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

source_text:
<!-- page 90 -->

### Articulus III. *De perfectione corporis dominici.*

Consequenter quaeritur de perfectione corporis dominici. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur de perfectione dominici corporis quantum ad molem. Secundo de eius perfectione quantum ad membrorum distinctionem.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum corpus Christi productum fuerit ad perfectam molem subito, an successive.*

Quaeritur ergo primo, utrum corpus Christi productum fuerit ad perfectam molem subito, aut successive. Et quod successive, ostenditur.

1. *Lucae* secundo[^1]: *Puer iste crescebat aetate;* sed ad crementum aetatis sequitur crementum molis: ergo etc.

2. Item, sicut patet ex historia evangelica, Christus habuit necessitates infantiles, unde et lactatus fuit a Matre[^2]; hoc autem non esset, nisi parvulus fuisset in quantitate: ergo videtur, quod prius tempore fuerit in quantitate modica quam perfecta.

3. Item, augmentum sequitur nutrimentum[^3]; sed corpus Christi alebatur, sicut corpus alterius hominis, successive: ergo similiter videtur, quod augebatur paulative et successive.

4. Item, Christus assumsit naturam passibilem et mortalem; sed talis est natura mortalis, quod aut crescit, aut decrescit; aut proficit, aut deficit — vix enim unquam in eodem statu permanet, ut dicitur in *Iob*[^4] — ergo si non competebat Christo decrescere, videtur, quod talem naturam assumserit, quod semper in hac vita quantum ad corpus profecerit: ergo
<!-- page 91 -->
per successionem temporum ad perfectam quantitatem pervenit.

**Sed contra:** 1. *Ieremiae* trigesimo primo[^5]: *Mulier circumdabit virum;* hoc intelligitur de Christo et beata Virgine; sed *virum circumdari in utero* est in utero contineri, ad virum autem spectat corpus perfectae quantitatis habere: ergo videtur, quod corpus Christi in utero Virginis fuerit secundum quantitatem molis: non igitur ad perfectionem venit per successionem temporis.

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur per hoc quod sequitur in eadem auctoritate[^6]: *Novum faciet Dominus super terram;* sed novum est cuius simile non praecessit; sed quod mulier in utero habeat puerum parvae quantitatis, hoc non est novum: ergo videtur, quod Christus statim fuit ad perfectionem quantitatis productus, ex quo de Virgine est conceptus.

3. Item, divina virtus *summa* est et *perfecta;* quia *summa* est, nata est operari subito et in instanti; quia *perfecta* est, nata est educere operationem perfectam[^7]: si ergo formatio corporis Christi fuit a virtute increata, videtur, quod ab instanti conceptionis corpus illud eductum fuerit in quantitate perfecta.

4. Item, sicut anima coniuncta est Verbo in unitate personae immediate, ita et corpus; sed anima statim, quando unita fuit Verbo Dei, perfecta fuit in virtute et scientia[^8], ergo pari ratione et corpus in quantitate et figura: non igitur videtur, quod per successionem temporis quantitas corporis Christi fuerit ad perfectionem deducta.

### Conclusio

> Corpus Christi quoad quantitatem molis ad perfectionem deductum est per successionem temporis, quod fuit valde congruum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod corpus Christi quantum ad quantitatem molis ad perfectionem deductum est per successionem temporis. — Et ratio huius est, quia perfectio quantitatis illius corporis fuit operatione naturae, cuius est operari secundum successionem temporis.

Si autem quaeratur: unde est hoc, quod Deus corpus illud ad perfectionem voluit deduci mediante naturae operatione? dicendum, quod hoc fecit Deus valde congrue. Hoc enim quamvis alio modo facere posset, sic[^9] fecit ad confirmandam fidei veritatem, ad commendandam humilitatis virtutem, ad conservandam universitatis legem. — In hoc enim fidei veritas confirmatur, dum manifeste ostenditur per conversationem diuturnam et similem modum proficiendi in aetate, quod Christus non phantasticam, sed veram carnem assumsit. Et hoc quidem fuit valde opportunum, quia sine fidei veritate nullus est incarnationis fructus[^10]. — Humilitatis etiam virtus in hoc commendatur, dum Dei Filius, qui est *Rex regum et Dominus dominantium*[^11], factus est parvulus; et qui prius nullo indigebat, lacte materno, sicut alii parvuli, pascebatur, pannis involvebatur et alia plura gessit, in quibus humilitatis utilitas commendatur. Et hoc fuit valde opportunum, quia propter hoc potissime Deus de caelo descendit, ut superbiam exstirparet[^12]. — Universitatis etiam lex et ordo conservatur, quia Deus unicuique naturae concessit propriam operationem, nec utitur miraculis, ubi natura sufficienter per se potest operari[^13]. Et quia natura in Christo satis sufficienter poterat corpus Christi ad perfectam quantitatem deducere, ita quod in nullo derogabatur eius dignitati; ideo noluit Deus tempus anticipare, ut tanquam iustus universitatis administrator unumquodque iuxta virtutem sibi competentem operari sineret[^14]. Et hoc quidem conveniebat, quia naturam nolebat perimere, sed reparare. — Et in hoc insinuat, quod maior potestas usum inferioris potestatis non debet absque causa privare.

Et sic patet, quod valde rationabiliter Deus corpus Christi ad perfectam quantitatem molis deduxerit[^15] per temporis successionem. Unde et rationes hoc probantes concedendae sunt.
<!-- page 92 -->
1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de auctoritate Ieremiae, dicendum, quod vir dicitur ibi Christus non ab aetate corporis, sed a vigore animi, quia plenus fuit virtutibus et scientia ab instanti conceptionis[^16].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod novum fuit; dicendum, quod novitas attenditur in hoc, quod ipse erat Deus et homo, cuius simile nunquam praecesserat; et in hoc, quod ab instanti conceptionis vir fuerat adeo perfectus, quod proficere nunquam potuit, et huius simile nunquam fuit[^17]. Et sic patet, quod non oportuit, quod esset quantitatis perfectae ad hoc, quod novum quid esset. Unde ratio illa peccat *secundum consequens*.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod virtus infinita operatur in instanti; dicendum, quod verum est, quando virtus infinita operatur secundum totalitatem suae potentiae et operatur per se. In perfectione autem dominici corporis non tantum operatur virtus divina, sed etiam creata, cuius est operari successive, sicut ostensum est supra[^18]; et illius est operari successive, cum sit virtus finita.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ab instanti conceptionis fuit perfectus virtute et scientia; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia, quamvis deceret Deum assumere aliquas poenalitates ad redemptionem nostram, non tamen decebat assumere culpam, vel ignorantiam; ideo magis habuit horum opposita, scilicet virtutem et scientiam, quam in instanti perduci[^19] ad corporis quantitatem perfectam.

english:
### Article III. *On the perfection of the Lord's body.*

It is asked next concerning the perfection of the Lord's body. And about this two things are asked. First, concerning the perfection of the Lord's body with respect to its mass. Second, concerning its perfection with respect to the distinction of its members.

### Question I. *Whether the body of Christ was brought to its perfect mass suddenly or successively.*

It is therefore asked first whether the body of Christ was brought to its perfect mass suddenly or successively. And that it was successively is shown:

1. *Luke* chapter two[^1]: *This child grew in age;* but to growth in age there follows growth in mass: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, as is plain from the gospel history, Christ had the needs of infancy, whence also He was nursed by His Mother[^2]; but this would not be so, unless He had been small in quantity: therefore it seems that He was prior in time in a modest quantity than in a perfect one.

3. Likewise, increase follows nourishment[^3]; but the body of Christ was nourished, like the body of any other man, successively: therefore likewise it seems that it was increased gradually and successively.

4. Likewise, Christ assumed a passible and mortal nature; but such is mortal nature, that it either grows or diminishes; either advances or declines — for scarcely ever does it remain in the same state, as is said in *Job*[^4] — therefore if it did not befit Christ to diminish, it seems that He assumed such a nature that throughout this life He always advanced with respect to the body: therefore
<!-- page 91 -->
through the succession of times He arrived at perfect quantity.

**Sed contra:** 1. *Jeremiah* chapter thirty-one[^5]: *A woman shall encompass a man;* this is understood of Christ and the blessed Virgin; but *for a man to be encompassed in the womb* is to be contained in the womb, while it belongs to a man to have a body of perfect quantity: therefore it seems that the body of Christ in the womb of the Virgin was according to the quantity of its mass: therefore it did not come to perfection through the succession of time.

2. Likewise, this same thing is seen through what follows in the same authority[^6]: *The Lord shall make a new thing upon the earth;* but a new thing is one whose like has not preceded; but that a woman should have in her womb a child of small quantity, this is not new: therefore it seems that Christ was produced to the perfection of quantity at once, from the moment He was conceived of the Virgin.

3. Likewise, the divine power is *supreme* and *perfect;* because it is *supreme,* it is fitted to operate suddenly and in an instant; because it is *perfect,* it is fitted to bring forth a perfect operation[^7]: if then the formation of the body of Christ was by an uncreated power, it seems that from the instant of conception that body was brought forth in perfect quantity.

4. Likewise, just as the soul is joined to the Word in the unity of the person immediately, so too is the body; but the soul at once, when it was united to the Word of God, was perfect in power and knowledge[^8], therefore by parity of reasoning so too the body in quantity and figure: therefore it does not seem that the quantity of the body of Christ was brought to perfection through the succession of time.

### Conclusio

> The body of Christ, as to the quantity of its mass, was brought to perfection through the succession of time, which was most fitting.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that the body of Christ, with respect to the quantity of its mass, was brought to perfection through the succession of time. — And the reason for this is that the perfection of the quantity of that body was by the operation of nature, whose property is to operate according to the succession of time.

But if it be asked: whence is this, that God willed that body to be brought to perfection by the mediation of nature's operation? it must be said that God did this most fittingly. For although He could do it in another way, He did it thus[^9] for the confirming of the truth of the faith, for the commending of the virtue of humility, for the conserving of the law of the universe. — For in this the truth of the faith is confirmed, while it is manifestly shown, through a prolonged manner of life and a similar mode of advancing in age, that Christ assumed not a phantasmal but a true flesh. And this indeed was most opportune, because without the truth of the faith there is no fruit of the Incarnation[^10]. — The virtue of humility also is commended in this, while the Son of God, who is *King of kings and Lord of lords*[^11], became a little child; and He who before needed nothing was fed, like other little children, with His Mother's milk, was wrapped in swaddling clothes and did many other things in which the usefulness of humility is commended. And this was most opportune, because chiefly for this God came down from heaven, that He might root out pride[^12]. — The law and order of the universe also is conserved, because God granted to each nature its proper operation, nor does He use miracles where nature can sufficiently operate by itself[^13]. And because nature in Christ could sufficiently bring the body of Christ to perfect quantity, in such a way that nothing was detracted from His dignity; therefore God did not will to anticipate time, so that, as the just administrator of the universe, He might let each thing operate according to the power befitting it[^14]. And this indeed was fitting, because He did not wish to destroy nature but to repair it. — And in this He intimates that a greater power ought not without cause to deprive a lesser power of its use.

And thus it is plain that most reasonably God brought the body of Christ to the perfect quantity of its mass[^15] through the succession of time. Whence also the reasons proving this are to be conceded.
<!-- page 92 -->
*Ad 1.* To that, then, which is objected first to the contrary from the authority of Jeremiah, it must be said that there a man is called Christ not from the age of the body, but from the vigor of the mind, because He was full of virtues and knowledge from the instant of conception[^16].

*Ad 2.* To that which is objected, that it was new; it must be said that the novelty is regarded in this, that He was God and man, whose like had never preceded; and in this, that from the instant of conception the man had been so perfect that He could never advance, and the like of this never was[^17]. And thus it is plain that it was not necessary that He should be of perfect quantity in order that something new should be. Whence that reason errs *according to the consequent*.

*Ad 3.* To that which is objected, that an infinite power operates in an instant; it must be said that this is true when an infinite power operates according to the totality of its power and operates by itself. But in the perfecting of the Lord's body not only the divine power operates, but also a created one, whose property is to operate successively, as was shown above[^18]; and the property of the latter is to operate successively, since it is a finite power.

*Ad 4.* To that which is objected, that from the instant of conception He was perfect in power and knowledge; it must be said that it is not alike, because, although it befitted God to assume some penalties for our redemption, yet it did not befit Him to assume fault or ignorance; therefore He rather had the opposites of these, namely power and knowledge, than to be brought in an instant[^19] to the perfect quantity of the body.

la: Vers. 40, ubi Vulgata: *Puer autem crescebat,* omisso *aetate,* quae vox etiam in cod. V deest.; sed v. 52. legitur: *Et Iesus proficiebat sapientia et aetate* etc. — Paulo ante pro *productum* Vat. cum nonnullis codd. *perductum.*

en: Verse 40, where the Vulgate has: *And the child grew,* the word *in age* being omitted, which word is also absent in cod. V; but at v. 52 it reads: *And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age,* etc. — A little before, for *productum* (brought forth) the Vatican edition with some codices reads *perductum* (carried through).

la: Vide Aristot., I. *de Generat. et corrupt.* text. 28-42. (c. 5.) et II. *de Anima,* text. 37. (c. 4.).

en: See Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 28–42 (c. 5) and *On the Soul* II, text 37 (c. 4).

la: Cap. 14, 2. — Pro *unquam* multi codd. incongrue *nunquam;* edd. *vix enim aut nunquam;* cod. G breviter *non enim in eodem* etc. Paulo post pro *quod semper* cod. K *quae semper.*

en: Chapter 14:2. — For *unquam* (ever) many codices incongruously have *nunquam* (never); the editions read *vix enim aut nunquam* (for scarcely or never); cod. G briefly *non enim in eodem* etc. A little after, for *quod semper* cod. K has *quae semper.*

la: Vers. 22. — Paulo inferius post *in utero Virginis* codd. M O adiungunt *perfectum;* edd. ante *quantitatem molis* inserunt *perfectum.*

en: Verse 22. — A little below, after *in the womb of the Virgin* codices M O add *perfect;* the editions insert *perfect* before *the quantity of mass.*

la: Ierem. 31, 22. — Circa finem arg. edd. cum nonnullis codd. *perductus* pro *productus.*

en: Jeremiah 31:22. — Near the end of the argument the editions with some codices read *perductus* for *productus.*

la: Cod. H *quia perfecta, non operatur imperfectione; sed corpus Christi eductum est per divinam virtutem: ergo ab instanti* etc. Paulo inferius pro *ab instanti* cod. T (a secunda manu) *a primo instanti,* edd. *in instanti.*

en: Cod. H reads *because it is perfect, it does not operate by imperfection; but the body of Christ was brought forth by the divine power: therefore from the instant* etc. A little below, for *from the instant* cod. T (by a second hand) reads *from the first instant,* the editions *in the instant.*

la: Vide infra d. 15. a. 2. q. 1. — Circa finem arg. edd. post *Christi* addunt *quantum ad quantitatem molis* et pro *fuerit deducta* habent *sit deducta.*

en: See below, d. 15, a. 2, q. 1. — Near the end of the argument the editions add after *of Christ* the words *with respect to the quantity of mass,* and for *was brought down* they have *be brought down.*

la: Edd. cum paucis codd. adiiciunt *tamen.*

en: The editions with a few codices add *yet.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 2. a. 2. q. 1. — Paulo superius pro *diuturnam,* quod cod. V et edd. 1, 2 omittunt, codd. L aa et Vat. *diutinam.* Deinde pro *in aetate,* quod desideratur in cod. V, plurimi codd. *in aetatem.* Mox pro *opportunum* codd. L aa cum edd. 1, 2 *optimum.*

en: Cf. above, d. 2, a. 2, q. 1. — A little above, for *prolonged,* which cod. V and editions 1, 2 omit, codices L aa and the Vatican read *long-lasting.* Then for *in age,* which is wanting in cod. V, very many codices read *into age.* Soon after, for *opportune* codices L aa with editions 1, 2 read *best.*

la: Epist. I. Tim. 6, 15. et Apoc. 19, 16.

en: First Epistle to Timothy 6:15 and Apocalypse 19:16.

la: De quo August., *Enarrat. in Ps.* 33. enarrat. I. n. 4: *Omnis enim mortalitas hominum superbia tumuerat! Et si existeret aliquis humilis vir in spiritu, sicut erant Prophetae, Patriarchae, dedignabatur genus humanum imitari humiles homines. Ne ergo dedignaretur homo imitari hominem humilem, Deus factus est humilis, ut vel sic superbia generis humani non dedignaretur sequi vestigia Dei.* — Paulo superius pro *humilitatis utilitas* cod. bb substituit *humilitatis virtus,* quae lectio revera sincerior est; codd. C H K L N aa habent *humilitatis veritas.*

en: On which Augustine, *Enarration on Psalm* 33, enarr. I, n. 4: *For the whole mortality of men had swelled with pride! And if there existed any man humble in spirit, as were the Prophets, the Patriarchs, the human race disdained to imitate humble men. Lest, therefore, man should disdain to imitate a humble man, God became humble, that in this way at least the pride of the human race might not disdain to follow the footsteps of God.* — A little above, for *the usefulness of humility* cod. bb substitutes *the virtue of humility,* which reading is in truth more genuine; codices C H K L N aa have *the truth of humility.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. *de Caelo et mundo,* text. 32. (c. 4.), ubi Deum et naturam nihil frustra facere asserit. Vide tom. I. pag. 746, nota 6, et tom. II. pag. 198, nota 3.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Heavens* I, text 32 (c. 4), where he asserts that God and nature do nothing in vain. See vol. I, p. 746, note 6, and vol. II, p. 198, note 3.

la: August., VII. *de Civ. Dei,* c. 30: *Sic itaque administrat omnia quae creavit, ut etiam ipsa proprios exercere et agere motus sinat.* — Paulo superius cod. Q *adducere* pro *deducere.*

en: Augustine, *On the City of God* VII, c. 30: *Thus, therefore, He administers all the things He created, that He also lets them exercise and carry out their own motions.* — A little above, cod. Q reads *adducere* (lead to) for *deducere* (bring down).

la: Codd. A H *perduxerit.*

en: Codices A H read *perduxerit* (carried through).

la: Cfr. supra part. 1. huius dist. a. 1. q. 3. in corp. — Pro *non ab aetate* [cod. G *a venustate*] *corporis, sed* Vat. *scilicet.*

en: Cf. above, part 1 of this distinction, a. 1, q. 3, in the body. — For *not from the age* [cod. G *from the comeliness*] *of the body, but* the Vatican edition reads *namely.*

la: Vide solut. ad 1. De perfectione corporis Christi vide q. seq. — Pro *proficere* cod. N *perfici.* In fine solut. cod. A *peccat et est ibi consequens,* de qua fallacia agit Aristot., I. *Elench.* c. 4. (c. 5.); cfr. tom. I. pag. 628, nota 1. et pag. 691, nota 5.

en: See the solution to the 1st. On the perfection of the body of Christ see the following question. — For *to advance* cod. N reads *to be perfected.* At the end of the solution cod. A reads *it errs and there is consequent there,* a fallacy treated by Aristotle, *Sophistical Refutations* I, c. 4 (c. 5); cf. vol. I, p. 628, note 1, and p. 691, note 5.

la: In corp. quaest. — In codd. G H L M N O Z aa bb et aliis desunt verba *sicut ostensum est... successive.*

en: In the body of the question. — In codices G H L M N O Z aa bb and others the words *as was shown... successively* are wanting.

la: Cod. K supplet *vellet.* Pro *perduci* cod. bb et edd. 1, 2 *produci,* cod. G *adduci.* Post *opposita* Vat. addit *in conceptione.* Paulo superius pro *aliquas poenalitates* codd. G K L Z aa *alias poenalitates.*

en: Cod. K supplies *He willed.* For *to be brought through* cod. bb and editions 1, 2 read *to be brought forth,* cod. G *to be led.* After *the opposites* the Vatican edition adds *in the conception.* A little above, for *some penalties* codices G K L Z aa read *other penalties.*

latin_scholion:
**I.** De 1. quaestione huius articuli nulla est difficultas, nec de ea alii magistri explicite tractant. — In solvenda 2. quaestione omnes concedunt, carnem Christi in eodem instanti divina virtute et conceptam et animatam et assumtam fuisse. Haec doctrina Ss. Patrum (cfr. lit. Magistri d. 11. c. 3.) confirmatur Epistola synodica Sophronii, confirmata a Concilio oecumenico VI, ubi inter alia dicitur: *Incarnatur Verbum et Deus, non prius formatae carni se coaptans, vel corpori iam prius formato et in se subsistenti se connectens, vel prius subsistenti animae se componens, sed tunc his productis ad existentiam, quando eis Verbum ipsum et Deus se componebat... Simul enim caro et simul Dei Verbi caro: simul caro animata rationalis, quia in ipso et non in se habuit existentiam.* Hoc supposito communiter Ss. Patres et theologi tenent, in ipso conceptionis momento id quod concipiebatur perfectum fuisse hominem perfectumque Deum (cfr. supra d. 2. dub. 3, et lit. Magistri, hic c. 4. in fine.).

**II.** De 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 9. m. 4. — Scot., in utroque Scripto III. Sent. d. 2. q. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 5. a. 2; S. III. q. 33. a. 1-3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 4. — Richard. a Med., III. Sent. d. 2. a. 2. q. 4. — Aegid. R., III. Sent. d. 2. q. 2. a. 4. — Dionys. Carth., III. Sent. d. 2. q. 6. — Biel, III. Sent. d. 2. q. unica in princ.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the 1st question of this article there is no difficulty, nor do the other masters treat of it explicitly. — In solving the 2nd question all concede that the flesh of Christ was, in the same instant, by the divine power both conceived and animated and assumed. This doctrine of the holy Fathers (cf. the text of the Master, d. 11, c. 3) is confirmed by the synodical Epistle of Sophronius, confirmed by the sixth ecumenical Council, where among other things it is said: *The Word and God is incarnate, not adapting Himself to a flesh formed beforehand, nor connecting Himself to a body already formerly formed and subsisting in itself, nor composing Himself with a soul previously subsisting, but then producing these to existence, when the Word Himself and God composed Himself with them... For at once flesh and at once the flesh of the Word of God: at once rational animated flesh, because it had existence in Him and not in itself.* This being supposed, the holy Fathers and theologians commonly hold that in the very moment of conception that which was being conceived was a perfect man and a perfect God (cf. above, d. 2, dub. 3, and the text of the Master, here c. 4 at the end).

**II.** Concerning the 2nd question: Alex. of Hales, *Summa* p. III, q. 9, m. 4. — Scotus, in both Writings on III Sent., d. 2, q. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 5, a. 2; *S.* III, q. 33, a. 1–3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 3, quaestiunc. 4. — Richard of Middleton, III Sent., d. 2, a. 2, q. 4. — Giles of Rome, III Sent., d. 2, q. 2, a. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, III Sent., d. 2, q. 6. — Biel, III Sent., d. 2, q. unica in princ.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 90–92 (PDF 112–114; offset +22), reflowed L-col→R-col per the Vol II/III PDF-priority override. The IA djvu OCR cascade-scrambles the *Sed contra*/Conclusio/*Respondeo* region of p. 91 (the L- and R-column text interleaves token-by-token in raw lines ~6862–6905); the column-band PDF read is authoritative there. English literal per the project formula/terminology tables. Running heads confirmed: p. 90 `90 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p. 91 `DIST. III. P. II. ART. III. QUAEST. I. 91`; p. 92 `92 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`

**Alignment (PASS).** The q1 opener is ART. III's FIRST question: `QUAESTIO I. Utrum corpus Christi productum fuerit ad perfectam molem subito, an successive` — i.e. ART. III's `Primo … quantum ad molem`. NOT the q2 wording (`quantum ad membrorum distinctionem`). The `ARTICULUS III.` opener (`Consequenter quaeritur de perfectione corporis dominici. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo … quantum ad molem; Secundo … quantum ad membrorum distinctionem`) folds into this chunk per the chunking convention (no standalone a3-divisio).

**Scholion (HELD IN q1, `has_scholion: true`, §I–II).** A distinct full-width `SCHOLION.` block prints on p. 92 R-col after *Ad 4*, before QUAESTIO II. §I notes that q1 raises no difficulty and the other masters do not treat it explicitly, and that on q2 all concede simultaneous conception/animation/assumption (Sophronius's synodical Epistle, 6th ecumenical Council). §II is a doctor list for q2 (Alex. Hal., Scotus, St. Thomas, Petr. a Tar., Richard of Middleton, Giles of Rome, Dionysius Carth., Biel). §I/§II are framed "De 1. quaestione… De 2. quaestione" — the scholion forward-covers ART. III q2 → d3-p2-a3-q2 should build `has_scholion: false` unless a fresh q2 block appears. No Quaracchi footer of its own.

**Page-split map (apparatus, 19 entries, continuous `[^1]`–`[^19]`, per-page restart).** Quaracchi restarts footer numbering on each page; on each of these pages the numbering runs continuously across the two chunks sharing the page.
- **p. 90 footers 5–8 → `[^1]`–`[^4]`** (a3-q1's args; markers 1–4 on this page belong to a2-q2 — see audit below): f.5 (INHERITED, forwarded from a2-q2, commit 05e5f34) `Vers. 40 … Puer autem crescebat …` (arg1 `Lucae secundo⁵`); f.6 `Cfr. Luc. 2, 12. et 11, 27.` (arg2 `a Matre⁶`); f.7 Aristot. *de Generat.*/*de Anima* (arg3 `nutrimentum⁷`); f.8 Iob 14, 2 + *unquam* vars (arg4 `Iob⁸`).
- **p. 91 footers 1–11 → `[^5]`–`[^15]`**: SC1 Ierem. 31, 22 (`trigesimo primo¹`) / SC2 *perductus* var (`auctoritate²`) / arg3 cod. H long var (`perfectam³`) / arg4 *Vide infra d. 15* (`scientia⁴`) / Resp edd. *tamen* (`sic⁵`) / Resp *Cfr. supra d. 2. a. 2. q. 1* + *diuturnam*/*in aetate*/*opportunum* vars (`fructus⁶`) / Resp 1 Tim 6, 15 + Apoc 19, 16 (`dominantium⁷`) / Resp Aug. *Enarr. in Ps.* 33 (`exstirparet⁸`) / Resp Aristot. *de Caelo* (`operari⁹`) / Resp Aug. *de Civ. Dei* VII c. 30 (`sineret¹⁰`) / Resp codd. A H *perduxerit* (`deduxerit¹¹`).
- **p. 92 footers 1–4 → `[^16]`–`[^19]`** (a3-q1's replies; footers 5–8 on this page = a3-q2's body, OMITTED): Ad1 *Cfr. supra part. 1 … a. 1. q. 3* (`conceptionis¹`) / Ad2 *Vide solut. ad 1* + *peccat et est ibi consequens* (`fuit²`) / Ad3 *desunt verba sicut ostensum est… successive* (`supra³`) / Ad4 cod. K *vellet* + *perduci*/*produci*/*adduci* vars (`perduci⁴`).

**AUDIT CHECK — p. 90 footers 1–4 (verified on the p. 90 L-col footer band + p. 90 L-0/R-0 body bands).** These four footers are **a2-q2's, NOT a3-q1's.** They anchor a2-q2's body markers ¹²³⁴ that print in the p. 90 top bands (a2-q2's *Notandum*/arbor-magna analogy + *Ad 3*/*Ad 4* tail): f.1 `Codd. G Z aa bb Christus. Paulo inferius codd. T V omittunt et crescere` (a2-q2 `Christum¹`); f.2 `Art. seq. q. 2. et d. 4. a. 3. q. 1. — Mox pro dicitur codd. G K Z bb dicatur` (a2-q2 `infra²`); f.3 `Art. 3. q. 1. seq. Vide etiam August., X de Gen. ad lit. c. 20. n. 38` (a2-q2 `trigesima³`); f.4 `Art. 1. q. 2. ad 4.` (a2-q2 `supra⁴` de decimatione). a2-q2 correctly OMITTED these as low-stakes cross-ref/variant notes (documented in its Notes, commit 05e5f34). They are **confirmed NOT a3-q1's** and are **not rendered here.** a3-q1's own p. 90 footers begin at f.5 (the inherited `Vers. 40`), restarting against markers 5–8.

**Forward hand-off → d3-p2-a3-q2** (`Utrum in corpore dominico formatio et distinctio membrorum facta sit subito, an successive`; opener `Secundo quaeritur de eius corporis perfectione quantum ad membrorum distinctionem, et est quaestio, utrum membrorum formatio et distinctio facta sit subito, an successive in corpore dominico. Et quod non subito, videtur. 1. Augustinus, in quarto de Trinitate⁵ tractans illud verbum Ioannis secundo: Solvite templum hoc… dixerunt Iudaei: Quadraginta sex etc.…`; raw ~6970+, printed p. 92+):
1. **No p. 92 footer carries forward as inherited** — p. 92 footers 1–4 are all a3-q1's (`[^16]`–`[^19]`). a3-q2's own footers begin at p. 92 f.5 (`Cap. 5. n. 9; sententialiter…` anchoring q2 `de Trinitate⁵`); render q2's p. 92 footers starting `[^1]` (per-page restart) at the footer that anchors q2's body args (f.5–8). Confirm the split on the p. 92 R-col footer band.
2. **Scholion:** q1's SCHOLION §I–II forward-covers ART. III q2 ("De 2. quaestione…"). Expect NO distinct q2 scholion — set `has_scholion: false` unless a fresh block appears.
3. **Boundary:** q1 ends grammatically complete at SCHOLION §II (`…Biel, III. Sent. d. 2. q. unica in princ.`, raw 6968). `QUAESTIO II.` (raw ~6970) begins d3-p2-a3-q2 on p. 92 L-col — NOT included. q2 is the LAST q of PARS II ART. III; after it the PARS II DUBIA begin (raw ~7095, p. 94, Dub. I–III). Continuous, no cascade-merge splice.

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


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

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

title_alt: Whether Christ's body was perfect as to the distinction of members [at the first instant of conception]

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 92 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum in corpore dominico formatio et distinctio membrorum facta sit subito, an successive.*

Secundo quaeritur de eius corporis perfectione quantum ad membrorum distinctionem, et est quaestio, utrum membrorum formatio et distinctio facta sit subito, an successive in corpore dominico. Et quod non subito, videtur.

1. Augustinus, in quarto de Trinitate[^1] tractans illud verbum Ioannis secundo: *Solvite templum hoc... dixerunt Iudaei: Quadraginta sex* etc.; ibi Augustinus: « Hic numerus perfectioni dominici corporis congruit, quia, ut dicunt physici, tot diebus forma humani corporis perficitur »: ergo non videtur, quod corpus Christi ab instanti conceptionis organizatum fuerit et formatum. Si tu dicis, sicut dicit Magister in littera[^2], quod hoc dictum fuit propter incrementum molis; tunc non videtur, quod quadraginta sex diebus perfectum sit, quia ad perfectionem hanc non pervenit usque ad annos viginti.

2. Item, ad Hebraeos secundo[^3]: *Per omnia debuit fratribus similari*, ergo videtur, quod in modo formationis corporis; sed corpora aliorum hominum successive formantur: ergo videtur, quod similiter corpus Christi.

3. Item, corpus Christi nutritum et augmentatum fuit, sicut corpora aliorum hominum successive[^4]: ergo videtur pari ratione, quod fuerit successive formatum.

<!-- page 93 -->

4. Item, formationem corporis[^5] antecedit consolidatio, et consolidationem antecedit conversio, et conversionem seminis decisio: si ergo quaelibet istarum operationum non potest fieri in minori quam in instanti, et una est ordinata ad aliam; ergo videtur, quod formatio corporis non poterit esse instantanea.

**Sed contra:** 1. Augustinus in libro de Fide ad Petrum[^6]: « Firmissime tene, et nullatenus dubites, non carnem Christi sine divinitate in utero Virginis conceptam, priusquam susciperetur a Verbo; sed Verbum non suscepit nisi carnem formatam, et in instanti suscepit eam »: igitur videtur, quod in instanti corpus Christi fuerit ad perfectionis organizationem deductum.

2. Item, Augustinus, in libro de Trinitate[^7]: « Non ex utero Virginis prius caro concepta est, et postea divinitas venit in carnem; sed mox ut Dei Verbum in uterum venit, factum est caro, servata proprietate naturae, et perfectus homo in veritate carnis et animae ».

3. Item, Virgo beata dicitur concepisse Filium Dei ratione carnis assumtae ex ipsa; sed non est communicatio idiomatum nisi propter unionem[^8]; non est autem unio nisi ad naturam perfectam: ergo cum in instanti conceptionis verum sit dicere, Filium Dei conceptum ex Virgine; necesse fuit, et corpus ad perfectam organizationem esse deductum.

4. Item, conceptio Christi fuit virtute[^9] mirabili et mirabiliter operante; sed virtus mirabiliter operans est infinita et operans infinite: ergo videtur, quod eius operatio debeat esse instantanea; et si hoc, corpus dominicum in instanti in perfecta organizatione fuit constitutum.

### Conclusio

> Corpus Christi ab instanti conceptionis habuit perfectionem organizationis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio, sicut dicit Augustinus[^10], corpus Christi ab instanti conceptionis habuit perfectionem organizationis. — Et ratio huius sumi potest ex parte Verbi assumentis, et ex parte virtutis efficientis, et ex parte Virginis concipientis. — Ex parte Verbi assumentis: quia non decebat Verbum assumere partem humanae naturae, ut esset homo *secundum quid*, sed totam humanam naturam, et ita carnem et animam, maxime cum anima det carni congruentiam, ut uniatur cum natura divina, sicut ostensum est supra[^11]. Et quoniam anima non est nata uniri nisi carni formatae et organizatae, ideo in primo instanti conceptionis necesse fuit, corpus ad perfectionem organizationis perduci. — Ratio etiam est ex parte virtutis operantis: quia ibi virtus divina operabatur mirabiliter. Hoc enim est miraculum miraculorum, quod femina concipiat Deum. Et ideo ad suae mirabilis potentiae ostensionem subito formavit illud corpus, quod natura non potest formare nisi successive. — Ratio vero nihilominus est ex parte Virginis concipientis, quae statim, ut consensit, repleta fuit Spiritu sancto et Mater Dei effecta, iuxta illud quod Angelus annuntiabat[^12]. Et quoniam Mater Dei non erat, nisi Deus unitus esset carni, quam conceperat; et caro nec Deo nec animae congrueret uniri, nisi haberet membrorum distinctionem convenientem: hinc est, quod ab instanti conceptionis corpus Christi debuit in membrorum distinctione perfectum esse. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad istam partem inductae.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod numerus quadraginta sex dierum congruit perfectioni corporis dominici; dicendum, quod in Scriptura frequenter dicitur res tunc fieri, cum innotescit[^13]; et per hunc quidem modum verbum beati Augustini est intelligendum, quia, etsi corpus dominicum ab instanti conceptionis fuit formatum, non tamen apparuit nec percipi potuit prae parvitate quantitatis molis; sed post quadraginta sex dies ad tantam perfectionem quantitatis[^14] deductum est, quod aspectibus hominum patere potuit. Unde corpus Christi illud in incremento cum aliis corporibus similitudinem habuit, quamvis non haberet similitudinem in formatione primaria; non enim naturaliter, sed mirabiliter

<!-- page 94 -->

formatum fuit. Et sic intelligenda sunt verba Augustini in quarto libro de Trinitate et in libro Octoginta trium Quaestionum[^15], quae ad praesens omittuntur ob vitandam prolixitatem.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de verbo Apostoli, quod per omnia debuit fratribus assimilari; dicendum, quod verum est quantum ad ea quae faciebant ad reparationem generis humani, sicut hoc quod est tentari, conversari cum hominibus et pati. Sed in modo conceptionis, quia in nobis annexam habet traductionem originalis peccati, non debuit assimilari, quia non competebat hoc hominum[^16] Mediatori et Reparatori.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod similiter fuit nutritum et generatum[^17]; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia nostra augmentatio et nutritio culpam non habet annexam, sicut nostra generatio; et ita non sic debuit assimilari in generationis primordio, sicut in augmento et nutrimento.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod formationem praecessit consolidatio, et consolidationem conversio; dicendum, quod duplex est ordo, videlicet secundum tempus et naturam, vel secundum naturam[^18] tantum. Isti autem tres actus ordinem habent in nostra generatione utroque modo, quia nostra generatio est a virtute finita, quae operatur in tempore. In generatione autem Christi non habent ordinem nisi secundum naturam; et quoniam habentia ordinem secundum naturam simul esse possunt tempore absque aliqua incompossibilitate: hinc est, quod nihil impedit, illos actus esse[^19] in generatione dominica, quamvis non sint simul in generatione nostra. — Unde ratio illa non cogit, quia aut procedit ab ordine secundum naturam ad ordinem secundum tempus, aut procedit ab operatione naturae ad operationem virtutis divinae. Et nullo istorum modorum est ibi necessitas consequentiae[^20].

---

english:
<!-- page 92 -->

### Question II. *Whether in the Lord's body the formation and distinction of members took place suddenly or successively.*

Secondly, inquiry is made concerning the perfection of his body as to the distinction of members; and the question is whether the formation and distinction of members took place suddenly or successively in the Lord's body. And that it was not sudden seems [to be the case]:

1. Augustine, in the fourth [book] *On the Trinity*[^1], treating that word of John in the second [chapter]: *Destroy this temple... the Jews said: Forty-six* etc.; there Augustine [says]: « This number is fitting to the perfection of the Lord's body, because, as the natural philosophers say, in just so many days the form of the human body is perfected »: therefore it does not seem that Christ's body was organized and formed from the instant of conception. If you say, as the Master says in the text[^2], that this was said on account of the increase of bulk; then it does not seem that it was perfected in forty-six days, because it did not reach this perfection until twenty years [of age].

2. Likewise, to the Hebrews in the second [chapter][^3]: *In all things he ought to be made like his brethren*, therefore it seems [it was so] in the mode of the body's formation; but the bodies of other men are formed successively: therefore it seems that Christ's body [was formed] likewise.

3. Likewise, Christ's body was nourished and increased, just as the bodies of other men [are] successively[^4]: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems that it was formed successively.

<!-- page 93 -->

4. Likewise, consolidation precedes the formation of the body[^5], and conversion precedes consolidation, and the cutting-off of the seed precedes conversion: if therefore each one of these operations cannot take place in less than an instant, and one is ordered to another; therefore it seems that the formation of the body could not be instantaneous.

**Sed contra:** 1. Augustine in the book *On the Faith, to Peter*[^6]: « Hold most firmly, and in no way doubt, that the flesh of Christ was not conceived in the womb of the Virgin without the divinity, before it was assumed by the Word; but the Word assumed only flesh [already] formed, and assumed it in an instant »: therefore it seems that in an instant Christ's body was brought to the perfection of organization.

2. Likewise, Augustine, in the book *On the Trinity*[^7]: « Not first was flesh conceived from the womb of the Virgin, and afterward the divinity came into the flesh; but as soon as the Word of God came into the womb, it was made flesh, the property of the nature being preserved, and [there was] a perfect man in the truth of flesh and soul ».

3. Likewise, the Blessed Virgin is said to have conceived the Son of God by reason of the flesh assumed from her; but there is no communication of idioms except on account of the union[^8]; and there is no union except to a perfect nature: therefore, since in the instant of conception it is true to say that the Son of God was conceived from the Virgin, it was necessary that the body too was brought to perfect organization.

4. Likewise, Christ's conception was by a power[^9] miraculous and miraculously operating; but a power miraculously operating is infinite and operates infinitely: therefore it seems that its operation ought to be instantaneous; and if this is so, the Lord's body was constituted in perfect organization in an instant.

### Conclusio

> Christ's body had the perfection of organization from the instant of conception.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that, without doubt, as Augustine says[^10], Christ's body had the perfection of organization from the instant of conception. — And the ground of this can be taken from the part of the Word assuming, and from the part of the efficient power, and from the part of the Virgin conceiving. — From the part of the Word assuming: because it was not fitting that the Word should assume a part of human nature, so as to be a man *in a certain respect*, but [it was fitting that it should assume] the whole human nature, and thus both flesh and soul, especially since the soul gives to the flesh the fittingness to be united with the divine nature, as was shown above[^11]. And since the soul is not apt to be united except to flesh formed and organized, therefore in the first instant of conception it was necessary that the body be brought to the perfection of organization. — There is also a ground from the part of the operating power: because there the divine power was operating miraculously. For this is the miracle of miracles, that a woman should conceive God. And therefore, for the manifestation of his miraculous power, he suddenly formed that body which nature cannot form except successively. — And there is nonetheless a ground from the part of the Virgin conceiving, who at once, as she consented, was filled with the Holy Spirit and made the Mother of God, according to that which the Angel announced[^12]. And since she was not the Mother of God unless God were united to the flesh which she had conceived; and the flesh would be fitting to be united neither to God nor to the soul, unless it had the fitting distinction of members: hence it is that from the instant of conception Christ's body had to be perfect in the distinction of members. — Whence the arguments adduced to that side are to be conceded.

1. To that which is objected, that the number of forty-six days is fitting to the perfection of the Lord's body; it must be said that in Scripture a thing is frequently said to come about then, when it becomes known[^13]; and indeed by this mode the word of blessed Augustine is to be understood, because, although the Lord's body was formed from the instant of conception, nevertheless it neither appeared nor could be perceived on account of the smallness of the quantity of its bulk; but after forty-six days it was brought to so great a perfection of quantity[^14] that it could be evident to the sight of men. Whence Christ's body had a likeness with other bodies in its increase, although it did not have a likeness in its primary formation; for it was formed not naturally, but miraculously.

<!-- page 94 -->

And thus the words of Augustine in the fourth book *On the Trinity* and in the book of the *Eighty-three Questions*[^15] are to be understood, which are for the present omitted to avoid prolixity.

2. To that which is objected concerning the word of the Apostle, that in all things he ought to be made like his brethren; it must be said that this is true as to those things which made for the reparation of the human race, such as this — to be tempted, to dwell among men, and to suffer. But in the mode of conception, because in us it has annexed the transmission of original sin, he ought not to be made like [us], because this did not befit the Mediator and Repairer of men[^16].

3. To that which is objected, that he was likewise nourished and generated[^17]; it must be said that it is not alike, because our increase and nutrition does not have sin annexed, as does our generation; and so he ought not to be made like [us] in the beginning of generation, as in increase and nutriment.

4. To that which is objected, that consolidation preceded formation, and conversion [preceded] consolidation; it must be said that there is a twofold order, namely according to time and nature, or according to nature[^18] only. Now these three acts have an order in our generation in both modes, because our generation is from a finite power, which operates in time. But in the generation of Christ they have an order only according to nature; and since things having an order according to nature can exist together in time without any incompossibility: hence it is that nothing prevents those acts from existing[^19] in the Lord's generation, although they are not together in our generation. — Whence that argument does not compel, because it either proceeds from an order according to nature to an order according to time, or it proceeds from the operation of nature to the operation of the divine power. And in none of these modes is there a necessity of consequence[^20].

---

la: Cap. 8. n. 9; sententialiter; verba ipsa habes hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Locus s. Script. est Ioan. 2, 19.

en: Ch. 8, n. 9; in substance; the very words you have here in the text of the Master, c. 4. — The passage of sacred Scripture is John 2:19.

la: Hic c. 4. — Paulo inferius pro *quadraginta sex* plurimi codd. falso *quadraginta* tantum. Deinde pro *viginti* codd. F Y *triginta*.

en: Here c. 4. — A little below, for *forty-six* very many codices falsely [read] *forty* only. Then for *twenty* codices F Y [read] *thirty*.

la: Vers. 17. — Mox post *corporis*, quod abest a codd. L X aa, edd. adiiciunt *sequitur aliorum hominum corpora*.

en: Verse 17. — Soon after *body*, which is absent from codices L X aa, the editions add *the bodies of other men follow*.

la: Ut ostensum est q. praeced.

en: As was shown in the preceding question.

la: Edd. *veri corporis*. In fine arg. pro *poterit* Vat. *potuerit*.

en: The editions [read] *of the true body*. At the end of the argument, for *could* [poterit] the Vatican [edition reads] *could have* [potuerit].

la: Cap. 18. n. 61, ubi post *a Verbo* textus origin. sic prosequitur: *sed ipsum Verbum Deum suae carnis acceptione conceptum, ipsamque carnem Verbi incarnatione conceptam*. Cfr. Fulgent., Epist. 17. c. 2. n. 4. et c. 3. n. 7. — Vat. cum edd. 1, 2 post *a Verbo* addit *fuisse*, deinde sola post *carnem formatam* subnectit *conceptam perfecte*. — Paulo inferius pro *perfectionis* codd. K N *perfectam*. Mallemus, ut infra, *perfectionem organizationis*.

en: Ch. 18, n. 61, where after *by the Word* the original text continues thus: *but the Word, God, conceived by the acceptance of his flesh, and that same flesh conceived by the incarnation of the Word*. Cf. Fulgentius, Letter 17, c. 2, n. 4 and c. 3, n. 7. — The Vatican [edition], with editions 1, 2, after *by the Word* adds *to have been*, then alone after *flesh formed* appends *perfectly conceived*. — A little below, for *of perfection* codices K N [read] *perfect*. We should prefer, as below, *the perfection of organization*.

la: Cfr. de hoc testimonio supra lit. Magistri, d. II. c. 3. — Post *prius caro* codd. L aa subiiciunt *Christi*, et in fine arg. codd. M O addunt *natus est*, quod et in lit. Magistri habetur loc. cit.

en: Cf. concerning this testimony above, the text of the Master, d. II, c. 3. — After *first flesh* codices L aa add *of Christ*, and at the end of the argument codices M O add *was born*, which is also found in the text of the Master, in the cited place.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 14, nota 3. — Seq. propos. explicatur hic in corp. quaest. — Post *sed non est* edd. cum nonnullis codd. inserunt *ibi*. In fine arg. pro *esse deductum* cod. N exhibet *fuisse deductum*.

en: Cf. above p. 14, note 3. — The following proposition is explained here in the body of the question. — After *but there is no* the editions with some codices insert *there*. At the end of the argument, for *to have been brought* [esse deductum] codex N exhibits *to have been brought* [fuisse deductum].

la: Cod. K *a virtute*. Paulo inferius pro *debeat* edd. *debebat*.

en: Codex K [reads] *from a power*. A little below, for *ought* [debeat] the editions [read] *was owing* [debebat].

la: Vide hic in fundam. 1. et 2.

en: See here in the [arguments to the contrary] 1 and 2.

la: Dist. 2. a. 3. q. 1. — In seq. propos. respicitur illa ab Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 6 data definitio animae: *Anima est primus actus corporis physici, organici potentia vitam habentis*. — Pro *cum natura divina* cod. F *cum Verbo humana natura*, codd. E H T *cum divina humana natura*, codd. X V W X Y et edd. 1, 2 *cum divina et humana natura*. Paulo superius pro *ut esset homo* Vat. *et esse hominem*. Paulo inferius pro *ad perfectionem organizationis* cod. N *ad perfectum organizationem*, edd. cum nonnullis codd. *ad perfectionis organizationem*.

en: Dist. 2, a. 3, q. 1. — In the following proposition reference is made to the definition of the soul given by Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 6: *The soul is the first act of a physical, organic body having life in potency*. — For *with the divine nature* codex F [reads] *with the Word, human nature*, codices E H T *with the divine human nature*, codices X V W X Y and editions 1, 2 *with the divine and human nature*. A little above, for *so as to be a man* the Vatican [reads] *and to be a man*. A little below, for *to the perfection of organization* codex N [reads] *to a perfect organization*, the editions with some codices *to the organization of perfection*.

la: Luc. 1, 26. seqq. — Paulo inferius Vat. omittit *uniri*. Pro *nisi Deus unitus* etc. edd. 1, 2 *nisi Deus, quem conceperat, unitus esset carni, et caro... congrueret, congrueret uniri, ut haberet* etc.

en: Luke 1:26 ff. — A little below the Vatican omits *to be united*. For *unless God united* etc. editions 1, 2 [read] *unless God, whom she had conceived, were united to the flesh, and the flesh... would be fitting, would be fitting to be united, so as to have* etc.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 62, nota 7.

en: Cf. above p. 62, note 7.

la: Cod. U addit *molis*. Pro *perfectionem quantitatis* edd. exhibent *quantitatem perfectionis*.

en: Codex U adds *of bulk*. For *perfection of quantity* the editions exhibit *quantity of perfection*.

la: Quaest. 56, ubi S. Doctor de 46 diebus idem profert ac hic in arg. 1. ad oppos. — Codd. N H *miraculose* pro *mirabiliter*.

en: Question 56, where the holy Doctor brings forward the same concerning the 46 days as here in the first argument to the contrary. — Codices N H [read] *miraculously* [miraculose] for *miraculously* [mirabiliter].

la: Vat. *homini*. In principio solut. pro *assimilari* codd. G K *similari*.

en: The Vatican [reads] *to the man*. At the beginning of the solution, for *to be made like* [assimilari] codices G K [read] *to be made like* [similari].

la: Edd. *augmentatum*, cui codd. K S, quasi explicantes nostram lectionem, addunt *ergo et formatum*.

en: The editions [read] *increased*, to which codices K S, as if explaining our reading, add *therefore also formed*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Priori et c. de Simul. — Circa initium solut. post *formationem* edd. adiiciunt *veri corporis* et subinde cum cod. Z pro *praecessit* exhibent *praecedit*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Categories*, the chapter *On the Prior* and the chapter *On the Simultaneous*. — Near the beginning of the solution, after *formation* the editions add *of the true body*, and thereupon, with codex Z, for *preceded* [praecessit] exhibit *precedes* [praecedit].

la: Intellige cum cod. H *simul esse*. Circa finem solut. codd. K Q U X Z voculae *istorum* adnectunt *praedictorum*.

en: Understand, with codex H, *to exist together*. Near the end of the solution, codices K Q U X Z to the little word *of these* append *aforesaid*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p0{92,93,94}-{L,R}-*.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 6969–7091) as base for clean running prose and exact footnote-marker spacing (per the Vol II/III override: in cascade-shattered regions the column-band PDF read is authoritative). Printed pp.92–94 (PDF 114–116; offset +22). Running heads verified: p.92 `92 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.93 `DIST. III. P. II. ART. III. QUAEST. II. 93`; p.94 `94 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`

**Alignment (PASS).** q2 opener = `Secundo quaeritur de eius corporis perfectione quantum ad membrorum distinctionem... utrum membrorum formatio et distinctio facta sit subito, an successive` = PARS II ART. III TRACTATIO q2 (*membrorum distinctio*); NOT q1 (*perfecta moles subito an successive*). No q-swap.

**Scholion: none (`has_scholion: false`).** q1's SCHOLION §I–II (commit 037ae56) already forward-covers q2 ("De 2. quaestione…": Alex. Hal., Scot., S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Aegid. R., Dionys. Carth., Biel). No distinct q2 SCHOLION block prints after q2's *Ad 4*; instead the DUBIA block begins. Confirmed by p.94 footer 6 = `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` (rendered as `[^20]`).

**Page-split map (apparatus, 20 entries, continuous `[^1]`–`[^20]`, Quaracchi per-page restart):**
- **p.92 footers 5–8 → `[^1]`–`[^4]`** (INHERITED split: p.92 footers 1–4 were a3-q1's `[^16]`–`[^19]`, see commit 037ae56). f.5 (`Cap. 8. n. 9…`) anchors arg1 `de Trinitate⁵`; f.6 (`Hic c. 4.…`) anchors arg1 `in littera⁶`; f.7 (`Vers. 17.…`) anchors arg2 `secundo⁷`; f.8 (`Ut ostensum est q. praeced.`) anchors arg3 `successive⁸`. Confirmed on the p.92 R-col footer band. **NOTE on the f.1 source-passage:** the OCR opener reads `Cap. b. n. 9` (Quaracchi `8`/`b` glyph ambiguity); on the p.92 R-col footer band it reads `Cap. 8. n. 9` — Augustine, *De Trinitate* IV, c. 5, n. 9 (rendered `Cap. 8. n. 9` per the printed page).
- **p.93 footers 1–10 → `[^5]`–`[^14]`**: f.1 (`Edd. veri corporis…`) arg4 `corporis¹`; f.2 (`Cap. 18. n. 61…`) SC1 `Petrum²`; f.3 (`Cfr. de hoc testimonio supra lit. Magistri…`) SC2 `de Trinitate³`; f.4 (`Cfr. supra pag. 14…`) SC3 `unionem⁴`; f.5 (`Cod. K a virtute…`) SC4 `virtute⁵`; f.6 (`Vide hic in fundam. 1. et 2.`) Respondeo `Augustinus⁶`; f.7 (`Dist. 2. a. 3. q. 1.…` + Aristotle *De Anima* def. + variant cluster) Respondeo `supra⁷`; f.8 (`Luc. 1, 26. seqq.…`) Respondeo `annuntiabat⁸`; f.9 (`Cfr. supra pag. 62, nota 7.`) Ad1 `innotescit⁹`; f.10 (`Cod. U addit molis…`) Ad1 `quantitatis¹⁰`.
- **p.94 footers 1–6 → `[^15]`–`[^20]`** (footers 7–8 on p.94 anchor the DUBIA chunk's Dub. I markers `sanctificata⁷` / `praecedentibus⁸` → OMITTED, forwarded to d3-p2-dubia): f.1 (`Quaest. 56…`) Ad1-tail `Quaestionum¹⁵`; f.2 (`Vat. homini…`) Ad2 `hominum¹⁶`; f.3 (`Edd. augmentatum…`) Ad3 `generatum¹⁷`; f.4 (`Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam.…`) Ad4 `naturam¹⁸`; f.5 (`Intellige cum cod. H simul esse…`) Ad4 `esse¹⁹`; f.6 (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) Ad4 `consequentiae²⁰`. Split confirmed on the p.94 L-col footer band.

**Marker pairing:** 20 La anchors = 20 En anchors = 20 defs, continuous `[^1]`–`[^20]`; 0 anchorless defs, 0 defless anchors (verified programmatically).

**Marginal labels** rendered inline / suppressed (not footnote anchors): *Ad oppositum* (args), *Conclusio*, *Ratio triplex / Ratio 1 / Ratio 2 / Ratio 3* (Respondeo subdivisions), *Solutio oppositorum*, *Notandum*, *Duplex ordo* (replies).

**Forward hand-off to `bon-sent-III-d3-p2-dubia`:** q2 ends grammatically complete at `…sicut in augmento et nutrimento.` (Ad 4, p.94 R-col, raw ~7091). The full-width `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` header (raw ~7093, p.94 R-col) + `Dub. I.` (raw ~7095) begin **d3-p2-dubia** — NOT included here. The dubia opener: `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…`. Three dubia: **Dub. I** (caro peccato obnoxia in Maria ante sanctificationem), **Dub. II** (primitiam nostrae massae Christus assumsisse), **Dub. III** (raw continues, printed p.95+). p.94 footers 7 (`De quo vide supra p. 1. huius dist. a. 2. q. 2. seq.…`, anchors Dub. I `sanctificata⁷`) and 8 (`Part. I. huius dist. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1. et 3…`, anchors Dub. I `praecedentibus⁸`) are the dubia's first two footers — forwarded, OMITTED here. Continuous seam, no cascade-merge splice. On promotion of d3-p2-dubia, **DISTINCTIO III is COMPLETE.**

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

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 3, Part 1, Dubia

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

source_text:
<!-- page 78 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur in littera: *Spiritus sanctus Mariam a fomite peccati purgavit.* — Si enim fomes relinquitur in nobis ad exercitium et meritum, et beata Virgo fuit maximi meriti; non videtur, quod debuerit a fomite liberari. — Item, stimulus carnis datus fuit Apostolo ad gratiae divinae conservationem[^1]: ergo non videtur, quod debuerit auferri beatae Virgini.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliquid est promotivum ad bonum dupliciter, scilicet secundum omnem statum, aliquid vero secundum statum naturae lapsae et aegrae; sicut aliquid est promotivum ad sanitatem dupliciter, videlicet *communiter*, sicut cibus bonae compositionis, aliquid vero secundum statum *aegritudinis*, sicut huius[^2] medici-

<!-- page 79 -->

nalia. Dicendum est igitur, quod fomes est ad promotionem non *simpliciter*, sed secundum *statum naturae lapsae*, in quo homo facilis est ad desidiam et ad superbiam: et ideo est ei utilis talis stimulus per exercitationem ad expellendam pigritiam, et propter humiliationem ad expellendam superbiam. Quoniam igitur beata Virgo erat repleta caritate et humilitate et confirmata in utroque; ideo fomitis stimulo non egebat. Ideo non est simile de aliis et de ipsa[^3].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de illo verbo: *Et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi*; quaeritur enim, pro quanto dicit eum Altissimum, cum potius sit nuntius divinae humiliationis quam altitudinis? — Item, quaeritur de hoc quod subiungit: *Obumbrabit tibi*, quia, cum Deus Filius sit *candor lucis aeternae*[^4], ei non congruit obumbrare, sed potius illuminare.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod nomine Altissimi intelligitur Pater per appropriationem; Patri enim appropriatur potentia, et in persona Patris principaliter est auctoritas. Per virtutem autem intelligimus Filium, quia Christum dicimus *Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam*[^5]. Quoniam igitur sermo praecesserat de Spiritu sancto, subiungitur de Patre et Filio, ut sicut illi tres mundum fabricaverant, sic intelligantur mundum reparasse opere indivisibili, et hoc per fabricam constitutam uteri virginalis.

Ratio autem, quare magis Patrem vocavit Altissimum, quam Patrem appellaret, est, ut ostendatur in opere incarnationis mira fuisse Dei dignatio, in hoc quod nostram humilitatem suae celsitudini voluit copulare. — Virtus Altissimi Virginem potius dicitur obumbrare quam illuminare. Obumbratio enim visum adiuvat et calorem refrigerat, et in adventu Filii Dei Virgo Maria refrigerata fuit fomitis exstinctione; fuit etiam ad Dei contuitum adiuta per carnis coniunctionem cum Verbo, ut quae non poterat Deum sentire in se propter suae lucis immensitatem, sentiret et cognosceret intra se per assumtam carnis humilitatem[^6].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Damascenus: *Copulavit sibi ex purissimis sanguinibus animatam carnem.* Ex hoc videtur, quod conceptus fuit Christus ex sanguine Virginis. Sed *contra* hoc est illud Augustini, quod sequitur[^7], quod assumsit sibi carnem de carne Virginis. — Item, proximior est caro carni quam sanguis: ergo prius debuit assumere carnem de carne quam de sanguine.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod purissimos sanguines intelligit humores, qui propinqui sunt ad corporis formationem, ex quibus[^8] caro Christi formata fuit. Ille autem humor aliquando vocatur *caro*, aliquando *sanguis*, aliquando *semen*; et hoc secundum diversam comparationem. *Sanguis* enim dicitur in comparatione ad illud, unde processit; *caro* in comparatione ad illud quod ex ipso fit; *semen* vero quantum ad formam, quam habet[^9].

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caro est carni propinquior; dicendum, quod verum est in *via speciei*, sed non in *via generationis*, quia caro nunquam convertitur in carnem, nisi prius convertatur in humorem[^10].

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod subiungit: *Copulavit sibi carnem animatam nostrae antiquae conspersionis, non seminans, sed per Spiritum sanctum creans.* Videtur enim primum esse falsum, quia *antiqua conspersio* sonat in vitium, sicut dicit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios quinto[^11]: *Expurgate vetus fermentum*; sed caro Christi nunquam fuit vitiata: ergo etc. — Item, obiicitur de hoc quod subiungitur, *per Spiritum sanctum creans*, quia falsum videtur dicere; creare enim est de nihilo

<!-- page 80 -->

aliquid facere. Caro autem Christi non fuit de nihilo, sed de carne Virginis assumta.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *antiqua conspersio* dicitur hic propter poenarum vetustatem et rugositatem. Apostolus autem *fermentum* vocat malae consuetudinis corruptionem, quae attenditur in vitiosa pronitate; Christus autem assumsit carnem poenalem, sed non peccatricem; et hoc vult Damascenus dicere.

Ad illud quod obiicitur de hoc verbo *creare*, dicendum, quod *creare*[^12] dicitur hic actus, qui proprie convenit Deo, non quia sit omnino ex nihilo; unde accipitur ibi *creatio* pro *conditione*, et *Creator* tantum valet ibi quantum *Conditor*; et hoc ipsum vult dicere Damascenus, quod caro illa creata est « non seminaliter, sed conditive[^13] ».

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Si omnes Sancti et Sanctae congregari possent, quod dicere non possent, quod peccatum non habemus, excepta sola Virgine. Contra* hoc est de infantibus recenter baptizatis, qui nullum habent peccatum, nec actuale nec originale. — Item, obiicitur de adultis statim post baptismum; quia[^14] de his qui sunt statim absoluti ab omnibus peccatis, videtur, quod possint dici peccatum non habere.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circa verbum illud tripliciter potest fieri vis, ut sanus ex eo capiatur intellectus: primo ex hoc quod dicit, quod *non possumus dicere*, quia nemo certus est, utrum omni peccato careat, sicut dicit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios quarto[^15]: *Nihil mihi conscius sum*; hoc autem dicere potuit Virgo ex speciali dono gratiae. — Aliter potest intelligi, ut fiat vis in hoc quod dicitur *peccatum*. Peccatum enim dicitur *actus peccati* et *macula* et *causa peccati*[^16]. Et beatus Ioannes non tantum accipit peccatum pro macula, sed etiam pro causa sive sequela. Nullus autem a Christo praeter Virginem dicere potuit, quod causam, id est fomitem, non haberet. In ipsa enim sola exstincta fuit concupiscentia[^17]. — Tertio potest fieri vis in hoc quod dicit *habemus*; quia potest dicere praesens *ut nunc*, vel praesens *simpliciter*. Si dicat praesens *ut nunc*, non videtur esse impossibile, quin possint esse immunes in aliqua hora ab omni actuali. Si vero dicat praesens *simpliciter*, sic soli competit Virgini, quae per totum tempus vitae suae nullum actuale peccatum commisit; hoc autem de nullo aliorum Sanctorum veraciter dici potest, qui in hac vita aliquandiu permanserunt.

---

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 in the text: *The Holy Spirit purged Mary from the tinder of sin.* — For if the tinder is left in us for exercise and merit, and the blessed Virgin was of the greatest merit, it does not seem that she ought to have been freed from the tinder. — Likewise, the goad of the flesh was given to the Apostle for the preservation of divine grace[^1]: therefore it does not seem that it ought to have been taken away from the blessed Virgin.

**I respond:** It must be said that something is conducive to good in two ways, namely according to every state, and something else according to the state of fallen and sick nature; just as something is conducive to health in two ways, namely *commonly*, like food of good composition, and something else according to the state of *sickness*, like the medicaments[^2] of this

nature. It must be said therefore that the tinder is for promotion not *simply*, but according to the *state of fallen nature*, in which man is prone to sloth and to pride: and so such a goad is useful to him, through exercise to expel laziness, and through humiliation to expel pride. Since therefore the blessed Virgin was filled with charity and humility and confirmed in both, she had no need of the goad of the tinder. Therefore it is not the same with others and with her[^3].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about that word: *And the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee*; for it is asked, in what sense it calls him the Most High, since rather he is the messenger of divine humiliation than of height? — Likewise, it is asked about what is added: *Shall overshadow thee*, since, when God the Son is the *brightness of eternal light*[^4], it is not fitting for him to overshadow, but rather to illuminate.

**I respond:** It must be said that by the name of the Most High the Father is understood by appropriation; for power is appropriated to the Father, and in the person of the Father authority is principally found. But by *power* we understand the Son, because we call Christ *the power of God and the wisdom of God*[^5]. Since therefore the discourse had preceded concerning the Holy Spirit, there is added [a word] concerning the Father and the Son, that just as those three had fabricated the world, so they may be understood to have repaired the world by an undivided work, and this through the structure constituted of the virginal womb.

But the reason why it rather called the Father the Most High, than that it should name him Father, is that there may be shown in the work of the incarnation the wonderful condescension of God to have been, in this, that he willed to join our humility to his loftiness. — The power of the Most High is said rather to overshadow the Virgin than to illuminate her. For overshadowing aids the sight and refreshes from heat, and at the coming of the Son of God the Virgin Mary was refreshed by the extinction of the tinder; she was also aided toward the contemplation of God through the conjunction of the flesh with the Word, so that she who could not perceive God within herself on account of the immensity of his light, might perceive and know him within herself through the assumed lowliness of the flesh[^6].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what the Damascene says: *He joined to himself an ensouled flesh out of most pure bloods.* From this it seems that Christ was conceived from the blood of the Virgin. But *against* this is that saying of Augustine, which follows[^7], that he assumed to himself flesh from the flesh of the Virgin. — Likewise, flesh is nearer to flesh than blood: therefore he ought first to have assumed flesh from flesh rather than from blood.

**I respond:** It must be said that by *most pure bloods* he understands the humors which are near to the formation of the body, out of which[^8] the flesh of Christ was formed. But that humor is sometimes called *flesh*, sometimes *blood*, sometimes *seed*; and this according to a diverse comparison. For it is called *blood* in comparison to that from which it proceeded; *flesh* in comparison to that which is made out of it; but *seed* with respect to the form which it has[^9].

To that which is objected, that flesh is nearer to flesh; it must be said that this is true in the *way of species*, but not in the *way of generation*, because flesh is never converted into flesh unless it be first converted into humor[^10].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what is added: *He joined to himself an ensouled flesh of our ancient mass, not by sowing, but by creating through the Holy Spirit.* For the first seems to be false, because *ancient mass* sounds toward vice, as the Apostle says in the first to the Corinthians, the fifth [chapter][^11]: *Purge out the old leaven*; but the flesh of Christ was never vitiated: therefore etc. — Likewise, objection is made about what is added, *by creating through the Holy Spirit*, because it seems to say something false; for to create is to make

something out of nothing. But the flesh of Christ was not from nothing, but assumed from the flesh of the Virgin.

**I respond:** It must be said that *ancient mass* is called so here on account of the antiquity and roughness of the penalties. But the Apostle calls *leaven* the corruption of evil habit, which is observed in vicious proneness; but Christ assumed penal flesh, but not sinful flesh; and this the Damascene wishes to say.

To that which is objected concerning this word *to create*, it must be said that *to create*[^12] is here called an act which properly belongs to God, not because it is wholly from nothing; whence *creation* is there taken for *condition* [making], and *Creator* is worth there as much as *Founder*; and this very thing the Damascene wishes to say, that that flesh was created « not seminally, but by founding[^13] ».

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *If all the holy men and holy women could be gathered together, they could not say that we have no sin, except the Virgin alone. Against* this is the case of infants recently baptized, who have no sin, neither actual nor original. — Likewise, objection is made about adults immediately after baptism; for[^14] concerning those who are immediately absolved from all sins, it seems that they can be said to have no sin.

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning that word emphasis can be made in three ways, so that a sound understanding may be taken from it: first from this, that it says that *we cannot say [it]*, because no one is certain whether he lacks every sin, as the Apostle says in the first to the Corinthians, the fourth [chapter][^15]: *I am conscious to myself of nothing*; but the Virgin could say this by a special gift of grace. — Otherwise it can be understood, so that emphasis is made on this which is said *sin*. For *sin* is called the *act of sin* and the *stain* and the *cause of sin*[^16]. And blessed John takes sin not only for the stain, but also for the cause or consequence. But no one except the Virgin could say, apart from Christ, that he had not the cause, that is, the tinder. For in her alone was concupiscence extinguished[^17]. — Thirdly emphasis can be made on this which it says *we have*; because it can say the present *as now*, or the present *simply*. If it says the present *as now*, it does not seem impossible that they can be immune in some hour from all actual [sin]. But if it says the present *simply*, then it belongs to the Virgin alone, who through the whole time of her life committed no actual sin; but this can truly be said of none of the other Saints, who remained in this life for some while.

---

en: Second Epistle, 2 Cor. 12:7. *(p. 78, note 7.)*

la: Codd. F N et edd. omittunt *huius*. Paulo inferius pro *per exercitationem* codd. G K T bb cum edd. *propter exercitationem*. Post pauca pro *in utroque* cod. N *in utraque*. *(p. 78, nota 8.)*

en: Codices F N and the editions omit *huius* ("of this"). A little below, for *per exercitationem* ("through exercise") codices G K T bb with the editions read *propter exercitationem* ("on account of exercise"). After a few words, for *in utroque* ("in both") codex N reads *in utraque*. *(p. 78, note 8.)*

la: De hoc dubio vide supra a. 2. q. 2; Alex. Hal. S. p. III. q. 9. m. 2. a. 5. ad 1. *(p. 79, nota 1.)*

en: On this doubt see above, art. 2, q. 2; Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, part III, q. 9, member 2, art. 5, to the 1st. *(p. 79, note 1.)*

la: Sap. 7, 26. — Pro *Deus Filius* codd. H K T Z et alii *Dei Filius*. Paulo superius pro *humiliationis* edd. cum paucis codd. *humilitatis*, et mox pro *subiungit* codd. G K L M N O Z aa *subiungitur*. *(p. 79, nota 2.)*

en: Wis. 7:26. — For *Deus Filius* ("God the Son") codices H K T Z and others read *Dei Filius* ("the Son of God"). A little above, for *humiliationis* ("of humiliation") the editions with a few codices read *humilitatis* ("of humility"), and presently for *subiungit* ("adds") codices G K L M N O Z aa read *subiungitur* ("is added"). *(p. 79, note 2.)*

la: Epist. I. Cor. 1, 24. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 32. a. 2. q. 2. in fine et d. 34. q. 1. — Ibid. d. 13. dub. 4. et d. 29. dub. 1. exponitur, quomodo *auctoritas* sit in Patre. — Paulo superius pro *principaliter* codd. B D G (K a secunda manu) M O exhibent *principalis*, et paulo inferius edd. tum post *subiungitur* tum post *sic* subiiciunt *etiam*, at mox omittunt *constitutam*. Subinde pro *uteri virginalis* in codd. A K Q Z legitur *in utero virginali*. *(p. 79, nota 3.)*

en: First Epistle, 1 Cor. 1:24. Cf. *I Sent.* d. 32, a. 2, q. 2, at the end, and d. 34, q. 1. — In the same place, d. 13, doubt 4, and d. 29, doubt 1, it is expounded how *authority* is in the Father. — A little above, for *principaliter* ("principally") codices B D G (K by a second hand) M O present *principalis* ("principal"), and a little below the editions, both after *subiungitur* and after *sic*, add *etiam*, but presently omit *constitutam*. Then for *uteri virginalis* ("of the virginal womb") codices A K Q Z read *in utero virginali* ("in the virginal womb"). *(p. 79, note 3.)*

la: Pro *humilitatem*, quam vocem ex codd. A bb restituimus, alii codd. cum edd. *humanitatem*. — Cfr. de hoc dubio Hilar., II. de Trin. n. 26. (in praefat. generali ad opera Hilarii §. 2. n. 57. seqq. alii Patres adducuntur, qui de hac re scripserunt) et Cassian., II. de Incarn. c. 2. nec non Quaest. ex novo Testam. (inter opera August.) q. 51. Hoc dubium solvunt etiam ... *(p. 79, nota 4.)*

en: For *humilitatem* ("lowliness"), which word we have restored from codices A bb, the other codices with the editions read *humanitatem* ("humanity"). — Cf. on this doubt Hilary, *On the Trinity* II, n. 26 (in the general preface to the works of Hilary, §2, nn. 57 ff., other Fathers are adduced who wrote on this matter), and Cassian, *On the Incarnation* II, c. 2, as well as *Questions from the New Testament* (among the works of Augustine), q. 51. This doubt is also resolved by ... *(p. 79, note 4.)*

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Paulo ante pro *conceptus fuit* codd. G H K L T bb *conceptus fuerit*. — In fine arg. seq. fide codd. A K Z aa bb posuimus *de sanguine* pro *sanguinem*, quae lectio, contextui minus bene respondens, in edd. et aliis codd. invenitur. *(p. 79, nota 5.)*

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 1. — Shortly before, for *conceptus fuit* ("was conceived") codices G H K L T bb read *conceptus fuerit*. — At the end of the following argument, on the faith of codices A K Z aa bb, we have placed *de sanguine* ("from blood") for *sanguinem* ("blood"), which latter reading, corresponding less well to the context, is found in the editions and other codices. *(p. 79, note 5.)*

la: Codd. A F G H K L N T V Z aa *ex quo*, cod. U *ex quibus quoque*. *(p. 79, nota 6.)*

en: Codices A F G H K L N T V Z aa read *ex quo* ("out of which" [sing.]), codex U *ex quibus quoque*. *(p. 79, note 6.)*

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 30. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — Codd. G L W X Z aa *habuit*. Supra edd. et multi codd. *ex ipsa* pro *ex ipso*. *(p. 79, nota 7.)*

en: Cf. *II Sent.* d. 30, a. 3, q. 1 and following. — Codices G L W X Z aa read *habuit* ("it had"). Above, the editions and many codices read *ex ipsa* for *ex ipso* ("out of it"). *(p. 79, note 7.)*

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 19; S. Thom., hic q. 5. a. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. et circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. *(p. 79, nota 8.)*

en: Cf. on this doubt Bl. Albert, here, art. 19; St. Thomas, here, q. 5, a. 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here, on the text; Richard of Middleton, here, a. 2, q. 1, and on the text; Giles of Rome, here, q. 2, a. 1. *(p. 79, note 8.)*

la: Vers. 7. — Paulo ante pro *antiqua conspersio*, qua locutione respicitur illud I. Cor. 5, 7: *ut sitis nova conspersio*, edd. *prima conspersio*. Multi codd. in hoc dubio substituerunt vocem *aspersionis* pro voce *conspersionis* (φύραμα τος). *(p. 79, nota 9.)*

en: Verse 7. — Shortly before, for *antiqua conspersio* ("ancient mass"), by which expression there is regarded that of 1 Cor. 5:7, *that you may be a new mass*, the editions read *prima conspersio* ("first mass"). Many codices in this doubt have substituted the word *aspersionis* for the word *conspersionis* (Greek *phyramatos*). *(p. 79, note 9.)*

la: Codd. A E H K T U V (Z a secunda manu) bb *creatio*. Codd. G L aa post *creare* subiiciunt *dupliciter*. Mox pro *actus* edd. et nonnulli codd. *pro actu*. *(p. 80, nota 1.)*

en: Codices A E H K T U V (Z by a second hand) bb read *creatio* ("creation"). Codices G L aa add *dupliciter* ("in two ways") after *creare*. Presently, for *actus* ("act") the editions and several codices read *pro actu*. *(p. 80, note 1.)*

la: In textu Graeco: οὐ σπερματικῶς, ἀλλὰ δημιουργικῶς. — August., II. de Morib. Manich. c. 7. n. 9. illud Isai. 45, 7: *Ego facio bona et creo mala* interpretans ait: Creare namque dicitur condere et ordinare. Itaque in plerisque exemplaribus sic scriptum est: *Ego facio bona et condo mala*. Facere enim est, quod omnino non erat; condere autem, ordinare quod utcumque iam erat, ut melius magisque sit. — Solutio huius dubii habetur etiam apud B. Albert., hic a. 20; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 4. *(p. 80, nota 2.)*

en: In the Greek text: *ou spermatikōs, alla dēmiourgikōs* ("not seminally, but by founding/fashioning"). — Augustine, *On the Morals of the Manichees* II, c. 7, n. 9, interpreting that of Isa. 45:7, *I make good things and create evils*, says: For *to create* is said to be *to found and to order*. And so in most copies it is written thus: *I make good things and found evils*. For *to make* is [to bring forth] what was not at all; but *to found* is to order what already somehow existed, that it may be better and more fully. — The solution of this doubt is also found in Bl. Albert, here, a. 20; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here, on the text; Giles of Rome, here, doubt on the text, 4. *(p. 80, note 2.)*

la: Edd. cum aliquibus codd. *et*, cod. Z *quia et*. *(p. 80, nota 3.)*

en: The editions with some codices read *et* ("and"), codex Z *quia et* ("for also"). *(p. 80, note 3.)*

la: Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 1. ad 3, et II. Sent. d. 42. dub. 1. In sequenti propos. respicitur I. Ioan. 1, 8, qui locus in lit. Magistri citatur. Mox pro *etiam pro causa* cod. aa *etiam pro poena*, et subinde post *Nullus autem* edd. adiiciunt *alius*. *(p. 80, nota 5.)*

en: Cf. above, a. 2, q. 1, to the 3rd, and *II Sent.* d. 42, doubt 1. In the following proposition there is regarded 1 John 1:8, which passage is cited in the text of the Master. Presently, for *etiam pro causa* ("also for the cause") codex aa reads *etiam pro poena* ("also for the penalty"), and then after *Nullus autem* the editions add *alius*. *(p. 80, note 5.)*

la: Vide supra a. 2. q. 2. — Paulo inferius verbo *habemus* codd. G L N aa bb praemittunt *quod non*. *(p. 80, nota 6.)*

en: See above, a. 2, q. 2. — A little below, before the word *habemus* ("we have"), codices G L N aa bb prefix *quod non*. *(p. 80, note 6.)* ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p0{78,79,80}-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`, lines 6023–6157) as base for clean prose and footnote-marker spacing per the Vol II/III PDF-priority override. Literal English, doubt-by-doubt. This is the **PARS I *Dubia circa litteram Magistri*** — a dubia block, NOT a quaestio; `has_scholion: false`, `has_apparatus: true`. **Promotion completes DISTINCTIO III PARS I** (littera + divisio + ART. I q1–3 + ART. II q1–3 + dubia).

**Dub. column-reflow map.** The full-width header `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` prints on p.78 (after q3's *Ad 4*, R-col). Five doubts, confirmed Dub. I–V (count + order verified from crops + raw):
- **Dub. I** — p.78 L-col (body) → p.78 R-col (`gratiae divinae conservationem⁷` … *Respondeo* … `medicinaliter⁸`) → p.79 L-col (`nalia … de ipsa¹`).
- **Dub. II** — p.79 L-col (`candor lucis aeternae²`) → L-col *Respondeo* (`sapientiam³`) → spills to L-col bottom (`humilitatem⁴`).
- **Dub. III** — p.79 R-col (`quod sequitur⁵`; `ex quibus⁶`; `habet⁷`; `in humorem⁸`).
- **Dub. IV** — p.79 R-col start (`quinto⁹`) → p.80 L-col (*Respondeo*; `creare¹`; `conditive²`).
- **Dub. V** — p.80 L-col bottom (`quia³`) → p.80 R-col (`quarto⁴`; `peccati⁵`; `concupiscentia⁶`; `permanserunt⁷`).

Running heads confirm the span: p.78 `78 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.79 `DIST. III. P. I. DUBIA. 79`; p.80 `80 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`

**Page-split map (17 apparatus entries, continuous `[^1]`–`[^17]`, per-page restart).**
- **p.78 footers 7–8 → `[^1]`–`[^2]` — INHERITED from d3-p1-a2-q3 (commit 03f8d67).** q3 consumed p.78 footers 1–6 (its `[^13]`–`[^18]`). f.7 = `Epist. II. Cor. 12, 7` (anchors Dub. I `conservationem⁷`); f.8 = codd. var on `huius`/`per exercitationem`/`in utroque` (anchors Dub. I `medicinaliter⁸`). Both verified on the p.78 R-2 footer band.
- **p.79 footers 1–9 → `[^3]`–`[^11]`** (fresh per-page restart): f.1 supra a.2 q.2 + Alex. Hal. (`de ipsa¹`) / f.2 Sap. 7:26 + *Deus Filius*/*humilitatis*/*subiungitur* vars (`aeternae²`) / f.3 1 Cor. 1:24 + I Sent loci + *principalis*/*etiam*/*in utero virginali* vars (`sapientiam³`) / f.4 *humilitatem*←codd. A bb + Hilary/Cassian/Quaest. ex novo Test. (`humilitatem⁴`) / f.5 lit. Magistri c.1 + *conceptus fuerit* + *de sanguine* var (`quod sequitur⁵`) / f.6 *ex quo*/*ex quibus quoque* var (`ex quibus⁶`) / f.7 II Sent d.30 + *habuit*/*ex ipsa* var (`habet⁷`) / f.8 Albert/Thomas/Petr.a Tar./Richard/Aegid. doctor list (`in humorem⁸`) / f.9 1 Cor. 5:7 + *prima conspersio* + *aspersionis* var (`quinto⁹`).
- **p.80 footers 1–7 → `[^12]`–`[^17]`** (fresh per-page restart): f.1 *creatio*/*dupliciter*/*pro actu* vars (`creare¹`) / f.2 Greek *ou spermatikōs alla dēmiourgikōs* + Aug. de Morib. Manich. on Isa. 45:7 + doctor list (`conditive²`) / f.3 *et*/*quia et* var (`quia³`) / f.4 Vers. 4 (`quarto⁴`) / f.5 supra a.2 q.1 ad 3 + II Sent d.42 + 1 John 1:8 + *pro poena*/*alius* vars (`peccati⁵`) / f.6 supra a.2 q.2 + *quod non* var (`concupiscentia⁶`) / f.7 = the LAST dubia footer.

**Last dubia footer (p.80 f.7 → `[^17]`).** p.80 footer **7** anchors Dub. V `permanserunt⁷` and is the very last footer in the dubia block (the supra a.2 q.2 + `quod non` variant note). No footer leaks into the PARS II COMMENTARIUS — the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III + DIVISIO TEXTUS that open on p.80 (R-col, after Dub. V) carry NO footer on p.80's footer band; all 7 p.80 footers are the dubia's.

**PARS II COMMENTARIUS NOT leaked.** Dub. V ends grammatically complete at `…in hac vita aliquandiu permanserunt` (raw 6157, p.80 R-col). `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III. Pars II.` (raw 6158, p.80 R-col, *Utrum caro Christi in Abraham fuerit decimata*) begins **d3-p2-divisio** and is NOT included here. Boundary is continuous, no cascade-merge splice.

**Forward hand-off to d3-p2-divisio.** The chunk picks up at raw 6158 with `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III. Pars II. — Utrum caro Christi in Abraham fuerit decimata. — Cum autem illa caro, cuius excellentia etc. — DIVISIO TEXTUS. Supra ostendit Magister, qualiter beata Virgo fuerit sanctificata, ex qua caro Christi est assumta…` This is the PARS II divisio + tractatio (de Christi decimatione + carnis traductione), printed p.80+. **No p.80 footer carries forward** — all 7 p.80 footers were the dubia's; the COMMENTARIUS's own footers begin on p.80's later lines or p.81. PARS II structure: ART. I q1–2, ART. II q1–2, ART. III q1–2, then PARS II dubia.

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