title: Dist. 3, Part 2, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Part II)

source_text:
<!-- page 94 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur, quod caro illa, antequam esset Verbo unita, fuit peccato obnoxia in Maria. Videtur enim falsum, quia non est peccatum nisi in anima, vel ratione animae; sed caro illa non fuit ante animata quam Verbo unita: ergo non fuit peccato obnoxia. — Item, beata Virgo ante conceptionem Filii Dei fuit sanctificata[^1]: ergo caro eius non fuit peccato obnoxia.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut tactum fuit in praecedentibus[^2], aliquando peccatum dicitur ipsa poena vel sequela. Dico ergo, quod caro non dicitur obnoxia peccato ratione culpae, sed ratione foeditatis, quae est culpae causa, et ratione passibilitatis, quae est culpae poena; et utroque modo fuit peccato obnoxia in Maria ante sanctificationem; secundo modo postea[^3]. Et sic patent illa duo.

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur, quod primitiam nostrae massae dicitur Christus assumsisse. Videtur hoc esse falsum, quia, cum incarnatus sit in fine saeculorum, potius videtur assumsisse reliquias nostrae massae quam primitiam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod primitiam nostrae massae dicitur Christus assumsisse triplici ratione. *(Triplex ratio.)* Nam primitia dicitur ab eo quod est primum; primum autem dicitur aliquid et secundum ordinem temporis et secundum ordinem dignitatis[^4]. *(Distinctio.)* — *(Ratio 1.)* Quantum ad ordinem dignitatis non est dubium, quin Christus assumserit nostrae carnis primitiam, pro <!-- page 95 --> eo quod eius caro excedit omnem dignitatem carnis humanae[^5]. — Secundum autem quod primitia dicitur a prioritate secundum tempus, dicitur Christus assumsisse primitiam nostrae massae non per prioritatem, sed per conformitatem et similitudinem. *(Duplex distinctio.)* Duplex est autem ratio conformitatis ibi: una quantum ad qualitatem, alia quantum ad virtutem. — *(Ratio 2.)* Quantum ad qualitatem, quia, sicut caro, quae in principio fuit creata, caruit omnis vitii corruptela; sic et caro a Verbo assumta[^6]. — *(Ratio 3.)* Quantum vero ad virtutem est similitudo, quia in his quae primo nascuntur, intensior est naturae vigor, ut ad maturitatem pertingant; et talia dicuntur primitia, id est primi fructus, qui debebant offerri Domino[^7]; talis autem fuit caro Christi. — Et sic patet, pro quanto dicatur primitia, tum propter dignitatem, tum propter munditiae qualitatem, tum propter virtutis vigorem, propter quem ceteros praecellit, prius pertingens ad maturitatem perfectionis et dulcedinis gloriam; et pro tanto dicitur[^8] assumsisse primitiam nostrae massae. — Et per hoc patet determinatio rationis praedictae; procedit enim de primitia, secundum quod dicitur a prioritate originis.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Sola illius non est caro peccati, quia non eum mater concupiscentia, sed gratia concepit.* Si enim concupiscentia est vitium et defectus, non ergo est generationis principium. Nihil ergo est dictum, cum ait: non eum mater concupiscentia concepit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod littera ista dupliciter potest intelligi: *(Interpretatio 1.)* uno modo, quod concupiscentia sit nominativi casus, et sic[^9] constructio appositiva; et tunc negat Magister, quod Christum non concepit concupiscentia, sed gratia tanquam mater, pro eo quod concupiscentia locum tenet matris in generatione filiorum peccati, secundum illud Ezechielis[^10]: *Pater tuus Amorrhaeus, et mater tua Cethaea,* ut per Amorrhaeum intelligamus diabolum, et per Cethaeam concupiscentiam. — Sed gratia econtra est mater in generatione spirituali; et quia Christus non habuit peccatum in generatione, sed gratiam, ideo potius dicitur mater gratia quam concupiscentia.

*(Interpretatio 2. et melior.)* Sed licet isto modo[^11] posset intelligi, tamen est alius modus magis consonus veritati, ut hoc quod est concupiscentia et gratia sit ablativi casus et construatur cum hoc verbo *concepit* non secundum habitudinem causae, sed secundum habitudinem concomitantiae; et hoc quod dicit *mater,* supponat pro Virgine Maria, et est sensus: *Mater,* id est Virgo Maria, non concepit, concupiscentia concomitante, sed concomitante gratia; et tunc non notatur, quod concupiscentia sit alicuius conceptionis principium, sed vitium concomitans. — Et patet responsio ad obiecta[^12].

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Totum Verbum incarnatum est.* Si enim totum est quod habet partem et partem[^13], et Verbum simplicissimum est, male dicit, quod totum incarnatum est.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *totum* potest accipi privative, vel positive. *(Distinctio.)* Si privative; tunc Verbum dicitur incarnatum totum, quia non habet partes, secundum quas incarnari habeat. Alio modo dicitur positive; et tunc dicitur dupliciter: *(Subdistinctio.)* quia totum idem est quod ex suis partibus constitutum[^14]; alio modo idem est quod perfectum. Et secundum quod totum dicit integritatis totalitatem, sic praedictus sermo non intelligitur, sed secundum quod dicit totalitatem perfectionis, et secundum quod dicit privationem partis et partis; et sic patet, quod illa obiectio non procedit recte propter diversam acceptionem huius vocabuli, quod est *totum.* Sed hoc melius in primo libro, distinctione decima nona[^15] invenitur determinatum.

---

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

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about what is said: that that flesh, before it was united to the Word, was subject to sin in Mary. For it seems false, because there is no sin except in the soul, or by reason of the soul; but that flesh was not animated before it was united to the Word: therefore it was not subject to sin. — Likewise, the blessed Virgin was sanctified[^1] before the conception of the Son of God: therefore her flesh was not subject to sin.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was touched upon in what precedes[^2], sometimes sin is said [to be] the penalty or consequence itself. I say, therefore, that the flesh is not called subject to sin by reason of fault, but by reason of foulness, which is the cause of fault, and by reason of passibility, which is the penalty of fault; and in both ways it was subject to sin in Mary before her sanctification; in the second way afterward[^3]. And thus those two things are clear.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what is said: that Christ is said to have assumed the first-fruits of our mass. This seems to be false, because, since he was incarnate in the end of the ages, he seems rather to have assumed the remnants of our mass than the first-fruits.

**I respond:** It must be said that Christ is said to have assumed the first-fruits of our mass for a threefold reason. *(Threefold reason.)* For "first-fruits" (*primitia*) is so called from that which is first; but a thing is said to be first both according to the order of time and according to the order of dignity[^4]. *(A distinction.)* — *(First reason.)* As to the order of dignity, there is no doubt that Christ assumed the first-fruits of our flesh, on account of the fact that his flesh exceeds every dignity of human flesh[^5]. — But according as "first-fruits" is said from priority according to time, Christ is said to have assumed the first-fruits of our mass not by priority, but by conformity and likeness. *(A twofold distinction.)* And there is here a twofold ground of conformity: one as to quality, the other as to power. — *(Second reason.)* As to quality, because, just as the flesh which was created in the beginning lacked all corruption of vice, so also the flesh assumed by the Word[^6]. — *(Third reason.)* But as to power there is a likeness, because in those things which are first born the vigor of nature is more intense, so that they attain to maturity; and such are called first-fruits, that is, the first fruits which were to be offered to the Lord[^7]; and such was the flesh of Christ. — And thus it is clear in what respect it is called first-fruits: both on account of dignity, and on account of the quality of purity, and on account of the vigor of power, on account of which it excels the rest, attaining first to the maturity of perfection and to the glory of sweetness; and to that extent it is said[^8] to have assumed the first-fruits of our mass. — And by this the determination of the aforesaid argument is clear; for it proceeds from "first-fruits" according as it is said from priority of origin.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *Of her alone is the flesh not [the flesh] of sin, because concupiscence did not conceive him as mother, but grace.* For if concupiscence is a vice and a defect, it is therefore not the principle of generation. Nothing therefore has been said, when he says: concupiscence did not conceive him as mother.

**I respond:** It must be said that this text can be understood in two ways: *(First interpretation.)* in one way, that *concupiscence* is in the nominative case, and thus[^9] the construction is appositional; and then the Master denies that concupiscence, as mother, did not conceive Christ, but grace [did], for the reason that concupiscence holds the place of mother in the generation of the children of sin, according to that saying of Ezechiel[^10]: *Thy father was an Amorrhite, and thy mother a Cethite,* so that by the Amorrhite we understand the devil, and by the Cethite concupiscence. — But grace, on the contrary, is mother in spiritual generation; and because Christ had not sin in his generation, but grace, therefore grace is rather called mother than concupiscence.

*(Second and better interpretation.)* But although it can be understood in this way[^11], yet there is another way more in harmony with the truth: that this [phrase], "concupiscence" and "grace," be in the ablative case and be construed with this verb *conceived* not according to the relation of cause, but according to the relation of concomitance; and that what he says, *mother,* stand for the Virgin Mary, and the sense is: *Mother,* that is, the Virgin Mary, did not conceive with concupiscence accompanying, but with grace accompanying; and then it is not signified that concupiscence is the principle of any conception, but a vice accompanying [it]. — And the response to the objections is clear[^12].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *The whole Word was made flesh.* For if a whole is that which has part and part[^13], and the Word is most simple, he speaks ill in saying that the whole was made flesh.

**I respond:** It must be said that "whole" can be taken privatively, or positively. *(A distinction.)* If privatively, then the Word is said to be incarnate as a whole, because it does not have parts according to which it would be capable of being made flesh. In another way it is said positively; and then it is said in two ways: *(A subdistinction.)* because a whole is the same as that which is constituted of its parts[^14]; in another way it is the same as the perfect. And according as "whole" signifies the totality of integrity, the aforesaid statement is not understood [thus], but according as it signifies the totality of perfection, and according as it signifies the privation of part and part; and thus it is clear that that objection does not proceed rightly, on account of the diverse acceptation of this word "whole." But this is found determined better in the first book, distinction nineteen[^15].

---

la: De quo vide supra p. 1. huius dist. a. 2. q. 2. seq. — Paulo superius pro *ante animata* edd. cum paucis codd. perperam *ante nata*; cfr. supra a. 3. q. 2.

en: On which see above, Part I of this distinction, a. 2, q. 2 and following. — A little above, for *before being animated* (*ante animata*) the editions, with a few codices, wrongly [read] *before being born* (*ante nata*); cf. above, a. 3, q. 2.

la: Part. I. huius dist. a. 2. q. I. ad I. et 3; q. 2. fundam. I. et dub. 5. — Mox pro *vel sequela* codd. A K U Z *aliquando* [cod. Z *vel aliquando*] *actus peccati, aliquando causa peccati.* — Quo melius intelligantur quae S. Doctor in seqq. exponit, et ad conciliandas diversas locutiones, quibus utitur, ex II. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. I. adducimus haec: « In carne Adae propter peccatum duplex fuit corruptio, una scilicet *purae poenalitatis;* et ex hac anima, cum coniungitur corpori, contrahit *passibilitatem.* Alia vero fuit corruptio *vitiositatis* sive *foeditatis,* per quam caro est spiritui rebellis; et ex hac anima contrahit *culpam originalem,* quoniam talis vitiositas quasi medium tenet inter culpam et poenam ». Cfr. ibid. dub. I. Cum hac secunda corruptione coniunctus est *fomes concupiscentiae;* qui etiam, sicut illa, a S. Doctore modo *causa,* modo *poena* sive *sequela* peccati vocatur, prout sub diversis respectibus consideratur. Cfr. locc. in princip. huius notae citt.

en: Part I of this distinction, a. 2, q. 1, ad 1 and 3; q. 2, fundamentum 1 and dub. 5. — Presently, for *or consequence* (*vel sequela*) codices A K U Z [read] *sometimes* [cod. Z *or sometimes*] *the act of sin, sometimes the cause of sin.* — That what the holy Doctor sets forth in what follows may be better understood, and to reconcile the diverse expressions which he uses, we adduce these things from *II Sent.,* d. 31, a. 2, q. 1: "In the flesh of Adam, on account of sin, there was a twofold corruption: one, namely, of *pure penality;* and from this the soul, when it is joined to the body, contracts *passibility.* But the other was the corruption *of viciousness* or *of foulness,* by which the flesh is rebellious to the spirit; and from this the soul contracts *original fault,* since such viciousness holds, as it were, a middle [place] between fault and penalty." Cf. ibid., dub. 1. With this second corruption is joined *the tinder of concupiscence,* which also, like it, is called by the holy Doctor now *cause,* now *penalty* or *consequence* of sin, according as it is considered under diverse respects. Cf. the places cited at the beginning of this note.

la: Pro *postea* codd. K Z tantum *post sanctificationem.* Paulo ante edd. cum uno alterove codice *obnoxia Maria* pro *obnoxia in Maria.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio supra a. 2. q. 2. S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic q. I. a. I. dub. lat. I.

en: For *afterward* (*postea*) codices K Z only [read] *after the sanctification.* A little before, the editions with one or another codex [read] *subject [in] Mary* for *subject in Mary.* — Cf. on this doubt above, a. 2, q. 2; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here, q. 1, a. 1, dub. lat. 1.

la: Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. *de Priori,* et V. Metaph. text. 16. (IV. c. 11.). — In hoc dubio edd. pro *primitia* substituunt *primitiva.*

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Categories,* chapter *On the Prior,* and *Metaphysics* V, text 16 (IV, c. 11). — In this doubt the editions substitute *primitiva* for *primitia.*

la: Nam propter unionem cum Verbo caro Christi deificata est et adoranda. Cfr. Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 8. et 17, nec non infra d. 9. a. I. q. I. — Paulo inferius pro *a prioritate* et *per prioritatem* codd. F G L S T aa cc habent *a prioritate* [vel *primordialitate*] et *per priordinalitatem* [vel *primordialitatem*]. Cod. bb bis ponit *propter* pro *per.* Post *non per prioritatem* cod. Z subiicit *originis.*

en: For on account of its union with the Word the flesh of Christ has been deified and is to be adored. Cf. Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* III, cc. 8 and 17, as well as below, d. 9, a. 1, q. 1. — A little below, for *from priority* (*a prioritate*) and *by priority* (*per prioritatem*) codices F G L S T aa cc have *from priority* [or *primordiality*] and *by primordinality* [or *primordiality*]. Codex bb twice puts *propter* for *per.* After *not by priority* codex Z adds *of origin.*

la: Vide supra a. 2. q. I. in fine corp. et q. 2. — Pro *corruptela* edd. *corruptione* et paulo inferius *quae a principio* pro *quae primo.*

en: See above, a. 2, q. 1, at the end of the body, and q. 2. — For *corruption* (*corruptela*) the editions [read] *corruptione,* and a little below *which from the beginning* for *which first.*

la: Exod. 22, 29. — Aliquanto inferius pro *propter quem ceteros* edd. *propter quam* [codd. C N *quae*] *ceteras.*

en: Exodus 22:29. — Somewhat below, for *on account of which [it surpasses] the others* (*propter quem ceteros*) the editions [read] *propter quam* [codices C N *quae*] *ceteras.*

la: Cod. Y supplet *Christus.* In fine respons. pro *originis* codd. M O *temporis.* Vide solutionem huius dubii etiam apud B. Albert., hic a. 30.

en: Codex Y supplies *Christus.* At the end of the response, for *of origin* (*originis*) codices M O [read] *of time.* See the solution of this doubt also in Blessed Albert, here, a. 30.

la: Codd. P R X bb *et sic est,* edd. *et sit.*

en: Codices P R X bb [read] *and so it is,* the editions *and let it be.*

la: Cap. 16, 3. et 45, de cuius expositione videsis tom. II. pag. 300, nota 8.

en: Chapter 16:3 and 45, on whose exposition see vol. II, p. 300, note 8.

la: Pro *modus* codd. G K L M O Z aa bb *intellectus.*

en: For *way* (*modus*) codices G K L M O Z aa bb [read] *understanding* (*intellectus*).

la: Cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 30; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 9.

en: Cf. Blessed Albert, here, a. 30; St. Thomas, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here, dub. lit. 9.

la: Plato, Parmen. (ed. Serran., tom. III. p. 142.): *Totum igitur est quod unum est ac partem habet.* Cfr. Aristot., V. Metaph. text. 28. et 31. (IV. c. 23. et 26.).

en: Plato, *Parmenides* (ed. Serranus, vol. III, p. 142): *The whole, therefore, is that which is one and has a part.* Cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* V, text 28 and 31 (IV, cc. 23 and 26).

la: Averroes, in I. Phys. text. 17: « Totum enim nihil aliud est quam congregatio partium ». Altera definitio, quae sequitur, respicit illud Aristot., III. Phys. text. 64. (c. 6): « Totum autem et perfectum aut idem penitus aut natura inter se affinia ». Ibid. text. 63: *Cuius autem nihil est extra* [i. e. cuius nulla pars abest eorum, ex quibus totum natura dicitur, V. Metaph. text. 31.], *id est perfectum et totum.* — Post *quia totum* edd. subdunt *uno modo.* Mox pro *integritatis totalitatem... intelligitur* Vat. *integritatem, non dicitur de Verbo.* Edd. textum sic mutilatum exhibent: *Et secundum quod totum dicit integritatem et totalitatem perfectionis* etc.

en: Averroes, on *Physics* I, text 17: "For a whole is nothing other than a gathering of parts." The other definition, which follows, regards that saying of Aristotle, *Physics* III, text 64 (c. 6): "The whole and the perfect are either entirely the same or by nature akin to one another." Ibid., text 63: *That outside of which there is nothing* [i.e., from which no part of those things is lacking out of which a thing is by nature called a whole, *Metaphysics* V, text 31], *that is the perfect and the whole.* — After *because a whole* (*quia totum*) the editions add *in one way.* Presently, for *the totality of integrity... is understood* (*integritatis totalitatem... intelligitur*) the Vatican [edition reads] *the integrity, it is not said of the Word.* The editions exhibit the text thus mutilated: *And according as the whole signifies the integrity and totality of perfection,* etc.

la: Part. II. q. I. — Codd. et edd. perperam allegant d. 29. Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 31.

en: Part II, q. 1. — The codices and editions wrongly allege d. 29. Cf. on this doubt Blessed Albert, here, a. 31.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 94–95 (PDF 116–117; offset +22), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 7095–7206 of `bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`) as base for clean running prose and exact footnote-marker spacing. The two-column raw OCR cascade-interleaves the Dub. headers and column text; reading order reconstructed from the crops. English literal, doubt-by-doubt. `type: dubia` — no scholion, no articulus/quaestio frontmatter.

**Dubia count + column-reflow map (FOUR dubia, Dub. I–IV — correcting the resume/brief, which said three).** Verified from crops:
- **Dub. I** — p.94 L-col body (opener *In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram… caro illa… fuit peccato obnoxia in Maria*); its Respondeo tail (*…ante sanctificationem; secundo modo postea⁹. Et sic patent illa duo.*) prints at the top of p.94 R-col.
- **Dub. II** — p.94 R-col body (*…primitiam nostrae massae dicitur Christus assumsisse…*), spilling onto p.95 L-col top (the *Ratio 1* tail *…pro eo quod eius caro excedit omnem dignitatem…*).
- **Dub. III** — p.95 L-col (*Sola illius non est caro peccati…*), spilling to p.95 R-col top (*Interpretatio 2. et melior* … *Et patet responsio ad obiecta⁸*).
- **Dub. IV** — p.95 R-col (*Totum Verbum incarnatum est…*), completing on the same column at *…distinctione decima nona¹¹ invenitur determinatum.*
Marginal labels (*Triplex ratio, Distinctio, Ratio 1/2/3, Duplex distinctio, Interpretatio 1, Interpretatio 2. et melior, Subdistinctio*) rendered inline in parentheses, NOT as footnote anchors.

**Page-split / apparatus map (15 entries, continuous `[^1]`–`[^15]`, per-page footer restart).**
- **p.94 footers 7–10 → `[^1]`–`[^4]`** (INHERITED split: p.94 footers 1–6 were a3-q2's `[^15]`–`[^20]`, commit dc58438). f.7 anchors Dub. I `sanctificata⁷` → `[^1]`; f.8 (the long *II Sent. d.31* corruption-twofold note) anchors Dub. I `praecedentibus⁸` → `[^2]`; f.9 anchors Dub. I tail `postea⁹` → `[^3]`; f.10 anchors Dub. II `dignitatis¹⁰` → `[^4]`. (The brief anticipated only f.7–8; f.9–10 are likewise this chunk's — confirmed on the p.94 L-2/R-2 footer bands.)
- **p.95 footers 1–11 → `[^5]`–`[^15]`** (printed superscripts run 1–11 across both columns; rendered slugs continuous chunk-wide):
  - f.1 (deification / Damascene) anchors Dub. II `humanae¹` → `[^5]`
  - f.2 (*Vide supra a.2 q.1*) anchors Dub. II `a Verbo assumta²` → `[^6]`
  - f.3 (Exod 22,29) anchors Dub. II `Domino³` → `[^7]`
  - f.4 (Cod. Y supplet *Christus*) anchors Dub. II `dicitur⁴` → `[^8]`
  - f.5 (*et sic est*) anchors Dub. III `et sic⁵` → `[^9]`
  - f.6 (Ezechiel 16) anchors Dub. III `Ezechielis⁶` → `[^10]`
  - f.7 (*Pro modus*) anchors Dub. III `isto modo⁷` → `[^11]`
  - f.8 (Cfr. B. Albert / S. Thom. / Aegid.) anchors Dub. III `obiecta⁸` → `[^12]`
  - f.9 (Plato *Parmen.*) anchors Dub. IV `partem⁹` → `[^13]`
  - f.10 (Averroes) anchors Dub. IV `constitutum¹⁰` → `[^14]`
  - f.11 (*Part. II. q.1*) anchors Dub. IV `decima nona¹¹` → `[^15]`
  Each printed footer maps to exactly one rendered def; markers placed at OCR superscript positions. 4 (p.94) + 11 (p.95) = 15 defs / 15 La markers / 15 En markers.

**DISTINCTIO IV not leaked.** `DISTINCTIO IV. Cap. I.` begins at raw 7207 on printed **p.96** (PDF 118) — that page is entirely d4 (*Quare Spiritui sancto tribuatur incarnatio*) and is NOT included here. Dub. IV completes on p.95 R-col; seam grammatically continuous, no cascade-merge splice. Incoming boundary: a3-q2's *Ad 4* tail (*…sicut in augmento et nutrimento.*, raw ~7091) precedes `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` (raw 7095) — verified continuous.

**Forward hand-off to `bon-sent-III-d4-littera` (next session).** `DISTINCTIO IV. Cap. I.` (*Quare Spiritui sancto tribuatur incarnatio, cum sit opus Trinitatis*) begins raw 7207, printed p.96 (PDF 118). Re-verify d.4 structure (Cap. count + littera vs commentary split) from raw before translating. No footer carries forward from p.95 into d4 — p.96 starts a fresh page/footer sequence. **On this chunk's promotion DISTINCTIO III is COMPLETE** (littera + PARS I: divisio + a1 q1–3 + a2 q1–3 + dubia + PARS II: divisio + a1 q1–2 + a2 q1–2 + a3 q1–2 + dubia). Next decade-polish gate is at d.10.

**`[?]` flags:** none.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 4

title_alt: Distinctio IV — textus Magistri Sententiarum

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 96 -->

### DISTINCTIO IV.

### Cap. I. *Quare Spiritui sancto tribuatur incarnatio, cum sit opus Trinitatis.*

Cum vero incarnatio Verbi, sicut in superioribus[^1] tractatum est, operatio vere sit Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, investigatione dignum nobis videtur, quare in Scriptura Spiritui sancto hoc opus saepius attribuatur[^2], et de ipso Christus *conceptus et natus* memoretur. — Non enim ideo operatio incarnationis Spiritui sancto saepius attribuitur, quod eam ipse solus sine Patre ac Filio fecerit, sed quia Spiritus sanctus est caritas et donum Patris et Filii[^3], et inaestimabili Dei caritate *Verbum caro factum est*, et ineffabili Dei dono Filius Dei sibi univit *formam servi*. Non igitur frequens denominatio Spiritus sancti ab illo opere Patrem vel Filium secludit, sed potius, uno nominato, tres intelliguntur, sicut saepe fit in aliis operibus. Unde Augustinus, super hoc movens quaestionem, in hunc modum eandem determinat in *Enchiridio*[^4] ita inquiens: «Cum illam creaturam, quam Virgo concepit et peperit, quamvis ad solam personam Filii pertinentem tota Trinitas fecerit — neque enim separabilia sunt opera Trinitatis — cur in ea facienda Spiritus sanctus solus nominatus est? An et quando unus Trium in aliquo opere nominatur, universa operari Trinitas intelligitur? Ita vere est et exemplis doceri potest». — Audistis propositam quaestionem eiusdemque solutionem vel expositionem.

### Cap. II. *Quare dicatur Christus conceptus et natus de Spiritu sancto.*

«Sed non est in hoc diutius immorandum. Illud enim movet, quomodo dictus est Christus natus de Spiritu sancto, cum filius nullo modo sit Spiritus sancti[^5]». — «Nunquid dicturi sumus, patrem hominis Christi esse Spiritum sanctum, ut Deus Pater Verbum genuerit, Spiritus sanctus hominem, ex qua utraque substantia Christus unus esset et Dei Patris filius secundum Verbum, et Spiritus sancti filius secundum hominem, quod eum Spiritus sanctus tanquam pater eius de Matre Virgine genuisset? Quis hoc dicere audebit, cum hoc ita sit absurdum, ut nullae fidelium aures id valeant sustinere»? «Proinde cum fateamur Christum natum de Spiritu sancto ex Maria Virgine, quomodo non sit filius Spiritus sancti, et sit filius Virginis, cum et de illo et de illa sit natus, explicare difficile est. Procul dubio non sic de illo ut de patre, sic autem de illa ut de matre natus est». — «Non est autem concedendum, quidquid de aliqua re nascitur, continuo eiusdem rei filium nuncupandum. Ut enim omittam, aliter de homine nasci filium, aliter capillum, pediculum, lumbricum, quorum nihil est filius; ut ergo haec omittam, quoniam tantae rei deformiter comparantur, certe qui *nascuntur ex aqua et Spiritu sancto*[^6] non aquae filios eos recte dixerit quispiam, sed dicuntur filii Dei Patris et matris Ecclesiae. Sic ergo de Spiritu sancto natus est Christus, nec tamen filius est Spiritus sancti; sicut e converso non omnes qui dicuntur alicuius *filii*, consequens est, ut de illo etiam *nati* esse dicantur, ut illi qui adoptantur. Dicuntur etiam *filii gehennae* non ex illa nati, sed in illam praeparati». «Cum itaque de aliquo nascatur aliquid, et non ita, ut sit filius; nec rursus omnis qui dicitur filius, de illo sit natus, cuius dicitur filius; profecto modus iste, quo natus est Christus de Maria filius, et de Spiritu sancto non filius, insinuat nobis gratiam Dei, qua homo nullis meritis praecedentibus, in ipso exordio naturae suae, quo esse coepit, Verbo Dei copularetur in tantam personae unitatem, ut idem esset Filius Dei, qui Filius hominis, et Filius hominis, qui Filius Dei; et sic in naturae humanae susceptione fieret quodam modo ipsa gratia illi homini naturalis, qua nullum possit admittere peccatum. Quae gratia ideo per Spiritum sanctum est significata, quia ipse proprie sic est Deus, ut sit etiam Dei donum». «Per hoc ergo, quod de Spiritu sancto esse nativitas Christi dicitur, quid aliud quam ipsa gratia demonstratur, qua homo mirabili et ineffabili modo Verbo Dei est adiunctus atque concretus[^7] et divina gratia corporaliter repletus»?

Potest etiam dici Christus secundum hominem ideo *natus* de Spiritu sancto, quia eum *fecit*. In quantum enim homo est, et ipse *factus est*, ut ait Apostolus[^8]. *Conceptus* ergo et *natus* de Spiritu sancto dicitur, non quod Spiritus sanctus fuerit Virgini pro semine, non enim de substantia Spiritus sancti semen partus accepit, sed quia per gratiam Dei et operationem Spiritus sancti de carne Virginis est assumtum quod Verbo Dei est unitum. Et in Evangelio[^9] secundum hanc intelligentiam legitur de Maria, *quod inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu sancto*. Cuius dicti rationem Ambrosius insinuans in secundo libro *de Spiritu sancto*[^10] ait: «Quod ex aliquo est aut *ex substantia*, aut *ex potestate* eius est: *ex substantia*, sicut Filius, qui a Patre, et Spiritus sanctus, qui a Patre Filioque procedit; *ex potestate* autem, sicut ex Deo omnia. Quomodo ergo

<!-- page 97 -->

in utero habuit Maria ex Spiritu sancto? Si quasi *ex substantia*, ergo Spiritus in carnem et ossa conversus est. Non utique. Si vero quasi *ex operatione* et potestate eius Virgo concepit, quis neget Spiritum sanctum dominicae incarnationis auctorem»?

### Cap. III. *Quare Apostolus dicit Christum factum, quem nos fatemur natum.*

Sed quaeri potest, cum nos Salvatorem *natum* profiteamur, cur Apostolus eum *factum* dicat *ex semine David*, alio loco, *factum ex muliere*[^11], cum aliud sit fieri, aliud nasci. Aliquid ergo significavit hoc dicto. Quia enim non humano semine concreta est caro Domini in utero Virginis et corpus effecta, sed effectu et virtute Spiritus sancti; ideo Apostolus dicit *factum*, non *natum*. Aliud est enim semine admixto et sanguinis coagulo *generare*, aliud est non permixtione, sed virtute *procreare*. Possunt homines *generare* filios[^12], sed non facere. — Ecce, quare dixit Apostolus *factum*, et non *natum*, ne eius scilicet nativitas, quae fuit sine viri semine, nostrae similis putaretur, quae conficitur seminum commixtione. Ideo autem, cum *factum* diceret Apostolus, addidit *ex semine David*, quia, etsi non intercessit semen hominis in conceptione Virginis, tamen, quia ex ea carne Christus formatus est, quae constat ex semine, recte dicitur, quia *factus est*[^13].

---

english:
<!-- page 96 -->

### DISTINCTION IV.

### Chap. I. *Why the incarnation is attributed to the Holy Spirit, although it is the work of the Trinity.*

But since the incarnation of the Word, as was treated in what precedes,[^1] is truly the operation of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, it seems to us worthy of investigation why in Scripture this work is more often attributed to the Holy Spirit,[^2] and Christ is recorded to have been *conceived and born* of him. — For the operation of the incarnation is not attributed more often to the Holy Spirit because he alone did it without the Father and the Son, but because the Holy Spirit is the charity and the gift of the Father and of the Son,[^3] and by the inestimable charity of God *the Word was made flesh*, and by the ineffable gift of God the Son of God united to himself *the form of a servant*. Therefore the frequent denomination of the Holy Spirit from that work does not exclude the Father or the Son, but rather, when one is named, the three are understood, as often happens in other works. Hence Augustine, raising a question about this, settles it in this manner in the *Enchiridion*,[^4] saying thus: «Since the whole Trinity made that creature which the Virgin conceived and bore — although it pertains to the person of the Son alone — for the operations of the Trinity are not separable — why in making it was the Holy Spirit alone named? Or even when one of the Three is named in some work, is the whole Trinity understood to operate? So it truly is, and it can be taught by examples». — You have heard the question proposed and its solution or exposition.

### Chap. II. *Why Christ is said to be conceived and born of the Holy Spirit.*

«But we must not delay longer on this. For this is what moves [the question]: how is Christ said to be born of the Holy Spirit, since he is in no way the son of the Holy Spirit?[^5]» — «Are we then to say that the father of the man Christ is the Holy Spirit, so that God the Father begot the Word, the Holy Spirit the man, so that from these two substances Christ would be one and the son of God the Father according to the Word, and the son of the Holy Spirit according to the man, in that the Holy Spirit had begotten him as his father of the Virgin Mother? Who will dare to say this, since it is so absurd that no ears of the faithful can endure it?» «Hence, since we confess that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary, how he is not the son of the Holy Spirit, and yet is the son of the Virgin, since he was born both of him and of her, is difficult to explain. Without doubt he was not born of him as of a father, but of her as of a mother». — «But it is not to be granted that whatever is born from any thing is forthwith to be called the son of that same thing. For — to omit that a son is born of a man in one way, and a hair, a louse, a worm in another, none of which is a son; so, to omit these things, since they are unbecomingly compared to so great a matter — certainly those who *are born of water and the Holy Spirit*[^6] no one would rightly call sons of the water, but they are called sons of God the Father and of mother Church. So then Christ was born of the Holy Spirit, and yet is not the son of the Holy Spirit; just as conversely not all who are called the *sons* of someone, are consequently said to have been *born* of him, as those who are adopted. They are also called *sons of gehenna* not as born of it, but as prepared for it». «Since therefore something is born from someone, and yet not so as to be his son; nor again is everyone who is called a son born of him whose son he is called; assuredly this manner, by which Christ was born the son of Mary, and not the son of the Holy Spirit, intimates to us the grace of God, by which the man, with no preceding merits, in the very beginning of his nature, by which he began to be, was joined to the Word of God in so great a unity of person that he should be the same Son of God who is the Son of man, and the Son of man who is the Son of God; and so in the assumption of the human nature that very grace would become in a certain way natural to that man, by which he could admit no sin. Which grace is for this reason signified through the Holy Spirit, because he is properly so God as also to be the gift of God». «Through this, then, that the nativity of Christ is said to be of the Holy Spirit, what else is shown than that very grace by which the man was, in a wonderful and ineffable manner, joined to and bound together with[^7] the Word of God and bodily filled with divine grace»?

It can also be said that Christ according to his humanity is for this reason *born* of the Holy Spirit, because he *made* him. For inasmuch as he is man, he himself was also *made*, as the Apostle says.[^8] He is therefore said to be *conceived* and *born* of the Holy Spirit, not that the Holy Spirit was to the Virgin in place of seed, for it was not from the substance of the Holy Spirit that she received the seed of her offspring, but because by the grace of God and the operation of the Holy Spirit there was assumed from the flesh of the Virgin that which was united to the Word of God. And in the Gospel,[^9] according to this understanding, it is read of Mary, *that she was found with child of the Holy Spirit*. The reason for this saying Ambrose intimates in the second book *On the Holy Spirit*,[^10] saying: «What is from anything is either *of its substance* or *of its power*: *of its substance*, as the Son, who [proceeds] from the Father, and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; *of its power*, however, as all things are from God. How then

<!-- page 97 -->

did Mary conceive in her womb of the Holy Spirit? If as it were *of his substance*, then the Spirit was converted into flesh and bones. By no means. But if the Virgin conceived as it were *of his operation* and power, who would deny that the Holy Spirit is the author of the Lord's incarnation?»

### Chap. III. *Why the Apostle says that Christ was made, whom we confess to have been born.*

But it can be asked, since we profess the Savior to have been *born*, why the Apostle says he was *made of the seed of David*, and in another place, *made of a woman*,[^11] since to be made is one thing and to be born another. He therefore signified something by this word. For since the flesh of the Lord was not formed in the womb of the Virgin of human seed and made a body, but by the effect and power of the Holy Spirit; therefore the Apostle says *made*, not *born*. For to *generate* by seed admixed and the clot of blood is one thing, to *procreate* not by mixture but by power is another. Men can *generate* sons,[^12] but not make them. — See, why the Apostle said *made*, and not *born*: namely, lest his nativity, which was without the seed of a man, should be thought like ours, which is brought about by the commingling of seeds. But for this reason, when the Apostle said *made*, he added *of the seed of David*: because, although the seed of a man did not intervene in the conception of the Virgin, nevertheless, since Christ was formed from that flesh which is constituted of seed, it is rightly said that he *was made*.[^13]

---

la: Dist. I. c. ult.

en: Distinction I, last chapter.

la: Vat. cum cod. A et pluribus edd. *tribuatur.*

en: The Vatican edition, with codex A and several editions, reads *tribuatur* [let it be attributed].

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. XVII. c. 4. et ibid. c. 4. — Pro *inaestimabili* Vat. cum pluribus edd. *ineffabili.* In seqq. respicitur Ioan. 1, 14, et Phil. 2, 7.

en: Cf. I Sent., d. XVII, c. 4, and ibid., c. 4. — For *inaestimabili* [inestimable] the Vatican edition, with several editions, reads *ineffabili* [ineffable]. In what follows reference is made to John 1:14 and Phil. 2:7.

la: Cap. 38. n. 12. Pro *An et* edd. cum suo cod. C *etiam,* refragante etiam originali.

en: Chapter 38, n. 12. For *An et* [Or even] the editions, with their codex C, read *etiam* [also], the original also disagreeing.

la: Ibid.; seq. locus ibid. paulo superius; tertius locus ibid. infra; quartus c. 39. n. 12; quintus c. 40. n. 12; ultimus c. 37. n. 11. et c. 41. n. 13.

en: Ibid.; the next passage is ibid., a little above; the third passage ibid., below; the fourth, c. 39, n. 12; the fifth, c. 40, n. 12; the last, c. 37, n. 11, and c. 41, n. 13.

la: Ioan. 3, 5. Infra verba *filii gehennae* respiciunt Matth. 23, 15.

en: John 3:5. Below the words *sons of gehenna* refer to Matt. 23:15.

la: Edd. 1, 8 *concreatus,* Vat. cum aliis edd. *connexus,* refragantibus codd. A B C D et originali.

en: Editions 1 and 8 read *concreatus* [co-created], the Vatican edition with other editions *connexus* [connected], the codices A B C D and the original disagreeing.

la: Rom. 1, 3; Gal. 4, 4. Quoad ea quae sequuntur, cfr. Explanatio Symboli ad Damasum (inter opera Hieronymi).

en: Rom. 1:3; Gal. 4:4. As to what follows, cf. the *Exposition of the Creed to Damasus* (among the works of Jerome).

la: Cap. 5. n. 42 seq., quo loco ante *et Spiritus sanctus* edd., exceptis 1, 8, addunt *vel ex Patre.*

en: Chapter 5, n. 42 ff., in which place, before *and the Holy Spirit*, the editions, except 1 and 8, add *or from the Father.*

la: Locc. iam citt. Rom. 1, 3; Gal. 4, 4. — Paulo inferius pro *concreta* edd. 1, 8 *concepta,* aliae *congregata,* refragantibus codd. A B C D et ed. 6.

en: The passages already cited, Rom. 1:3; Gal. 4:4. — A little below, for *concreta* [formed] editions 1 and 8 read *concepta* [conceived], others *congregata* [gathered], the codices A B C D and edition 6 disagreeing.

la: Codd. A B C D adiiciunt *homines;* paulo superius post *generare* ... sunt edd., exceptis 1, 8, addunt *enim.* Deinde pro *viri semine* edd. eaedem *virili semine.*

en: The codices A B C D add *homines* [men]; a little above, after *generare* ... the editions, except 1 and 8, add *enim* [for]. Then for *viri semine* [the seed of a man] the same editions read *virili semine* [virile seed].

la: Quae praecedunt sunt in Glossa ad Rom. 1, 3, sumta ex August., Exposit. inchoata Epistolae ad Rom. n. 4.

en: What precedes is found in the *Gloss* on Rom. 1:3, taken from Augustine, *Unfinished Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans*, n. 4. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.96–97 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p096-{L,R}-*` and `vol3-p097-{L,R}-*`), reading Left column top→bottom then Right per the Vol II/III two-column OCR-priority inversion (the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters the two-column body and footers for this distinction). OCR (raw 7207–7294) used only as a marker-spacing/spelling cross-check. Offset pdf = printed + 22 (PDF pp.118–119). Running heads: p.96 `96 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III. / DISTINCTIO IV.`; p.97 `DIST. IV. DIVISIO TEXTUS. 97`.

**d.4 structure (verified from raw before translating).** Lombard's littera for Distinction IV has **THREE chapters** — Cap. I (*Quare Spiritui sancto tribuatur incarnatio…*, raw 7221), Cap. II (*Quare dicatur Christus conceptus et natus de Spiritu sancto*, raw ~7250), Cap. III (*Quare Apostolus dicit Christum factum, quem nos fatemur natum*, raw 7284). Bonaventure's commentary begins immediately after at `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IV` / `DIVISIO TEXTUS` (raw 7295/7301) → `ARTICULUS I` (raw 7346). The auto-chunked littera boundary (lines 7207–7294) matches the semantic boundary exactly. This littera chunk = ONLY Lombard's three chapters; the COMMENTARIUS + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (which lists the three articles of the divisio) belong to the next chunk `bon-sent-III-d4-divisio`. d.4 has no pars division.

**Page-split map.** Cap. I + Cap. II (opening) + Ambrose quote opening on p.96 (footers 1–10). Page break falls *inside* Cap. II, at `…ex potestate autem, sicut ex Deo omnia. Quomodo ergo` (p.96 R-col bottom) → `in utero habuit Maria…` (p.97 L-col top). Cap. II conclusion + all of Cap. III on p.97 (footers 1–3 → `[^11]`–`[^13]`). Marker `[^10]` (Ambrose, *de Spiritu sancto* c.5) anchored on p.96; its body text spans the page break, but the footer note is wholly on p.96.

**Apparatus (13 entries, continuous `[^1]`–`[^13]`, per-page restart).** p.96 footers 1–10 → `[^1]`–`[^10]`; p.97 footers 1–3 → `[^11]`–`[^13]`. Footer p.97-2 (`[^12]`) physically splits across p.97 L→R columns in the printed footer band; reassembled here. Marker pairing: 13 La anchors in Latin body = 13 in English body = 13 defs.

**Footer hand-off FORWARDED to d4-divisio.** NONE. All three littera footers on p.97 belong to Lombard's Cap. III text. The COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS material that begins lower on p.97 (and its footers) is the property of `bon-sent-III-d4-divisio` and was NOT consumed here. No footer carries forward; the seam at COMMENTARIUS (raw 7295) is clean.

**Marginal labels.** The Quaracchi marginal annotations (*Solutio, Dubium 1–6, Maior explanatio. natio., et alia solutio, Augustinus, Ambrosius*) are editorial side-glosses keyed to the running text; they are NOT footnote anchors and are omitted from the body, per corpus convention for littera chunks.

**`[?]` flags.** None. The OCR column-bleed garbles in the L-1 band (`siculnobis…insinuat…gratiam Dei, qua homo` and the fragmented `Cbristusfilius… de Spiritu sancto non, nat'°'`) were resolved cleanly against the p.96 R-column band (`…profecto modus iste, quo natus est Christus de Maria sicut filius, et de Spiritu sancto non sicut filius, insinuat nobis gratiam Dei, qua homo nullis meritis praecedentibus…`).

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. 4, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem IV — Divisio textus et Tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction IV — Division of the text and Treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 97 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IV.

### *De ipsa conceptione Christi.*

*Cum vero incarnatio Verbi etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra determinavit Magister de sanctificatione Virginis, quae fuit praeambula ad conceptionem Christi. In hac parte determinat de ipsa conceptione Domini. Et quoniam conceptio Christi habet comparationem ad Spiritum sanctum fecundantem et ad Virginem concipientem; ideo pars ista habet duas partes. In quarum prima determinat de conceptione Christi in comparatione ad Spiritum sanctum. In secunda determinat de ea in comparatione ad Virginem, ibi: *Sed quaeri potest, cum nos Salvatorem profiteamur natum.* Prima pars in partes tres dividitur. In quarum prima ponit vel exprimit veritatem, assignans, quare incarnationis mysterium sit Spiritui sancto attribuendum. In secunda vero removet dubitationem, ex his quae dicta sunt habentem ortum, ibi: *Sed non est hic diutius immorandum.* In tertia vero subiungit maiorem explanationem praedictorum, ibi: *Profecto modus iste, quo natus est Christus de Maria* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima exprimit veritatem. In secunda confirmat eam per auctoritatem, ibi: *Unde Augustinus super hoc movens quaestionem.* Similiter secunda pars, in qua removet dubitationem, dividitur in duas. In prima parte ponit quaestionem. In secunda solutionem, ibi: *Non est autem concedendum.* Eodem modo tertia pars, ubi ponit explanationem, dividitur in duas. In quarum prima ponit unum explanandi modum secundum Augustinum; in secunda alium, ibi: *Potest etiam Christus dici secundum hominem* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis incidit hic quaestio de conceptione Christi quantum ad tria.

Primo enim quaeritur de ipsa conceptione in comparatione ad Spiritum sanctum efficientem.

Secundo de ipsa quantum ad gratiam intervenientem.

Tertio de ipsa quantum ad Virginem concipientem.

Haec enim tria tangit Magister in littera.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum Filii Dei incarnatio vel conceptio appropriari debeat personae Spiritus sancti.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Spiritus sancti filius debeat Christus appellari.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Christus possit dici filius Trinitatis.

---

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION IV.

### *On the conception of Christ itself.*

*But since the incarnation of the Word, etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master determined concerning the sanctification of the Virgin, which was a preamble to the conception of Christ. In this part he determines concerning the conception of the Lord itself. And since the conception of Christ has a relation to the Holy Spirit who makes fruitful and to the Virgin who conceives, therefore this part has two parts. In the first of them he determines concerning the conception of Christ in relation to the Holy Spirit. In the second he determines concerning it in relation to the Virgin, at: *But it can be asked, since we profess the Savior to have been born.* The first part is divided into three parts. In the first of them he sets forth or expresses the truth, assigning why the mystery of the incarnation is to be attributed to the Holy Spirit. In the second he removes a doubt arising from the things that have been said, at: *But there is no need to linger here longer.* In the third he subjoins a fuller explanation of the foregoing, at: *Truly that manner, by which Christ was born of Mary,* etc.

The first part has two. In the first he expresses the truth. In the second he confirms it by authority, at: *Hence Augustine, raising a question about this.* Likewise the second part, in which he removes the doubt, is divided into two. In the first part he sets forth the question. In the second the solution, at: *But it is not to be conceded.* In the same way the third part, where he sets forth the explanation, is divided into two. In the first of them he sets forth one manner of explaining according to Augustine; in the second another, at: *Christ can also be said according to the man,* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part there arises here a question concerning the conception of Christ with regard to three things.

For first it is asked concerning the conception itself in relation to the Holy Spirit who effects it.

Secondly concerning it with regard to the grace that intervenes.

Thirdly concerning it with regard to the Virgin who conceives.

For the Master touches on these three things in the text.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked whether the incarnation or conception of the Son of God ought to be appropriated to the person of the Holy Spirit.

Secondly it is asked whether Christ ought to be called the son of the Holy Spirit.

Thirdly it is asked whether Christ can be called the son of the Trinity.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed p.97 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p097-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), read Left column top→bottom then Right column, per the Vol II/III PDF-priority inversion (the two-column IA djvu OCR cascade-fragments this material). Raw lines 7295–7344 in `raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`. Offset pdf = printed + 22 (p.97 = PDF 119), confirmed by running head `DIST. IV. DIVISIO TEXTUS. 97`.

**Page-split map.** The entire chunk sits on a single printed page, **p.97**. The page also carries (above the divisio) the tail of the Cap. III littera and (below the divisio) the catchword `S. Bonav. — Tom. III.` + signature `13` and the running head of p.98 (`98 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`). `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IV` opens at the bottom of p.97 L-column; the `DIVISIO TEXTUS` body spans p.97 L→R; `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` + the three-question listing finish at the bottom of p.97 L→R. No page break falls inside the chunk.

**Apparatus.** None. The DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM carry no footnote markers. The three footer notes printed at the bottom of p.97 (markers 1, 2, 3 — Rom. 1:3/Gal. 4:4 variants; codd. ABCD *homines*; Glossa ad Rom. ex August.) anchor to the **Cap. III littera** text at the top of p.97 (`factum ex muliere¹`, `generare filios²`, `factus est³`) and are fully captured in `bon-sent-III-d4-littera.md` as `[^11]`–`[^13]` (commit 2134551). `has_apparatus: false`.

**Boundary lock — incoming.** Opens at `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IV` (raw 7295), immediately after the Cap. III littera tail (`…recte dicitur, quia factus est³.`, raw ~7294). No inherited footer (all p.97 footers belong to Cap. III, already in the littera).

**Boundary lock — outgoing → `bon-sent-III-d4-a1-q1`.** The TRACTATIO question listing ends with the three-question count (raw ~7344). `ARTICULUS I.` (`De conceptione Christi in comparatione ad Spiritum sanctum efficientem.`) begins raw 7346 on **printed p.98** (PDF 120), with `QUAESTIO I.` (`Utrum Filii Dei incarnatio debeat appropriari Patri, an Spiritui sancto.`). No footer carries forward — p.98 begins a fresh footer sequence. d.4 has **no pars division** (single undivided distinction); the commentary has **three articles**. Article I's three quaestiones, per this TRACTATIO: (1) utrum Filii Dei incarnatio vel conceptio appropriari debeat personae Spiritus sancti; (2) utrum Spiritus sancti filius debeat Christus appellari; (3) utrum Christus possit dici filius Trinitatis.

**[?] flags.** None.


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

source_text:
<!-- page 98 -->

### Articulus I. *De conceptione Christi in comparatione ad Spiritum sanctum efficientem.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum Filii Dei incarnatio debeat appropriari Patri, an Spiritui sancto.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each entry gives the Quaracchi editors' Latin note (**La.**) followed by an English rendering (**En.**). Quaracchi restarts the footnote numbering on each printed page; here printed page 98 carries notes 1–11 and printed page 99 carries notes 12–20 (printed page 100 holds the scholion and has no footer notes).

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum Filii Dei incarnatio debeat appropriari Patri, an Spiritui sancto. Et quod *Patri,* videtur.

1. Christi incarnatio vel conceptio non est aliud quam Filii missio[^1] (*ad oppositum*); sed Filii missio magis competit Patri quam Spiritui sancto: ergo pari ratione et incarnatio et conceptio.

2. Item, Filii incarnatio non est aliud quam eius donatio — unde in eius Nativitate cantamus: *Filius datus est nobis*[^2] — sed donatio maxime competit Patri, iuxta illud Ioannis tertio: *Sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret:* ergo videtur, quod conceptio debeat appropriari Patri, non Spiritui sancto.

3. Item, annuntiatio conceptionis Filii Dei facta est per Angelum Gabrielem, qui est *fortitudo Dei*[^3]; sed fortitudo sive potentia appropriatur Patri, non Spiritui sancto: ergo pari ratione et incarnatio.

4. Item, potentia divina maxime manifestatur in operatione illa, cuius extrema distant distantia maxima, sive infinita; sed Filii Dei et creaturae est infinite distantium unio: ergo in operatione illa est potissime divinae potentiae manifestatio. Sed huiusmodi opus appropriatur Patri, non Spiritui sancto: ergo et conceptio[^4].

Sed *contra,* quod debeat appropriari *Filio,* videtur.

5. Opus conceptionis pertinet ad opus reparationis; sed opus reparationis pertinet ad Verbum[^5]: ergo et ipsa conceptio.

6. Item, ei proprie formatio carnis attribuitur, cui attribuitur assumtio; sed carnis assumtio attribuitur soli Verbo: ergo videtur, quod soli ei debeat appropriari ipsa conceptio[^6].

7. Item, ei personae potissime debet appropriari carnis conceptio ex tempore, cui potissime convenit conceptio ex aeternitate; sed haec est persona Filii, secundum quod dicitur Proverbiorum octavo[^7]: *Nondum erant abyssi, et ego iam concepta eram.*

8. Item, opus, quod est maxime divinae sapientiae manifestativum, personae Filii Dei est appropriandum; sed tale est incarnationis mysterium, quia, sicut dicitur in Iob 8[^8], *prudentia eius percussit superbum:* videtur ergo, quod conceptionis sacramentum Filio Dei sit appropriandum.

Sed contra hoc est:

1. Auctoritas in Symbolo[^9] (*Fundamenta*): « Conceptus est de Spiritu sancto »; non dicitur de Patre, vel Filio. Et Lucae primo: *Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te.* Item Matthaei primo: *Quod enim in ea natum est, de Spiritu sancto est.*

2. Item, ratione[^10], eo quod opus incarnationis manifestativum est divinae bonitatis et caritatis; sed hoc appropriatur Spiritui sancto: ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> Incarnatio Filii Dei potissime appropriari debet Spiritui sancto, tum propter erroris exclusionem, tum propter veritatis manifestationem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod opus incarnationis (*Conclusio 1*) manifestativum est divinae *potentiae, sapientiae* et *bonitatis* secundum diversas conditiones in ipso repertas. Contingit enim loqui de ipso quantum ad ipsa *unibilia* (*Distinctio*), et quantum ad *unionis modum,* et quantum ad *unionis fructum.* — In comparatione ad *unibilia,* inter quae est infinita distantia, manifestatur divina *potentia.* — In comparatione vero ad *unionis modum* congruentissimum, prout competebat ad humanum remedium, manifestatur Dei *sapientia.* — In comparatione vero ad *fructum* sive ad effectum consequentem, quo se obtulit Deo et Patri in odorem suavitatis[^11], manifestatur divina *bonitas,* misericordia et caritas. Et hoc est quod dicit Damascenus in libro tertio, capitulo primo: « Monstratur simul in incarnatione bonitas, iustitia et sapientia Dei: bonitas quidem, quia non despexit proprii
<!-- page 99 -->
plasmatis infirmitatem, sed viscera eius commota sunt, ipso cadente, et manum porrexit; iustitia, quoniam, homine victo, non alium fecit vincere tyrannum; sapientia, quoniam invenit apori[^12], id est difficilis, solutionem decentissimam ». Quoniam igitur in incarnationis opere secundum considerationes diversas contingit invenire appropriata tribus personis valde excellenter et praecipue[^13]: hinc est, quod conceptio (*Conclusio 2*), cum sit opus trium personarum, appropriari potest tribus personis secundum diversas considerationes, sicut ostendunt rationes, quae prius inductae sunt.

Scriptura tamen magis appropriat Spiritui sancto quam alicui trium personarum (*Duplex ratio, quare magis appropriatur Spiritui sancto*), et hoc duplici ratione, videlicet propter erroris exclusionem, et propter veritatis manifestationem. — Propter erroris exclusionem (*Ratio 1*): quia in conceptione humana consuevit se immiscere foeditatis concupiscentia, ac per hoc originalis culpa. Ne illud ergo dicatur fuisse in conceptione Christi, dicitur *conceptus* fuisse *de Spiritu sancto:* ad excludendum *carnalem commixtionem* dicitur *conceptus de Spiritu*[^14]; ad excludendum vero *concupiscentiae foeditatem* dicitur non solum conceptus *de Spiritu,* sed *de Spiritu sancto.*

Alia vero ratio est propter *veritatis* manifestationem (*Ratio 2*). Illud enim quod maxime praeparavit Virginem ad Filii Dei conceptionem, fuit amor divinus. Unde quemadmodum mulier concipit per viri delectationem[^15] et ipsius adhaesionem, quae est cum desiderio et amore virtutis generativae; sic beata Virgo propter *amoris singularitatem* singulariter concepit Deum ex Deo; et ideo concepisse dicitur *de Spiritu sancto.* Et hanc rationem assignat Hugo de sancto Victore in quodam suo libello[^16], ubi sic dicit: « Concepit Virgo Maria de Spiritu sancto, non quia de Spiritus sancti substantia semen partus acceperit, sed quia per amorem et operationem Spiritus sancti ex carne Virginis divino partui substantiam ministravit. Nam quia amor Spiritus sancti singulariter in corde ardebat, ideo in carne eius mirabilia faciebat; cuius dilectio quia in corde non suscepit socium, operatio in carne illius non habebat exemplum ».

Et sic patet, quod propter *erroris exclusionem* et *veritatis manifestationem* incarnatio Filii Dei potissime appropriari debet Spiritui sancto (*Conclusio 3*). Et propter has duas rationes frequenter in Scriptura fit appropriatio, sicut ostensum fuit in libro primo[^17].

Ex his autem manifesta est responsio ad obiecta (*De argumentis ad oppositum*), quia verum concludunt secundum diversas vias, quod incarnationis mysterium diversis de causis potest appropriari cuilibet trium personarum. Si quis autem ex his velit arguere, quod incarnationis opus magis debet appropriari Patri vel Filio quam Spiritui sancto; ad omnia est una responsio: quia procedunt ex insufficienti et peccant *secundum consequens*[^18], quia una sola ratio non sufficit appropriari uni soli personae, ubi respectu alterius personae reperitur ratio maioris congruentiae; et sic est in proposito.

Illae tamen duae rationes, quae fundantur super hoc, quod Filii Dei incarnatio non est aliud quam missio, et conceptio non est aliud quam carnis assumtio (*Ad argumenta 1 et 6 in oppositum*), non valent, quia tam missio quam assumtio important relationem, quae *proprie* potest respicere personam Patris et Filii; sed conceptio dicit effectum et operationem, quae communis est tribus personis et appropriatur Spiritui sancto ex causis praedictis; quamvis et aliae rationes congruentiae possint assignari, sive quia, nominato Spiritu sancto, intelliguntur aliae personae, qui est amborum unitas et communio, sicut Augustinus explanat in littera[^19]; sive quia in incarnatione fuit copiosissima divinae bonitatis effusio. Et sic Spiritui sancto appropriatur conceptio (*Notandum*), tum ratione *proprii,* quia est amborum unitas, tum ratione *appropriati,* quia est amborum bonitas. — Ex his autem satis patere potest responsio ad obiecta[^20].
<!-- page 100 -->

english:
### Article I. *On the conception of Christ in comparison with the Holy Spirit as efficient cause.*
### Question I. *Whether the incarnation of the Son of God ought to be appropriated to the Father, or to the Holy Spirit.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus and asks whether the incarnation of the Son of God ought to be appropriated to the Father, or to the Holy Spirit. And that it ought to be appropriated to the *Father* seems so.

1. The incarnation or conception of Christ is nothing other than the mission of the Son[^1] (*to the opposite*); but the mission of the Son belongs more to the Father than to the Holy Spirit: therefore by the same reasoning the incarnation and conception also.

2. Likewise, the incarnation of the Son is nothing other than His being given — whence at His Nativity we sing: *A Son is given to us*[^2] — but giving belongs most of all to the Father, according to that of John, chapter three: *So God loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son:* therefore it seems that the conception ought to be appropriated to the Father, not to the Holy Spirit.

3. Likewise, the annunciation of the conception of the Son of God was made through the Angel Gabriel, who is the *strength of God*[^3]; but strength or power is appropriated to the Father, not to the Holy Spirit: therefore by the same reasoning the incarnation also.

4. Likewise, the divine power is most of all manifested in that operation whose extremes are separated by the greatest distance, that is, an infinite one; but the union of the Son of God and the creature is a union of things infinitely distant: therefore in that operation there is most of all a manifestation of the divine power. But a work of this kind is appropriated to the Father, not to the Holy Spirit: therefore the conception also[^4].

But *on the contrary,* it seems that it ought to be appropriated to the *Son.*

5. The work of conception pertains to the work of reparation; but the work of reparation pertains to the Word[^5]: therefore the conception also.

6. Likewise, to Him is properly attributed the formation of the flesh, to whom is attributed the assuming [of it]; but the assuming of the flesh is attributed to the Word alone: therefore it seems that to Him alone ought the conception itself to be appropriated[^6].

7. Likewise, to that person ought the conception of the flesh in time most of all to be appropriated, to whom the conception from eternity most of all belongs; but this is the person of the Son, according to what is said in Proverbs, chapter eight[^7]: *The depths were not yet, and I was already conceived.*

8. Likewise, a work which is most of all manifestative of the divine wisdom is to be appropriated to the person of the Son of God; but such is the mystery of the incarnation, because, as is said in Job 8[^8], *His prudence struck the proud one:* therefore it seems that the sacrament of conception is to be appropriated to the Son of God.

But against this is:

1. The authority in the Creed[^9] (*Foundations*): « He was conceived of the Holy Spirit »; it is not said of the Father, or the Son. And in Luke, chapter one: *The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee.* Likewise in Matthew, chapter one: *For that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit.*

2. Likewise, by reason[^10], because the work of the incarnation is manifestative of the divine goodness and charity; but this is appropriated to the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> The incarnation of the Son of God ought most of all to be appropriated to the Holy Spirit, both on account of the exclusion of error and on account of the manifestation of the truth.

**I respond:** It must be said that the work of the incarnation (*Conclusion 1*) is manifestative of the divine *power, wisdom,* and *goodness* according to the diverse conditions found in it. For it happens that one may speak of it with respect to the things that can be united (*Distinction*), and with respect to the *manner of the union,* and with respect to the *fruit of the union.* — In comparison with the *things that can be united,* between which there is an infinite distance, the divine *power* is manifested. — But in comparison with the most fitting *manner of the union,* as it was suited for the human remedy, the *wisdom* of God is manifested. — But in comparison with the *fruit* or with the consequent effect, by which He offered Himself to God and the Father as an odor of sweetness[^11], the divine *goodness,* mercy, and charity are manifested. And this is what Damascene says in book three, chapter one: « There is shown at once in the incarnation the goodness, justice, and wisdom of God: goodness indeed, because He did not despise the infirmity of His own
<!-- page 99 -->
handiwork, but His bowels were moved, when it had fallen, and He stretched forth His hand; justice, because, man having been conquered, He did not make another conquer the tyrant; wisdom, because He found the most fitting solution of the *apori,*[^12] that is, of the difficulty ». Since therefore in the work of the incarnation, according to diverse considerations, it happens that one finds things appropriated to the three persons very excellently and pre-eminently[^13]: hence it is that the conception (*Conclusion 2*), since it is the work of the three persons, can be appropriated to the three persons according to diverse considerations, as the reasons that were brought forward before show.

Scripture nevertheless appropriates [it] more to the Holy Spirit than to any of the three persons (*A twofold reason why it is appropriated more to the Holy Spirit*), and this for a twofold reason, namely on account of the exclusion of error, and on account of the manifestation of the truth. — On account of the exclusion of error (*Reason 1*): because in human conception the concupiscence of foulness, and through this original guilt, is wont to insinuate itself. Lest therefore that be said to have been in the conception of Christ, He is said to have been *conceived of the Holy Spirit:* to exclude the *carnal commingling* He is said to be *conceived of the Spirit*[^14]; but to exclude the *foulness of concupiscence* He is said to be conceived not only *of the Spirit,* but *of the Holy Spirit.*

But the other reason is on account of the manifestation of the *truth* (*Reason 2*). For that which most of all prepared the Virgin for the conception of the Son of God was the divine love. Whence, just as a woman conceives through the delight of the man[^15] and his adhesion, which is with desire and love of the generative power; so the blessed Virgin, on account of the *singularity of love,* singularly conceived God from God; and therefore she is said to have conceived *of the Holy Spirit.* And this reason Hugh of St. Victor assigns in a certain little book of his[^16], where he speaks thus: « The Virgin Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit, not because she received the seed of the offspring from the substance of the Holy Spirit, but because through the love and operation of the Holy Spirit she ministered the substance from the flesh of the Virgin for the divine offspring. For because the love of the Holy Spirit singularly burned in her heart, therefore in her flesh it wrought marvels; and because His love admitted no companion in the heart, its operation in her flesh had no exemplar ».

And thus it is plain that, on account of the *exclusion of error* and the *manifestation of the truth,* the incarnation of the Son of God ought most of all to be appropriated to the Holy Spirit (*Conclusion 3*). And on account of these two reasons appropriation is frequently made in Scripture, as was shown in the first book[^17].

From these things, moreover, the response to the objections is manifest (*On the arguments to the opposite*), because they conclude truly by diverse ways that the mystery of the incarnation can for diverse causes be appropriated to any of the three persons. But if anyone should wish from these to argue that the work of the incarnation ought to be appropriated more to the Father or the Son than to the Holy Spirit; to all there is one response: because they proceed from an insufficient ground and err *according to consequent*[^18], because one single reason does not suffice to appropriate [something] to one person alone, where with respect to another person a reason of greater fittingness is found; and so it is in the matter at hand.

Yet those two reasons which are founded upon this, that the incarnation of the Son of God is nothing other than mission, and that the conception is nothing other than the assuming of the flesh (*To arguments 1 and 6 in the opposite*), do not hold, because both mission and assuming import a relation which *properly* can regard the person of the Father and of the Son; but conception bespeaks an effect and operation which is common to the three persons and is appropriated to the Holy Spirit from the causes aforesaid; although other reasons of fittingness also can be assigned, whether because, the Holy Spirit being named, the other persons are understood, who is the unity and communion of both, as Augustine explains in the text[^19]; or because in the incarnation there was a most copious outpouring of the divine goodness. And thus to the Holy Spirit the conception is appropriated (*Note*), both by reason of what is *proper,* because He is the unity of both, and by reason of what is *appropriated,* because He is the goodness of both. — From these things, moreover, the response to the objections can sufficiently be plain[^20].
<!-- page 100 -->

la: Vide August., II. de Trin. c. 5. n. 7. seqq. et IV. c. 20. n. 27, ubi etiam innuitur, quod Patri conveniat mittere, de quo cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 1, et I. Sent. d. 15. p. I. q. 3.

en: See Augustine, II *On the Trinity* c. 5 n. 7 ff. and IV c. 20 n. 27, where it is also intimated that it belongs to the Father to send, on which cf. above the text of the Master, d. I c. 1, and I Sent. d. 15 p. I q. 3.

la: Isai. 9, 6, quae verba recitantur in Introitu Missae tertiae in festo Nativ. Domini. — Seq. locus Script. est Ioan. 3, 16.

en: Isaiah 9, 6, which words are recited in the Introit of the third Mass on the feast of the Nativity of the Lord. — The following Scripture passage is John 3, 16.

la: Cfr. Luc. 1, 26. — Gregor., II. in Evang. homil. 34. n. 9: *Gabriel autem fortitudo Dei.* — De minori cfr. I. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXXIV. c. 4, et Comment. q. 3.

en: Cf. Luke 1, 26. — Gregory, II *Homilies on the Gospels* hom. 34 n. 9: *But Gabriel [means] the strength of God.* — On the minor [premise] cf. I Sent., the text of the Master, d. XXXIV c. 4, and the Commentary q. 3.

la: Edd. *ergo non conceptio.*

en: The editions [read] *therefore not the conception.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. a. 2. q. 3.

en: Cf. above d. 1 a. 2 q. 3.

la: Codd. M O *appropriari carnis conceptio.*

en: Codices M O [read] *the conception of the flesh be appropriated.*

la: Vers. 24. — De hoc arg. cfr. supra d. 1. a. 2. q. 3. in corp.

en: Verse 24. — On this argument cf. above d. 1 a. 2 q. 3 in the body.

la: Cap. 26, 12. — De maiori cfr. I. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXXIV. c. 4, et Comment. q. 3.

en: Chapter 26, 12. — On the major [premise] cf. I Sent., the text of the Master, d. XXXIV c. 4, and the Commentary q. 3.

la: Scil. Apostolorum. — Testimonia seqq. sunt Luc. 1, 35, et Matth. 1, 20. — Pro *contra hoc* codd. G Z *contra haec.*

en: Namely [the Creed] of the Apostles. — The following testimonies are Luke 1, 35, and Matthew 1, 20. — For *against this* codices G Z [read] *against these.*

la: Supple cum codd. F N (T a posteriore manu) U *videtur.*

en: Supply with codices F N (T from a later hand) U *it seems.*

la: Eph. 5, 2: *Tradidit* [Christus] *semetipsum pro nobis oblationem et hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis.*

en: Eph. 5, 2: [Christ] *delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a victim to God for an odor of sweetness.*

la: Est genitivus latinizati verbi Graeci ἄπορος (τοῦ ἀπόρου in textu Graeco), quod idem significat ac *arcius, difficilis.* — Pro *apori* edd. substituerunt *aporiam,* vocem itidem e Graeco ἀπόρροια i. e. defluxus) sumtam et latinizatam, qua quaedam ulceris species significatur. Post *id est* Vat. suo marte interserit *vulneris* et subinde post *difficilis* subiicit *curam* cet. Pro *difficilis* codd. F M O U exhibent *difficillimi.* Paulo superius post *vincere tyrannum* textus origin. plura addit.

en: It is the genitive of the latinized Greek word ἄπορος (τοῦ ἀπόρου in the Greek text), which means the same as *narrow, difficult.* — For *apori* the editions substituted *aporiam,* a word likewise taken from the Greek ἀπόρροια, i.e. a flowing-down, and latinized, by which a certain kind of ulcer is signified. After *id est* the Vatican [edition] on its own authority inserts *vulneris* [of the wound] and thereupon after *difficilis* adds *curam* [the cure] etc. For *difficilis* codices F M O U exhibit *difficillimi.* A little above, after *vincere tyrannum* the original text adds more.

la: In codd. A E G H K L T V X aa, omisso *et,* verbum *praecipue* ab antecedenti voce interpunctione dividitur coniungiturque cum subsequenti *hinc est.*

en: In codices A E G H K L T V X aa, with *et* omitted, the word *praecipue* is separated by punctuation from the preceding word and joined with the following *hinc est.*

la: Post *de Spiritu* codd. G H (L a prima manu) T V Y Z indebite repetunt *sancto.*

en: After *de Spiritu* codices G H (L from the first hand) T V Y Z unduly repeat *sancto.*

la: Edd. 1. 2. *dilectionem,* Vat. *dilectionem vel delectationem.* Hos pro *adhaesionem* codd. B G L V X (T a prima manu) *adhaesibilitatem.*

en: Editions 1, 2 [read] *love,* the Vatican [edition] *love or delight.* For *adhaesionem* codices B G L V X (T from the first hand) [read] *adhaesibilitatem.*

la: In libello epistolari de B. Mariae virginitate, c. 2. circa finem, ubi textus originalis sic sonat: *Concepit... partui natura substantiam ministravit. Nam quia in corde, quo amor Spiritus sancti singulariter ardebat, ipsa... faciebat. Et cuius dilectio in carne illius non suscepit socium, eius operatio* etc. — Pro *amor Spiritus sancti,* quae nostra lectio innititur codd. M O, Vat. *Dei amor.* Mox post *in corde* codd. F K subdunt *eius,* Vat. adiicit *Virginis.*

en: In the epistolary booklet *On the Virginity of the Blessed Mary,* c. 2, near the end, where the original text reads thus: *She conceived... by nature she ministered the substance for the offspring. For because in the heart, in which the love of the Holy Spirit singularly burned, she... was doing it. And whose love in her flesh admitted no companion, its operation* etc. — For *amor Spiritus sancti,* on which our reading relies, codices M O, the Vatican [edition] [read] *Dei amor* [the love of God]. Soon after *in corde* codices F K add *eius* [her], the Vatican [edition] adds *Virginis* [of the Virgin].

la: Dist. 34. q. 3. Cfr. ibid. d. 31. p. II. dub. 1.

en: Distinction 34 q. 3. Cf. ibid. d. 31 p. II dub. 1.

la: De qua fallacia agit Aristot., I. Elench. c. 4. (c. 5.). Vide tom. I. pag. 628, nota 1. et pag. 691, nota 5. — Paulo post pro *appropriari* [supple: aliquid] codd. M U *ad appropriationem.*

en: Of which fallacy Aristotle treats, I *Sophistical Refutations* c. 4 (c. 5). See vol. I p. 628 note 1 and p. 691 note 5. — A little after, for *appropriari* [supply: something] codices M U [read] *ad appropriationem.*

la: Pro *carnis* codd. A G L N T U V aa bb et edd. 1, 2 *incarnationis.* Paulo inferius pro *effectum* codd. A E G L T V X aa et alii cum edd. 1, 2 *mendose affectum.*

en: For *carnis* codices A G L N T U V aa bb and editions 1, 2 [read] *incarnationis.* A little below, for *effectum* codices A E G L T V X aa and others with editions 1, 2 [read], erroneously, *affectum.*

la: Hic c. 1. seq. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 10. per totam, ubi de Spiritu sancto sermo est ceu unice et nexu Patris et Filii. — Pro *amborum unitas* codd. G H aa cc et edd. 1, 2 *amborum veritas.*

en: Here c. 1 ff. Cf. I Sent. d. 10 throughout, where there is discourse of the Holy Spirit as it were uniquely and as the bond of the Father and the Son. — For *amborum unitas* codices G H aa cc and editions 1, 2 [read] *amborum veritas* [the truth of both]. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Communiter tenetur, quod incarnatio sub ratione operationis sive efficientiae divinae convenienter approprietur Spiritui S.; et quod ita intelligenda sint verba Symboli *conceptus de Spiritu S.* Bonitas enim et caritas appropriatur Spiritui S. (I. Sent. d. 34. q. 3, d. 31. p. II. a. 1. 2.); atque bonitas et caritas divina maxime elucet in opere incarnationis; unaquaeque autem operatio dicitur alicui personae divinae eo magis appropriabilis, quo magis in ea manifestatur attributum illi personae appropriatum. Praedictae rationi communiter receptae S. Bonav. duas alias in corp. quaestionis adiungit.

**II.** Alex. Hal., p. III. q. 8. m. 3. a. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4; S. III. q. 32. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2. seqq. hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** It is commonly held that the incarnation, under the aspect of operation or of the divine efficiency, is fittingly appropriated to the Holy Spirit; and that the words of the Creed *conceived of the Holy Spirit* are to be understood thus. For goodness and charity are appropriated to the Holy Spirit (I Sent. d. 34 q. 3, d. 31 p. II a. 1, 2); and the divine goodness and charity shine forth most of all in the work of the incarnation; and each operation is said to be the more appropriable to some divine person, the more there is manifested in it the attribute appropriated to that person. To this commonly received reason St. Bonav. adds two others in the body of the question.

**II.** Alex. Hal., p. III q. 8 m. 3 a. 1. — St. Thom., here q. 1 a. 4; Summa III q. 32 a. 1, 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1, 2. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1 a. 1. — Richard. a Med., here a. 1 q. 1. — Aegid. R., here q. 1 a. 1, 2. — Dionys. Carth., concerning this and the 2 following, here q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p0{98,99}-{L,R}-{0..2}.png` for the body; `vol3-p100-{L,R}-0.png` for the scholion), per the VOL III override (PDF authoritative for cascade-shattered Respondeo + footers), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines **7346–7498**. Literal English per the CLAUDE.md formula/terminology tables; marginal labels rendered inline in parentheses (italic), NOT as footnote anchors. Source: *S. Bonaventurae, Opera Omnia, Tomus III* (Quaracchi, 1887), pp. 98–100 (PDF 120–122, offset +22).

**Alignment.** PASS. The QUAESTIO header reads `Utrum Filii Dei incarnatio debeat appropriari Patri, an Spiritui sancto` and the opener `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum Filii Dei incarnatio debeat appropriari Patri, an Spiritui sancto` = ART. I, TRACTATIO q1 (*the appropriation of incarnation/conception to a person*). No auto-chunker q-swap. (The TRACTATIO listing phrases q1 as `utrum … appropriari debeat personae Spiritus sancti`; the QUAESTIO-header form `…Patri, an Spiritui sancto` is the authoritative title, per the d4-divisio hand-off note.) ART. I opener (`ARTICULUS I. De conceptione Christi in comparatione ad Spiritum sanctum efficientem`, raw 7346) folded into this q1 chunk per the chunking convention (no standalone d4-a1-divisio). Siblings confirmed in raw: QUAESTIO II (raw 7499) `Utrum Christus possit dici filius Spiritus sancti` = TRACTATIO q2; QUAESTIO III (raw 7618) `Utrum Christus possit dici filius Trinitatis` = TRACTATIO q3.

**Page-split map.**
- p.98 (running head `98 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; opens fresh): ARTICULUS I + QUAESTIO I titles + opener + args 1–8 pro (`ad oppositum` margin) + Sed-contra-hoc args 1–2 (`Fundamenta` margin) + Conclusio + Respondeo opener (`Conclusio 1` / `Distinctio` margins), ending mid-Damascene-quote `…quia non despexit proprii`. Footers 1–11 → `[^1]`–`[^11]`.
- p.99 (`DIST. IV. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` / `QUAEST. I. 99`): Damascene quote continues + Respondeo body (`Conclusio 2`; `Duplex ratio…` / `Ratio 1` / `Ratio 2`; Hugh of St. Victor quote; `Conclusio 3`) + reply to objections (`De argumentis ad oppositum`; `Ad argumenta 1 et 6 in oppositum`; `Notandum`), ending `…responsio ad obiecta.`. Footers 1–9 → `[^12]`–`[^20]` (L-col 1–5 = `[^12]`–`[^16]`; R-col 6–9 = `[^17]`–`[^20]`).
- p.100 (`100 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`): the SCHOLION (§I full + §II citation list) occupies the top of the L-col and carries into the R-col; then QUAESTIO II begins. **p.100 carries NO footer notes** — only the scholion. QUAESTIO II proper belongs to d4-a1-q2, NOT here.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`. The scholion (§I–II) follows q1's replies and is **q1-specific** (it interprets the Creed's *conceptus de Spiritu sancto* and notes that "St. Bonav. adds two others in the body of the question"). It does **NOT** forward-cover q2/q3 (no `pro quaest. seq.` / `hanc et seq.` clause). §II's `Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2. seqq.` is a parallel-authorities cross-reference (Denis the Carthusian treats this question and the 2 following), not a forward-covering scholion. So q2 and q3 are expected to carry their own scholia.

**Apparatus split (20 entries, continuous slugs `[^1]`–`[^20]`, per-page restart):** p.98 → `[^1]`–`[^11]` (11); p.99 → `[^12]`–`[^20]` (9); p.100 → 0 (scholion only). Marker pairing: 20 La anchors = 20 En anchors = 20 defs, continuous 1–20, 0 anchorless / 0 defless.

**Hand-off picked up from d4-divisio (commit 77d2039):** NO inherited footer. ARTICULUS I opens on a fresh printed p.98 with its own footer sequence (first footer = the Augustine *de Trin.* ref → `[^1]`). Confirmed: no footer was forwarded from the divisio (the divisio was `has_apparatus: false`).

**Forward hand-off to d4-a1-q2:** QUAESTIO II `Utrum Christus possit dici filius Spiritus sancti` — opener `Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus possit dici filius Spiritus sancti. Et quod sic, videtur:` (raw 7499). q2 begins on **p.100 R-col** (after the scholion), so q2 SHARES printed p.100 with this q1's scholion. **Footer split for p.100:** q1's scholion carries NO footers (the scholion's refs are inline parentheticals); the FIRST footer sequence on p.100 belongs to q2's body (its `Fundamenta` args 1–2 already visible in the p.100 R-0 band, with body marker `naturam⁶` etc. — q2 footers, NOT q1's). So **NO footer forwarded to q2**; q2 opens a fresh p.100 footer sequence. q2 args (pro): arg 1 Damascene `Descendit in Virginem Verbum tanquam σπόρος`, arg 2 `pater dicitur qui deducit rem ad naturam`, arg 3 `filiatio respicit hypostasim`. **Scholion forecast:** per the disposition above, q2 likely carries its own scholion — check the page after q2's replies.

**Cascade-merge check.** q1 tail (scholion §II `…de hac et 2. seqq. hic q. 1.`) is grammatically complete; the QUAESTIO II opener is continuous and self-standing. No splice at the q1/q2 seam.

**`[?]` flags:** none. All footer notes and the scholion were legible at 450 dpi.