [to him] to give life by the mode of a *perfecting form*, and this by reason of the supreme perfection which is in God, on account of which he cannot be the constitutive part of anything[^14]; *Note.* and therefore according to the human nature Christ had a created completive form[^15], and thus it is most certainly to be believed that Christ assumed both true flesh and a true rational soul[^16].

---

la: Vers. 38. — De minori cfr. infra d. 15. a. 2. q. 2. et Fulgent., III. ad Trasim. c. 21.

en: Verse 38. — On the minor [premise] cf. below, d. 15, a. 2, q. 2, and Fulgentius, *To Trasimund* III, c. 21.

la: De hoc et seq. arg. cfr. Athanas., II. contra Apollinar. n. 15. seqq. — Cod. W voci animam praefigit rationalem.

en: On this and the following argument cf. Athanasius, *Against Apollinaris* II, n. 15ff. — Codex W prefixes *rationalem* (rational) to the word *animam* (soul).

la: Vers. 14. — Cfr. Fulgent., I. ad Trasim. c. 17.

en: Verse 14. — Cf. Fulgentius, *To Trasimund* I, c. 17.

la: Sive, ut Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 49. (c. 4.), ait: « a fine appellare omnia iustum est ». — Pro denominatio codd. A G K L N T V X aa bb determinatio, codd. P Q determinatio vel nominatio.

en: Or, as Aristotle says, *On the Soul* II, text 49 (c. 4): « it is right to name all things from their end ». — For *denominatio* (denomination) codices A G K L N T V X aa bb [read] *determinatio* (determination); codices P Q [read] *determinatio* or *nominatio* (naming).

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. I. seqq. — Post originem Vat. adiicit vel peccatum originale.

en: Cf. *Sentences* II, d. 31, a. 2, q. 1ff. — After *originem* (origin) the Vatican edition adds *vel peccatum originale* (or original sin).

la: Cfr. supra pag. 42, nota 6. — Mox pro persona cod. G natura, codd. A aa et edd. 1, 2 potentia.

en: Cf. above, p. 42, note 6. — Shortly after, for *persona* (person) codex G [reads] *natura* (nature), codices A aa and editions 1, 2 [read] *potentia* (power).

la: Basil., contra Eunomium libri V, et Gregor. Nyss., II. contra Eunom. (ed. Migne, Patrol. Graec. tom. 45. col. 543) ipsum refutant. August., de Haeres. c. 49. de Arianis ait: In eo autem, quod Christum sine anima solam carnem suscepisse arbitrantur, minus noti sunt, nec adversus eos ab aliquo inveni de hac re aliquando fuisse certatum. Sed hoc verum esse, et Epiphanius [Haeres. c. 69. n. 19.] non tacuit, et ego ex eorum quibusdam scriptis et collocutionibus certissime comperi. Cfr. Enarrat. in Ps. 29. serm. 2. n. 2. seq., ubi et de seq. opinione agitur; de Ecclesiast. Dogmat. (inter opera August.) c. 2; Athanas., II. contra Apollinar. n. 3; Damasc., de Haeres. n. 69.

en: Basil, *Against Eunomius* in five books, and Gregory of Nyssa, *Against Eunomius* II (ed. Migne, *Patrologia Graeca* tom. 45, col. 543), refute him. Augustine, *On Heresies* c. 49, says of the Arians: "But in this, that they suppose Christ to have taken on flesh alone without a soul, they are less known, nor have I found that anyone ever contended against them on this matter. But that this is true Epiphanius too [*Heresies* c. 69, n. 19] did not pass over in silence, and I myself have most certainly learned it from certain of their writings and conversations." Cf. *Enarration on Psalm 29*, sermon 2, n. 2f., where the following opinion too is treated; *On Ecclesiastical Dogmas* (among the works of Augustine) c. 2; Athanasius, *Against Apollinaris* II, n. 3; [John] Damascene, *On Heresies* n. 69.

la: Gregor. Nyss., loc. cit. (col. 330) idem arg. habet. — Paulo ante pro vita creata cod. F vita increata, et subinde pro et mortem codd. E L P Q T V X etiam mortem, codd. F G H K Z bb et mortem etiam.

en: Gregory of Nyssa, in the place cited (col. 330), has the same argument. — A little before, for *vita creata* (created life) codex F [reads] *vita increata* (uncreated life), and thereupon for *et mortem* (and death) codices E L P Q T V X [read] *etiam mortem* (death also), codices F G H K Z bb [read] *et mortem etiam* (and death also).

la: August., de Haeres. c. 33: Apollinaristas Apollinaris instituit, qui de anima Christi a Catholica dissenserunt, dicentes sicut Ariani, Deum Christum carnem sine anima suscepisse. In qua quaestione testimoniis evangelicis victi, mentem, qua rationalis est anima hominis, defuisse animae Christi, sed pro hac ipsum Verbum in eo fuisse dixerunt.

en: Augustine, *On Heresies* c. 33: "Apollinaris established the Apollinarists, who dissented from the Catholic [Church] concerning the soul of Christ, saying, like the Arians, that God-Christ took on flesh without a soul. On which question, overcome by the testimonies of the Gospels, they said that the mind, by which the soul of man is rational, was lacking to the soul of Christ, but that in its place the Word itself was in him."

la: Cfr. Athanas., I. et II. contra Apollinar.; Gregor. Nyss., adversus Apollinar.; Ambros., de Incarnat. dominic. sacram. c. 7. n. 64. seqq. et Epist. 46. (alias 47. vel 8.); August., Epist. 187. (alias 37.) c. 2. n. 4; de Fide et symb. c. 4. n. 8; de Agone christian. c. 19. n. 21. Serm. 237. (alias 143. de Tempore) c. 4. n. 4. et contra Felician. Arian. (inter opera August., sed est Vigilii) c. 13. seqq.; Fulgent., I. ad Trasim. c. 10. seqq., ubi (c. 13. et 18.) et de tertio modo dicendi vero et catholico agitur. — Pro erroneum cod. K haereticum.

en: Cf. Athanasius, *Against Apollinaris* I and II; Gregory of Nyssa, *Against Apollinaris*; Ambrose, *On the Sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation* c. 7, n. 64ff. and *Letter* 46 (otherwise 47 or 8); Augustine, *Letter* 187 (otherwise 37) c. 2, n. 4; *On Faith and the Creed* c. 4, n. 8; *On the Christian Combat* c. 19, n. 21; *Sermon* 237 (otherwise 143, *On the Season*) c. 4, n. 4, and *Against Felician the Arian* (among the works of Augustine, but it is Vigilius's) c. 13ff.; Fulgentius, *To Trasimund* I, c. 10ff., where (c. 13 and 18) the third, true and catholic, way of speaking is also treated. — For *erroneum* (erroneous) codex K [reads] *haereticum* (heretical).

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 319, nota 3.

en: See tom. II, p. 319, note 3.

la: Secundum Aristot., I. Phys. text. 2. seqq., de quo cfr. tom. II. pag. 441, nota 1, et d. 39. a. 1. q. 2. — Hanc rationem exhibet August., de Agone christian. c. 21. n. 23, nec non Fulgent., I. ad Trasim. c. 17.

en: According to Aristotle, *Physics* I, text 2ff., on which cf. tom. II, p. 441, note 1, and d. 39, a. 1, q. 2. — Augustine sets forth this reason, *On the Christian Combat* c. 21, n. 23, as does Fulgentius, *To Trasimund* I, c. 17.

la: Codd. F G H (K a secunda manu) Z igitur. — Cfr. Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 18.

en: Codices F G H (K by a second hand) Z [read] *igitur* (therefore). — Cf. [John] Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* III, c. 18.

la: Edd. etsi. Aliquantulum inferius pro curatio Vat. reparatio, edd. 1. 2 cum paucis codd. creatio. Mox pro sed et animam codd. sed animam, ac deinde pro suffecit codd. G H P Q bb sufficit. — De modo, quo peccatum originale per generationem carnalem propagatur, cfr. II. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. 1.

en: The editions [read] *etsi* (although). Somewhat below, for *curatio* (cure) the Vatican edition [reads] *reparatio* (reparation), editions 1, 2 with a few codices [read] *creatio* (creation). Shortly after, for *sed et animam* (but also the soul) the codices [read] *sed animam* (but the soul), and then for *suffecit* (sufficed) codices G H P Q bb [read] *sufficit* (suffices). — On the manner in which original sin is propagated through carnal generation, cf. *Sentences* II, d. 31, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 2; d. 17. p. I. q. 1; II. Sent. d. 26. q. 2. — Circa initium solut. pro regenerandum Vat. et nonnulli codd. non bene regendum; circa finem solut. pro completivam [i. e. animam, quae dat esse specificum] cod. A minus bene completam.

en: Cf. *Sentences* I, d. 8, p. II, q. 2; d. 17, p. I, q. 1; *Sentences* II, d. 26, q. 2. — Near the beginning of the solution, for *regenerandum* (to regenerate) the Vatican edition and several codices read, not well, *regendum* (to govern); near the end of the solution, for *completivam* [i.e. the soul, which gives specific being] codex A reads, less well, *completam* (completed).

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.46–47 (PDF 68–69; offset +22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`, lines 3815–3927). English freshly translated, literal. Apparatus walked page-by-page from the raw OCR footers and verified against the PDF bands.

**Page-split map.** q2 opens on the lower portion of **p.46** (L-col, marginal *Fundamenta*) after q1's scholion §II (`…Biel, hic q. unica.`, p.46 R-col top). Body runs p.46 L→R (fundamenta 1–4, Sed contra 1–4, Conclusio, Respondeo opener through *Opinio 1, haeretica* / Eunomius) and continues on **p.47** (Opinio 1 reprobatur → Opinio 2 → reprobatur → Sententia catholica et conclusio → Ratio → replies *Ad 1–4*). Reply *Ad 4* ends grammatically complete at `…et veram animam rationalem[^16].` (p.47 R-col, raw 3924). The `48 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` running head (raw 3925) and `QUAESTIO III.` (raw 3928) begin the next chunk. Running heads: p.46 L `46 SENTENTIARU[M]`, R `…TIARUM LIB. III.` then title `QUAESTIO II.`; p.47 L `DIST. II. ART. II. QUA[EST. II.]`, R `QUAEST. II. 47`.

**Incoming hand-off (from d2-a2-q1, commit 79fe69a).** The shared page p.46's footers split by body anchor: q1 (d2-a2-q1) consumed p.46 **footer 1 only** (`[^23]`, the Dist. 6 / *naturae assumtae* note anchoring q1's reply 5). **p.46 footers 2–8 are THIS chunk's**, rendered `[^1]`–`[^7]`: f.2→`[^1]` (Vers. 38, fund-1 `vigesimo sexto`), f.3→`[^2]` (Athanas. *contra Apollinar.*, fund-3 `animam`), f.4→`[^3]` (Vers. 14, Sed contra-1 `Ioannis primo`), f.5→`[^4]` (Aristot. *de Anima* + *denominatio* variant, Sed contra-2 `a digniori`), f.6→`[^5]` (II Sent. d.31, Sed contra-3 `a carne`), f.7→`[^6]` (supra p.42 nota 6 + *persona* variant, Sed contra-4 `per pauciora`), f.8→`[^7]` (Eunomius long note, Respondeo `Eunomius`). The briefing's "p.46 footers 2–5" captured only the L-col block; the R-col footers 6–8 are equally q2's and are included.

**Forward hand-off → d2-a2-q3 (LAST question of ART. II).** `QUAESTIO III. Utrum Christus habuerit cum aliis hominibus communem speciem` begins raw **3928** / printed **p.48** (PDF 70). Opener: `Tertio quaeritur, utrum Christus habuerit cum aliis communem speciem. Et quod sic, videtur.` (fund-1 `Ad Philippenses secundo¹: In similitudinem…`). **No shared-page footer carries forward:** q2 fully consumed p.47 (reply *Ad 4* ends with footer ⁹ = `[^16]` on `rationalem`), and QUAESTIO III opens at the head of p.48 with a fresh per-page footer sequence. **Scholion:** q2 has none of its own (see below); whether q3 has its own scholion must be verified on the PDF when q3 is built. After q3, the ART. III opener (raw ~3?? / p.49) folds into d3-a3-q1 (next distinction's article).

**Alignment result: PASS.** Opener = `Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus assumserit animam rationalem` = ART. II TRACTATIO q2 (per d2-a2-q1's TRACTATIO listing). No q-swap.

**Scholion disposition: `has_scholion: false` — VERIFIED on PDF p.47.** Reply *Ad 4* ends grammatically complete at `…et veram animam rationalem[^16].` and the page closes; the `48 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` running head then `QUAESTIO III.` follow immediately — NO scholion block for q2. Confirmed by footer ⁹ itself (`[^16]` = `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`, "See the scholion to the preceding question"): q2's matter is treated in q1's scholion §I–II (which expressly covered the conclusions of *huius et seq. quaestionis*, i.e. q1 and q2 jointly). This is the per-question d.1/d.2 pattern where one scholion forward-covers a sibling question.

**Cascade-merge check:** q2 tail (`…et veram animam rationalem`) is grammatically complete; q3 opener (`Tertio quaeritur…`) is continuous on the next page. No splice.

**Marginal labels** (*Fundamenta, Ad oppositum, Triplex assertio, Opinio 1/2 haeretica, Reprobatur, Sententia catholica et conclusio, Ratio, Solutio oppositorum, Notandum, Alia ratio*) rendered inline, NOT footnote anchors.

**[?] flags:** none.