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

source_text:
<!-- page 85 -->

### Articulus II. *De carnis Christi traductione.*

Consequenter quaeritur de carnis Christi traductione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum caro Christi fuerit in primis parentibus secundum qualitatem puritatis[^1] vel inquinationis.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum aliter fuerit quam secundum legem propagationis.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum caro Christi in Abraham et aliis Patribus distincta fuerit secundum qualitatem a carne aliorum hominum.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod caro Christi in Abraham et aliis Patribus distincta fuerit secundum qualitatem a carne aliorum filiorum.

1. Septimo Sapientiae[^2]: *Nihil coinquinatum in illam incurrit:* ergo si caro Christi unita est Filio Dei, qui est *Dei virtus et Dei sapientia*, videtur, quod nunquam fuerit inquinata; sed caro aliorum in parentibus inquinata fuit: ergo videtur, quod aliter fuerit caro Christi in Abraham quam aliorum.

2. Item, in Christo debuit esse maxima puritas; sed magis purum est quod nunquam fuit inquinatum, quam illud quod aliquando inquinatum fuit: ergo videtur, quod caro Christi nec in se nec in parentibus subiacuerit foeditati corruptionis[^3]: igitur a carne aliorum hominum distincta fuit qualitative.

3. Item, alterius qualitatis est medicina et illud quod curatur per medicinam; sed caro Christi fuit in lumbis Patrum sicut medicina, sicut dicit Augustinus decimo super Genesim ad litteram[^4], caro vero aliorum hominum sicut indigens medicina: ergo videtur, quod habuerit qualitatem aliam et aliam.

4. Item, quod totaliter corruptum est non est possibile ad curationem: si ergo Adam fuit possibilis ad curationem, aliqua particula remansit in eo incorrupta. Sed de illa particula, quae[^5] sine corruptione erat, maxime decebat generari carnem, quae esset sine originali macula: ergo videtur etc.

**Sed contra:** 1. Augustinus decimo super Genesim ad litteram[^6]: « Eadem namque caro non Abrahae tantum, sed ipsius primi terrenique hominis simul habuit *vulnus* praevaricationis et *medicamentum vulneris* » : ergo si *medicamentum* vulneris spectat ad Christum, *vulnus* praevaricationis spectat ad alios, eadem igitur fuit caro Christi in primis parentibus cum carne aliorum: ergo non fuit distincta ab aliis.

2. Item, Magister in principio huius distinctionis[^7] loquens de carne Christi: « Credi oportet iuxta sanctorum Doctorum convenientiam, ipsam prius fuisse peccato obnoxiam, sicut fuit reliqua Virginis caro » : restat igitur idem quod prius, quod non fuerit distincta ab aliis.

3. Item, quidquid lege corruptionis traducitur, corruptum est; sed tota caro Isaac, quae fuit traducta ab Abraham, fuit corrupta: aut igitur[^8] caro Christi non fuit traducta ab Abraham in Isaac, aut si traducta fuit, ab aliis hominibus distincta non fuit.

4. Item, aut caro Christi fuit similis carni Abrahae reliquae, aut non. Si similis, habeo propositum; si dissimilis: ergo non videtur, quod talis caro competeret ad redemptionem humani generis[^9]. Si ergo hoc est falsum et inconveniens, restat ergo, quod caro Christi a carne aliorum hominum non fuerit distincta.

5. Item, distinctio secundum oppositas qualitates praesupponit distinctionem secundum substantiam, quia oppositae qualitates non possunt esse in eodem et secundum idem[^10]; sed caro filiorum in primis parentibus non potuit habere distinctionem secundum substantiam, quia non esset tot atomos invenire in corpore Adae, quot inde filii procreati sunt: ergo si caro Christi in primis parentibus non
<!-- page 86 -->
potuit distingui a carne aliorum secundum *substantiam*, videtur etc.

6. Item, si transfundebatur caro munda, aut *corruptibilis*, aut *incorruptibilis*. Si *incorruptibilis*: ergo corpus Christi debuit esse impassibile; quod falsum est. Si *corruptibilis*: ergo videtur, quod poterat transmutari in carnem reliquam et augeri ab alia: ergo et alia poterat pari ratione transmutari in aliis[^11]: igitur aut caro illa fuit consumta, antequam perveniret ad Christum, aut fuit adeo multiplicata, ut possent inde mille corpora formari. Sed hoc est falsum: ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> Caro Christi in lumbis parentum, in quibus fuit materialiter, a carne aliorum hominum non fuit distincta qualitative vel formaliter.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod circa hanc quaestionem fuit quaedam positio erronea quorundam dicentium, quod caro Christi non tantum distinctionem habuit a carne aliorum hominum, cum fuit unita animae Christi[^12], sed etiam cum fuit in lumbis hominis primi. Dicebant enim, quod quia Adam reparabiliter peccavit, in peccato non permisit Deus totum corrumpi; et ideo remansit in eius semine aliqua portio incorrupta, ut per illam fieret medicamentum carni reliquae; et ex illa portiuncula[^13] dicunt carnem Christi formatam, quam dicunt esse generis humani medicinam. Hanc autem particulam transmisit Adam ad Noe, et Noe ad Abraham, et Abraham ad David, et David usque ad Virginem, de qua natus est Christus. — Haec autem positio, etsi habere videatur probabilitatem in superficie, intrinsecus errorem[^14] continet; pro eo quod non solum est contra Sanctorum dicta veridica, sed etiam contra verae *fidei documenta*. *Sanctorum auctoritatibus* repugnat: quia Damascenus, doctor Graecus, et Augustinus, praecipuus doctor Latinus, in hoc consentiunt, quod caro Christi ante unionem cum Verbo indistincta erat a reliqua Virginis carne. Damascenus[^15] dicit, quod « de purissimis Virginis sanguinibus fuerit formata » ; Augustinus dicit, quod « assumserit primitiam nostrae massae ». — Et hoc quidem necessarium est ponere, quia non fuisset necessaria Virginis sanctificatio ad hoc, quod formaretur caro Christi sine omni peccato. — Non esset etiam Christus vere de semine David et Abrahae, sed solum Adae; quoniam, si praedicto modo illa[^16] particula descendisset, ad nullum aliorum pertineret nisi sicut deferens, quemadmodum aqua comparatur ad canalem. — Non etiam esset in tali carne verae passibilitatis assumtio nec nostrae infirmitatis vera reparatio, quia non de natura lapsa fabricasset sibi carnem, sed potius de instituta. — Quae omnia inconvenientia sunt et *fidei sanae* adversantia. Et ideo praedicta positio tanquam erronea est respuenda, sicut Magister bene innuit in littera[^17], et Magister Hugo in libro de Sacramentis.

Planum est igitur secundum doctrinam catholicam, carnem Christi in lumbis parentum, in quibus fuit materialiter, a carne aliorum hominum non fuisse distinctam qualitative, vel formaliter, quamvis, postquam unita est Verbo, distinctionem habeat, pro eo quod non est *caro peccati*, sed *similis peccatrici*. Et pro tanto dicit Augustinus[^18], quod « caro Christi venerit de altitudine humanae naturae », non quod in primis parentibus sine pollutione fuerit, sed quia sic purificata est et mundata in sua assumtione, quod similis fuit carni in statu innocentiae. Propter quod dicitur a Boethio[^19] « de omni statu aliquid accepisse », sicut infra melius manifestabi<!-- page 87 -->tur. — Unde rationes, quae ad hanc partem inducuntur, sunt concedendae.

*Ad 1.* Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de Sapientiae septimo, quod nihil inquinatum in illam incurrit; dicendum, quod verum est; hoc enim intelligitur de Sapientia *divina*[^20] secundum *divinam naturam*, quae nullo modo foedatur ex aliqua creatura; verumtamen, si etiam intelligatur secundum *humanam naturam*, adhuc non habet instantiam, quia caro Christi, ex quo fuit unita Verbo Dei, sancta fuit et immaculata. Sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod immaculata fuisset in primis parentibus, pro eo quod, quamvis in lumbis parentum esset unibilis, erat tamen in dispositione remota.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maxima puritas debet esse in carne Christi; dicendum, quod verum est, secundum quod competit ad reparationem humani generis. Sic autem intelligendo, non potest maior puritas cogitari, quam quod de massa peccatrice formetur caro omnino immunis a peccato; et sic factum est in carne unita Verbo, operante Spiritu sancto. Quodsi intelligatur caro illa nunquam in se, vel in parentibus fuisse obnoxia[^21]; non sic cogitatur, qualiter nostrae reparationi fuerit apta; et ideo non cogitatur, qualiter et sicut debet, sed potius assignatur, qualiter non debet.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caro Christi est medicina; dicendum, quod verum est pro tempore, quo medicina est; medicina autem est pro eo tempore, quo a Verbo[^22] assumta est; et sic alterius qualitatis est quam aliorum hominum. Pro eo autem tempore, quo fuit ante assumtionem, non erat medicina, nisi materialiter loquendo. Secundum illud tempus non oportet formaliter distingui ab alia carne, pro eo quod ex eodem principio materiali potest formari sanum et aegrum. Cibus enim eiusdem generis in sano convertitur in carnem sanam et in leproso in carnem corruptam.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si totus esset corruptus, iam non esset medicabilis eius morbus: dicendum, quod illud argumentum dupliciter deficit. Primo, quia, etsi homo totus corruptus esset, non sequitur, quod incurabilis esset, nisi illa corruptio ei inseparabiliter adhaereret. Praeterea, etsi totus homo corruptus esset quantum ad ea quae erant in se, non tamen corruptum esset totum genus humanum, quod fabricatum est ex illa hominis carne; sed illud solum, quod processit secundum legem concupiscentiae. Et quoniam caro Christi in Virgine fabricata est praeter legem concupiscentiae a Spiritu sancto sanctificante[^23], hinc est, quod caruit corruptione et rationem tenuit medicinae a sua primaria formatione.

english:
### Article II. *On the conveying of Christ's flesh.*

Next it is asked about the conveying of Christ's flesh. And concerning this two things are asked.

First it is asked whether Christ's flesh was in the first parents according to a quality of purity[^1] or of defilement.

Second it is asked whether it was otherwise than according to the law of propagation.

### Question I. *Whether Christ's flesh in Abraham and the other Fathers was distinct in quality from the flesh of other men.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is shown that Christ's flesh in Abraham and the other Fathers was distinct in quality from the flesh of the other sons.

1. *Wisdom* 7[^2]: *Nothing defiled enters into her:* therefore if Christ's flesh was united to the Son of God, who is *the power of God and the wisdom of God*, it seems that it was never defiled; but the flesh of others was defiled in the parents: therefore it seems that Christ's flesh was otherwise in Abraham than that of others.

2. Likewise, in Christ there ought to have been the greatest purity; but that which was never defiled is more pure than that which was at some time defiled: therefore it seems that Christ's flesh neither in itself nor in the parents was subject to the foulness of corruption[^3]: therefore it was distinct in quality from the flesh of other men.

3. Likewise, medicine and that which is cured by medicine are of a different quality; but Christ's flesh was in the loins of the Fathers as medicine, as Augustine says in the tenth book *On Genesis according to the Letter*[^4], whereas the flesh of other men was as something needing medicine: therefore it seems that it had one quality and another.

4. Likewise, that which is totally corrupted is not capable of being cured: therefore if Adam was capable of being cured, some particle remained in him uncorrupted. But from that particle, which[^5] was without corruption, it was most fitting that flesh be generated which should be without original stain: therefore it seems so, etc.

**Sed contra:** 1. Augustine in the tenth book *On Genesis according to the Letter*[^6]: « For the same flesh, not of Abraham only, but of the first earthly man himself, had at once the *wound* of transgression and the *medicament of the wound* » : therefore if the *medicament* of the wound pertains to Christ, the *wound* of transgression pertains to others, therefore the flesh of Christ in the first parents was the same as the flesh of others: therefore it was not distinct from others.

2. Likewise, the Master at the beginning of this distinction[^7], speaking of Christ's flesh: « It must be believed, according to the agreement of the holy Doctors, that it was first subject to sin, just as was the rest of the Virgin's flesh » : it therefore remains as before, that it was not distinct from others.

3. Likewise, whatever is conveyed by the law of corruption is corrupted; but the whole flesh of Isaac, which was conveyed from Abraham, was corrupted: therefore either[^8] Christ's flesh was not conveyed from Abraham into Isaac, or, if it was conveyed, it was not distinct from other men.

4. Likewise, either Christ's flesh was like the rest of the flesh of Abraham, or not. If like, I have my point; if unlike: then it does not seem that such flesh was suited to the redemption of the human race[^9]. If therefore this is false and unfitting, it remains, then, that Christ's flesh was not distinct from the flesh of other men.

5. Likewise, distinction according to opposite qualities presupposes distinction according to substance, because opposite qualities cannot be in the same thing and according to the same[^10]; but the flesh of the sons in the first parents could not have a distinction according to substance, because there would not be found as many atoms in the body of Adam as there were sons procreated from it: therefore if Christ's flesh in the first parents could not
be distinguished from the flesh of others according to *substance*, it seems so, etc.

6. Likewise, if pure flesh was transfused, it was either *corruptible* or *incorruptible*. If *incorruptible*: then Christ's body ought to have been impassible; which is false. If *corruptible*: then it seems that it could be transmuted into the rest of the flesh and increased by other flesh: therefore other flesh too could by parity of reasoning be transmuted into others[^11]: therefore either that flesh was consumed before it reached Christ, or it was so multiplied that a thousand bodies could be formed from it. But this is false: therefore, etc.

### Conclusio

> Christ's flesh, in the loins of the parents in which it was materially, was not distinct in quality or in form from the flesh of other men.

**Respondeo:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that concerning this question there was a certain erroneous position of certain men saying that Christ's flesh had a distinction from the flesh of other men not only when it was united to Christ's soul[^12], but even when it was in the loins of the first man. For they said that, because Adam sinned reparably, in his sin God did not permit the whole to be corrupted; and so there remained in his seed some uncorrupted portion, that through it there might be a medicament for the rest of the flesh; and from that little portion[^13] they say Christ's flesh was formed, which they say is the medicine of the human race. And this particle Adam transmitted to Noah, and Noah to Abraham, and Abraham to David, and David down to the Virgin, of whom Christ was born. — But this position, although it may seem to have probability on the surface, inwardly contains error[^14]; because it is not only against the truthful sayings of the Saints, but also against the *documents of the true faith*. It is repugnant to *the authorities of the Saints*: because Damascene, the Greek doctor, and Augustine, the chief Latin doctor, agree in this, that Christ's flesh before its union with the Word was undistinguished from the rest of the Virgin's flesh. Damascene[^15] says that « it was formed from the most pure blood of the Virgin » ; Augustine says that « he assumed the first-fruits of our mass ». — And this indeed it is necessary to hold, because the Virgin's sanctification would not have been necessary in order that Christ's flesh be formed without any sin. — Nor would Christ truly be of the seed of David and Abraham, but only of Adam; since, if in the aforesaid way that[^16] particle had descended, it would pertain to none of the others except as a conduit, just as water is compared to a channel. — Nor would there be in such flesh a true assumption of passibility nor a true repair of our infirmity, because he would not have fashioned flesh for himself from fallen nature, but rather from constituted nature. — All which things are unfitting and adverse to *sound faith*. And therefore the aforesaid position must be rejected as erroneous, just as the Master well intimates in the text[^17], and Master Hugh in the book *On the Sacraments*.

It is therefore plain according to Catholic doctrine that Christ's flesh, in the loins of the parents in which it was materially, was not distinct in quality, or in form, from the flesh of other men, although, after it was united to the Word, it has a distinction, in that it is not *the flesh of sin*, but *like sinful flesh*. And for this reason Augustine says[^18] that « Christ's flesh came from the height of human nature », not that in the first parents it was without pollution, but because it was so purified and cleansed in its assumption that it was like the flesh in the state of innocence. On account of which it is said by Boethius[^19] to have « received something of every state », as will be better shown below<!-- page 87 -->. — Hence the reasonings which are brought forward for this part are to be granted.

*Ad 1.* To that which is first objected to the contrary from *Wisdom* 7, that nothing defiled enters into her; it must be said that it is true; for this is understood of the *divine* Wisdom[^20] according to the *divine nature*, which is in no way defiled by any creature; nevertheless, if it be also understood according to the *human nature*, it still has no instance against us, because Christ's flesh, from the time it was united to the Word of God, was holy and immaculate. But from this it does not follow that it was immaculate in the first parents, because, although in the loins of the parents it was unitable, it was nevertheless in a remote disposition.

*Ad 2.* To that which is objected, that the greatest purity ought to be in Christ's flesh; it must be said that it is true, according as it is suited to the repair of the human race. Understanding it thus, no greater purity can be conceived than that from the sinful mass flesh be formed altogether free from sin; and so it was done in the flesh united to the Word, by the working of the Holy Spirit. But if that flesh be understood never to have been subject to sin in itself or in the parents[^21]; it is not thereby conceived how it was apt for our repair; and therefore it is not conceived how and as it ought, but rather it is assigned how it ought not.

*Ad 3.* To that which is objected, that Christ's flesh is medicine; it must be said that it is true for the time at which it is medicine; and it is medicine for the time at which it was assumed by the Word[^22]; and thus it is of a different quality than that of other men. But for the time at which it was before the assumption, it was not medicine, except materially speaking. According to that time it need not be formally distinguished from other flesh, because from the same material principle there can be formed what is healthy and what is sick. For food of the same kind is converted in a healthy man into healthy flesh and in a leper into corrupt flesh.

*Ad 4.* To that which is objected, that if the whole were corrupted, his disease would no longer be curable: it must be said that that argument fails in two ways. First, because, even if the whole man were corrupted, it does not follow that he was incurable, unless that corruption inseparably adhered to him. Furthermore, even if the whole man were corrupted as to the things that were in him, yet the whole human race, which is fashioned from that man's flesh, would not be corrupted; but only that which proceeded according to the law of concupiscence. And since Christ's flesh was fashioned in the Virgin apart from the law of concupiscence by the sanctifying Holy Spirit[^23], hence it is that it lacked corruption and held the account of medicine from its primary formation.

la: Codd. A F H N T U V Z et edd. 1, 2 omittunt *puritatis*.

en: Codices A F H N T U V Z and editions 1, 2 omit *puritatis* (of purity).

la: Vers. 25, ubi Vulgata cum edd. *inquinatum* pro *coinquinatum*. Verba deinde *Dei virtus et Dei sapientia* inveniuntur I. Cor. 1, 24. — Paulo superius post *aliorum filiorum* Vat. cum cod. A subiungit *et quod sic videtur* [Vat. adhuc addit *secundum illud*]. Pro *unita* codd. U W X *iuncta*.

en: Verse 25, where the Vulgate with the editions reads *inquinatum* for *coinquinatum*. The words then *the power of God and the wisdom of God* are found in 1 Cor. 1, 24. — A little above, after *aliorum filiorum* (of the other sons), the Vatican edition with codex A subjoins *et quod sic videtur* (and that it seems so) [the Vatican still adds *secundum illud* (according to that)]. For *unita* (united) codices U W X read *iuncta* (joined).

la: Codd. U X *carnis*, Vat. *corruptionis vel carnis*.

en: Codices U X read *carnis* (of flesh), the Vatican edition *corruptionis vel carnis* (of corruption or of flesh).

la: Cap. 20. n. 36. Verba ipsa videsis supra a. 1. q. 1. in corp. circa finem et q. 2. fundam. 1.

en: Chapter 20, n. 36. The very words you may see above, a. 1 q. 1 in the body near the end, and q. 2 fundamentum 1.

la: Edd. loco *erat*, quod omittunt, hic exhibent *remansit*.

en: The editions, in place of *erat* (was), which they omit, here exhibit *remansit* (remained).

en: Chapter 20, n. 36.

la: Cap. 1.

en: Chapter 1.

la: Pro *aut igitur* cod. V et edd. 1, 2 *ergo similiter*, Vat. *ergo simul*. Immediate ante pro *quae fuit traducta ab Abraham* cod. T *quia fuit traducta in Abraham*. Lectionem *in Abraham* habent etiam codd. G H L N U V aa cc. Edd. 1, 2 legunt *tota caro Abraham, quae fuit traducta in Isaac*.

en: For *aut igitur* (therefore either) codex V and editions 1, 2 read *ergo similiter* (therefore likewise), the Vatican edition *ergo simul* (therefore together). Immediately before, for *quae fuit traducta ab Abraham* (which was conveyed from Abraham) codex T reads *quia fuit traducta in Abraham* (because it was conveyed in Abraham). The reading *in Abraham* is also had by codices G H L N U V aa cc. Editions 1, 2 read *tota caro Abraham, quae fuit traducta in Isaac* (the whole flesh of Abraham, which was conveyed into Isaac).

la: Vide infra d. 12. a. 1. q. 1.

en: See below, d. 12 a. 1 q. 1.

la: Aristot. de Praedicam. c. de *Oppositis*, et II. Periherm. c. 1. (c. 14.): *Simul autem non contingit eidem inesse contraria.* — De propos. seq. cfr. II. Sent. d. XXX. lit. Magistri, c. 13. — Mox pro *filiorum* cod. X substituit *aliorum*, in edd. legitur *aliorum filiorum*.

en: Aristotle, *Categories*, chapter *On Opposites*, and *On Interpretation* II c. 1 (c. 14): *But contraries do not happen to be in the same thing at the same time.* — On the following proposition cf. *Sentences* II d. 30, text of the Master, c. 13. — Then for *filiorum* (of the sons) codex X substitutes *aliorum* (of the others); in the editions is read *aliorum filiorum* (of the other sons).

la: Hanc ultimam conclusionem, quae in Vat. desideratur, ex codd. C D G L N P Q S U W X Y bb et edd. 1, 2 restituimus, memoratis codd. aliquantulum tantum inter se dissentientibus. Etenim pro *et alia* codd. N U habent *et illa*, cod. C *alii*, cod. S *in aliam*; pro *poterat* plures codd. *poterant*; pro *in aliis* cod. C *in ipsam*, cod. S *in carnem*. Paulo ante pro *augeri* codd. C D G L W X substituunt *assumi*, edd. verbo *augeri* praefigunt *assumi vel*. Circa finem arg. pro *corpora* cod. N exhibet *homines*.

en: This last conclusion, which is wanting in the Vatican edition, we have restored from codices C D G L N P Q S U W X Y bb and editions 1, 2, the said codices differing only a little among themselves. For *et alia* (and other) codices N U have *et illa* (and that), codex C *alii* (others), codex S *in aliam* (into another); for *poterat* (could) several codices read *poterant* (they could); for *in aliis* (into others) codex C *in ipsam* (into it), codex S *in carnem* (into flesh). A little before, for *augeri* (be increased) codices C D G L W X substitute *assumi* (be assumed); the editions prefix to the word *augeri* the phrase *assumi vel* (be assumed or). Near the end of the argument, for *corpora* (bodies) codex N exhibits *homines* (men).

la: Cod. F *cum fuit Verbo unita anima Christi*.

en: Codex F reads *cum fuit Verbo unita anima Christi* (when Christ's soul was united to the Word).

la: Cod. A *particula*. Mox pro *particulam* Vat. *portiunculam*.

en: Codex A reads *particula*. Then for *particulam* (particle) the Vatican edition reads *portiunculam* (little portion).

la: Edd. voci *errorem* praemittunt *tamen falsum et*, ac deinde post *dicta* omittunt *veridica*. Mox pro *verae fidei* codd. M O substituunt *verbi Dei*, cod. Y *nostrae fidei*.

en: The editions prefix to the word *errorem* (error) the phrase *tamen falsum et* (yet false and), and then after *dicta* (sayings) omit *veridica* (truthful). Then for *verae fidei* (of the true faith) codices M O substitute *verbi Dei* (of the Word of God), codex Y *nostrae fidei* (of our faith).

la: Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 2. et IV. c. 14. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. Eodem loco, c. 3, habetur etiam dictum Augustini et asseritur, Christum *primitias nostrae massae assumsisse, « quia non carnem peccati, sed similitudinem peccati accepit »*. Quod August. etiam X. de Gen. ad lit. c. 18. n. 32. docet, et Serm. 27. (alias 20. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 2. n. 2, nec non Serm. 134. (alias 28. de Verbis Domini) c. 3. n. 4, ac Serm. 155. (alias 6. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 7. n. 7. etc.; sicut et in libris, quos scripsit contra Iulianum Pelagian., cuius doctrinam castigans dicit: *Manichaeus haereticus carnem negat Christi; Pelagianus haereticus carnem peccati carni coaequare vult Christi; Christianus catholicus similitudinem carnis peccati discernit a carne peccati, ne blasphemet carnem Christi* (IV. oper. imperf. contra Iulian. c. 81.). Similia dicit Enarrat. in Ps. 64. n. 5: « Tulit inde primitias ex utero virginali » ; et expressissime in Ps. 70. serm. 2. n. 10: « Caro factus: unde caro? Ex Maria Virgine. Unde Maria Virgo? Ex Adam. Ergo ex illo primo captivo et caro in Christo de massa captivitatis ». Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 2, carnem ex purissimis Virginis sanguinibus formatam et anima rationali animatam vocat *primitias nostrae conspersionis*, cuius locutionis explicationem infra habebis, dub. 2. — Pro *primitiam* edd. substituunt *primitiva*, et paulo inferius post *quia* bene interiiciunt *alias*.

en: *On the Orthodox Faith* book III c. 2 and IV c. 14. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1. In the same place, c. 3, is also had the saying of Augustine and it is asserted that Christ *assumed the first-fruits of our mass, « because he received not the flesh of sin, but the likeness of sin »*. Which Augustine also teaches in *On Genesis according to the Letter* X c. 18 n. 32, and Sermon 27 (otherwise 20, *On the Words of the Apostle*) c. 2 n. 2, and also Sermon 134 (otherwise 28, *On the Words of the Lord*) c. 3 n. 4, and Sermon 155 (otherwise 6, *On the Words of the Apostle*) c. 7 n. 7, etc.; as also in the books he wrote against Julian the Pelagian, whose doctrine, correcting it, he says: *The Manichaean heretic denies the flesh of Christ; the Pelagian heretic wishes to equate the flesh of sin with the flesh of Christ; the Catholic Christian distinguishes the likeness of the flesh of sin from the flesh of sin, lest he blaspheme the flesh of Christ* (*Imperfect Work against Julian* IV c. 81). He says similar things in *Enarratio on Psalm* 64 n. 5: « He took thence first-fruits from the virginal womb » ; and most expressly in Psalm 70 sermon 2 n. 10: « Made flesh: whence the flesh? From Mary the Virgin. Whence Mary the Virgin? From Adam. Therefore from that first captive, and the flesh in Christ is from the mass of captivity ». Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* III c. 2, calls the flesh formed from the most pure blood of the Virgin and animated by a rational soul *the first-fruits of our mass*, the explanation of which expression you will have below, dub. 2. — For *primitiam* the editions substitute *primitiva*, and a little below after *quia* (because) they aptly insert *alias* (otherwise).

la: Edd. *ab illa*, et mox verbo *deferens* praefigunt *ad*.

en: The editions read *ab illa* (from that), and presently prefix *ad* to the word *deferens* (conduit).

la: Hic c. 3. seq. Hugo II. de Sacram. p. I. c. 8. Cfr. eius Quaest. in Epist. ad Hebr. q. 69. — Pro *respuenda* codd. H N U V *reputanda*.

en: Here c. 3 seq. Hugh, *On the Sacraments* II p. I c. 8. Cf. his *Questions on the Epistle to the Hebrews* q. 69. — For *respuenda* (to be rejected) codices H N U V read *reputanda* (to be reckoned).

la: In Glossa ordinaria super illud Ioan. 3: *Qui desursum est super omnes est* haec verba habentur, et infra in lit. Magistri, d. XVI. in fine, Augustino attribuuntur. — Pro *venerit* codd. N U *venit*.

en: In the Ordinary Gloss on that text of John 3: *He who is from above is above all* these words are had, and below in the text of the Master, d. 16 at the end, they are attributed to Augustine. — For *venerit* (came) codices N U read *venit* (comes).

la: De Una Persona et duabus naturis, c. 8. Cfr. infra d. 15. et 16, et praesertim dub. 4. huius ultimae dist.

en: *On the One Person and the Two Natures*, c. 8. Cf. below d. 15 and 16, and especially dub. 4 of this last distinction.

la: Codd. A F H N T U V Z et edd. 1, 2 omittunt *divina*.

en: Codices A F H N T U V Z and editions 1, 2 omit *divina* (divine).

la: Supple cum codd. M O *peccato*. Paulo superius pro *operante* codd. U aa *cooperante*, ac subinde pro *Quodsi* codd. D V et edd. 1, 2 *quia si*. Mox pro *reparationi* multi codd. *reparationis*, edd. *redemptioni*; nostram lectionem defendunt codd. A K P Q U X (bb a secunda manu). In fine solut. pro *assignatur* codd. A H U W substituunt *figuratur*, codd. F T V bb et edd. 1, 2 *significatur* (vel *signatur*) cod. Z *cogitatur*; cod. K omittit *assignatur*, voculae *potius* praemisso *ita*.

en: Supply with codices M O *peccato* (to sin). A little above, for *operante* (working) codices U aa read *cooperante* (cooperating), and thereupon for *Quodsi* (but if) codices D V and editions 1, 2 *quia si* (because if). Then for *reparationi* (for repair) many codices read *reparationis* (of repair), the editions *redemptioni* (for redemption); codices A K P Q U X (bb by a second hand) defend our reading. At the end of the solution, for *assignatur* (is assigned) codices A H U W substitute *figuratur* (is figured), codices F T V bb and editions 1, 2 *significatur* (or *signatur*, is signified), codex Z *cogitatur* (is conceived); codex K omits *assignatur*, the little word *potius* (rather) being prefixed with *ita* (so).

la: Codd. F G H L N aa omittunt *a Verbo*.

en: Codices F G H L N aa omit *a Verbo* (by the Word).

la: Pro *sanctificante*, quod abest ab edd., codd. W X Y *cooperante vel sanctificante*.

en: For *sanctificante* (sanctifying), which is absent from the editions, codices W X Y read *cooperante vel sanctificante* (cooperating or sanctifying). ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Haec et seq. quaestio etiam a S. Thoma (S. III. q. 31. a. 6. 7; cfr. Comment. hic q. 1. a. 1. 2.) duabus quaestionibus, sed paulo aliter positis, tractatur, quarum prima est, utrum corpus Christi in antiquis Patribus fuerit secundum aliquid signatum; secunda, utrum caro Christi in Patribus fuerit peccato obnoxia. Communiter Scholastici ut erroneum reprobant figmentum illud, a nonnullis antiquis et etiam recentioribus sparsum, quod in Adam in peccatum lapso aliqua pars carnis a peccato non sit infecta et per subsequentes generationes incorrupte traducta, quod hic in corp. magis declaratur. Plura de hac opinione tradit Hugo a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. I. c. 8.

**II.** Exceptis S. Thoma (locc. citt.), B. Alberto et Aegidio R., alii mox citati hanc et seq. q. unica quaestione absolvunt: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 9. m. 3. a. 4. — Scot., hic q. 2; II. Report. d. 33. q. unica n. 11. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 27. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 4. a. 1. dub. lat. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5. — Biel, hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** This and the following question is also treated by St. Thomas (*Summa* III q. 31 a. 6, 7; cf. *Commentary* here q. 1 a. 1, 2) in two questions, but posed somewhat differently, of which the first is whether the body of Christ in the ancient Fathers was according to something signed; the second, whether Christ's flesh in the Fathers was subject to sin. The Scholastics commonly reprove as erroneous that figment, scattered abroad by certain ancients and also by more recent writers, that in Adam, fallen into sin, some part of the flesh was not infected by sin and was conveyed uncorrupted through the subsequent generations — which is here more fully explained in the body. Hugh of St. Victor relates more on this opinion, *On the Sacraments* II p. I c. 8.

**II.** Excepting St. Thomas (locc. cit.), Bl. Albert, and Giles of Rome, the others cited below settle this and the following question in a single question: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III q. 9 m. 3 a. 4. — Scotus, here q. 2; *Reportata* II d. 33 q. unica n. 11. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1, 27. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2 a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3 q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here q. 4 a. 1 dub. lat. 2. — Denis the Carthusian, here q. 5. — Biel, here q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 85–87 (PDF 107–109; offset pdf = printed + 22), reflowed column-by-column (L-col top→bottom, then R-col), per the Vol II/III override (the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters the Respondeo + footers). Raw OCR lines 6459–6628 used as the base for clean prose and footnote-marker spacing. Literal English throughout.

**ART. II opener folded in.** Per the chunking convention, the short ARTICULUS II opener (`Consequenter quaeritur de carnis Christi traductione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo… Secundo…`, raw 6462–6465) folds into this article's q1 — no standalone d3-p2-a2-divisio chunk. ART. II has two questions: q1 (*distincta secundum qualitatem*, this chunk) + q2 (*aliter quam secundum legem propagationis*, d3-p2-a2-q2).

**Alignment result (PASS).** The q1 opener reads `Utrum caro Christi in Abraham et aliis Patribus distincta fuerit secundum qualitatem a carne aliorum hominum` and the body opener `Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod caro Christi in Abraham et aliis Patribus distincta fuerit secundum qualitatem a carne aliorum filiorum` — this is ART. II's FIRST question (*distincta secundum qualitatem*), NOT the q2 wording (*aliter quam secundum legem propagationis*). No auto-chunker q-swap.

**Scholion disposition: `has_scholion: true` (§I–II), held in q1.** A full-width `SCHOLION.` block appears on p.87 L-col after *Ad 4*, before QUAESTIO II. §I treats St. Thomas's two-question handling + the rejected *figmentum* of an uncorrupted particle. §II = the doctor list (`hanc et seq. q. unica quaestione absolvunt`: Alex. Hal., Scotus, Albert, Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Aegid. R., Dionys. Carth., Biel). **The scholion explicitly forward-covers q2** (`Haec et seq. quaestio`; `hanc et seq. q. unica quaestione absolvunt`) — so d3-p2-a2-q2 should be built `has_scholion: false` (no distinct q2 scholion block). The scholion carries no Quaracchi numbered footer of its own.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.85** (running head `DIST. III. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 85`): ART. II opener + QUAESTIO I title + args 1–4, Sed contra 1–2 (full), arg/SC continuing into R-col; arg 5 tail spills to p.86. **10 footers → `[^1]`–`[^10]`** (L-col footers 1–6, R-col footers 7–10).
- **p.86** (running head `86 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`): arg 5 tail + arg 6 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (through `…sicut infra melius manifestabi-`). **9 footers → `[^11]`–`[^19]`** (L-col footers 1–5, R-col footers 6–9).
- **p.87** (running head `DIST. III. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. I.` left / `QUAEST. II. 87` right): Respondeo tail (`-tur. — Unde rationes…`) + replies *Ad 1–4* + SCHOLION §I–II; QUAESTIO II opens on p.87 L-bottom (NOT included). **q1's footers = p.87 footers 1–4 → `[^20]`–`[^23]`** (1 `divina`→Ad 1; 2 `obnoxia`→Ad 2; 3 `a Verbo`→Ad 3; 4 `sanctificante`→Ad 4).

**Footer split / hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* NO p.84 footer carried forward — ART. II opened fresh on p.85 (a1-q2 consumed all p.84 footers, per d3-p2-a1-q2 commit 49f4a06). p.85 footers therefore begin a fresh sequence `[^1]`.
- *Forwarded to d3-p2-a2-q2:* **p.87 footer 5** (`Cap. 20. n. 35. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. Verba ista ex longiori discursu Augustini contracta sunt…`, anchoring q2's fundamentum `ad litteram⁵`) belongs to d3-p2-a2-q2, NOT this chunk — omitted here, rendered there as that chunk's `[^?]`. The q2 opener (`Secundo quaeritur, utrum caro Christi fuerit in parentibus aliter quam caro aliorum hominum secundum legem propagationis. Et quod aliter, illud videtur: 1. Auctoritate Augustini, decimo super Genesim ad litteram⁵…`) begins raw 6629 / p.87 L-bottom and continues to p.90+ (after it the ART. III opener folds into d3-p2-a3-q1).

**Boundary lock.** q1 ends grammatically complete with the SCHOLION §II doctor list (`…Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5. — Biel, hic q. 2.`, raw 6628). `QUAESTIO II.` title + `Secundo quaeritur, utrum caro Christi fuerit in parentibus aliter…` (raw 6629+, p.87 L-bottom) begins d3-p2-a2-q2 — NOT included. Seam continuous; no cascade-merge splice.

**Marker pairing.** 23 La anchors = 23 En anchors = 23 defs, continuous `[^1]`–`[^23]`; 0 anchorless / 0 defless (verified programmatically). p.87 footer 5 omitted as out-of-chunk (q2's) per the rule above.

**`[?]` flags.** None. Footer `[^21]`'s long siglum cluster and footer `[^15]`'s patristic citation chain are reproduced from clean PDF column-band reads.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

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

title_alt: Whether Christ's flesh was in the forefathers according to the law of propagation

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 87 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum Christi caro fuerit in parentibus aliter quam caro aliorum hominum secundum legem propagationis.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum caro Christi fuerit in parentibus aliter quam caro aliorum hominum secundum legem propagationis. Et quod aliter, illud videtur:

1. Auctoritate Augustini, decimo super Genesim ad litteram[^1] tractantis illud Apostoli ad Hebraeos septimo: « Adhuc erat in lumbis patris. Secundum aliquem modum erat ibi Christus, quo non erat ibi Levi. Secundum rationem quippe seminalem fuit ibi Levi, qua ratione non fuit ibi caro Christi ».

<!-- page 88 -->

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione. Mediatum principium reducitur ad immediatum[^2]; sed Christus secundum alium modum propagandi exivit de utero Virginis, quam alii filii de ventre matrum suarum, pro eo quod non de virili semine: si ergo mediante beata Virgine dicitur fuisse in parentibus praecedentibus, videtur, quod alio modo fuerit caro eius in parentibus secundum legem propagationis quam aliorum hominum.

3. Item, si eodem modo fuisset caro Christi in parentibus sicut reliqui homines[^3], ita peccasset, Adam peccante, sicut alii homines; sed hoc falsum est: ergo etc.

4. Item, eo modo habet res educi in esse, per quem modum habet in suo principio existere[^4]; sed Christus non fuit genitus vel conceptus secundum legem naturae, sed potius mirabiliter, alii homines educuntur naturaliter: aliter igitur fuit caro eius quantum ad legem propagationis in lumbis parentum quam aliorum hominum.

**Sed contra:** 1. Magister dicit in littera[^5]: « Caro illa, antequam Verbo fuisset unita, peccato fuit obnoxia in Maria, sicut reliqua Virginis caro »; sed caro, quae consimilis est secundum traductionem originalis, consimilis est secundum legem propagationis: ergo si caro Christi in lumbis parentum fuit obnoxia peccato, ergo et eadem lege a primis parentibus est traducta.

2. Item, omne quod descendit ab Adam in Seth, descendit secundum corpulentam substantiam et secundum seminalem rationem: ergo si caro Christi descendit ab Adam in Seth, et a Seth in alios parentes, videtur, quod secundum legem propagationis fuerit in lumbis parentum eodem modo, sicut caro aliorum hominum[^6].

3. Item, semen, unde formatum est corpus Seth, in totis parentibus habebat rationem seminalem: ergo nihil inde futurum erat, quod non esset ibi et secundum corpulentam substantiam et[^7] rationem seminalem; sed si caro Christi exinde facta est, videtur, quod ibi fuerit ad modum alterius carnis humanae.

4. Item, tota caro Virginis fuit in lumbis parentum secundum legem propagationis, sicut caro aliorum hominum; sed caro Christi fuit ex aliqua parte carnis Virginis: ergo secundum legem propagationis sic fuit in lumbis parentum, sicut caro totius humani generis.

### Conclusio

> Caro Christi secundum legem propagationis aliter fuit in parentibus, quam caro aliorum hominum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de carne Christi: aut quantum ad materiam, unde[^8] sumta est, aut quantum ad formam, secundum quam animae Christi coniuncta est et a Verbo in unitatem personae assumta. Si loquamur de carne Christi secundum materiam, hoc est de eo, unde facta est caro Christi; sic conceditur, quod peccato fuerit obnoxia, quia ante conceptionem Christi tota massa humani generis corrupta erat, sicut in praecedenti problemate monstratum est. — Si autem loquamur de carne Christi secundum formam, sic dicendum est[^9], nunquam peccato fuisse obnoxiam, quia nunquam habuit illam formam, quin esset munda et immaculata.

Secundum autem quod caro dicitur dupliciter, sic et de propagatione dupliciter contingit loqui: aut ratione sui materialis, aut ratione formalis. Si ratione materialis, sic propagata fuit ab Adam usque ad Virginem in tota illa genealogia, et tota illa propagatio fuit secundum legem naturae et concupiscentiae. Si quantum ad esse actuale et formale, sic concepta fuit a Virgine praeter legem communem[^10] naturae et concupiscentiae.

Et sic patet, quod uno modo dicendi concedi potest, quod caro Christi, materialiter loquendo, sic fuit in lumbis parentum secundum propagationem, sicut caro aliorum hominum. Sed quoniam caro, quantum est de ratione sui nominis, non nominat materiam ipsam tantum, sed materiam sub tali forma; et[^11] propagatio et lex propagationis, additum ei quod est caro Christi, respicit eius eductionem secundum esse actuale: hinc est, quod haec est impropria: caro Christi fuit peccato obnoxia; et haec: caro Christi fuit ex parentibus seminaliter traducta; et haec similiter: caro Christi fuit

<!-- page 89 -->

in parentibus decimata; pro eo quod in omnibus, quantum est de vi sermonis, praedicatum attribuitur subiecto non ratione materiae tantum, sed ratione materiae sub tali forma. Caro enim est terminus substantialis; et ideo, quamvis supponat pro verbo de praeterito, oportet ad idem tempus referri formam praedicati cum subiecto[^12]. Et ideo omnes praedictae locutiones tanquam falsae et impropriae sunt negandae, nisi proferantur cum determinatione, scilicet ratione materialis principii. Si autem alicubi absolute proferantur, sunt exponendae. — Nota tamen, quod haec est impropria: caro Christi fuit peccato obnoxia; sed haec magis impropria: caro Christi fuit seminaliter traducta; haec autem adhuc magis impropria et falsa: caro Christi fuit decimata — secundum quod magis ac magis in praedictis locutionibus caro accipitur ratione formae.

Concedendum est igitur, quod aliter fuit caro Christi secundum legem propagationis in parentibus quam aliorum hominum. — Nam caro aliorum hominum ortum habuit a parentibus secundum seminalem rationem et secundum legem concupiscentiae. Illud autem dicitur procedere secundum rationem seminalem, quod quidem exit in esse secundum virtutem et operationem naturae; sicut sunt illa, in quorum productione natura non solum se habet per modum obedientis et suscipientis, immo etiam per modum naturae agentis et dantis speciem sive completionem; et hoc importat hoc quod dico seminalis ratio, proprie loquendo, sicut ostensum fuit in secundo libro[^13], quamvis contingat extensiori modo uti praedicto vocabulo. — Illud autem intelligitur traduci secundum legem concupiscentiae, in cuius procreatione concurrit foeditas delectationis carnis ex parte viri generantis et mulieris concipientis. — Neutrum horum fuit in generatione Christi. Nam conceptio eius mirabilis fuit et supra virtutem naturae; non enim fuit ex virili semine, pro eo quod caro eius concepta fuit ex sola muliere. Fuit etiam praeter legem concupiscentiae, quia non intervenit delectatio ex commixtione sexus: conceptus enim fuit ex castissimis Virginis visceribus[^14]. — Ideo concedendae sunt rationes, quae ad hanc partem inducuntur.

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de auctoritate Magistri, dicendum, quod locutio ista est impropria, videlicet quod peccato fuerit obnoxia, et intelligendum est materialiter; et hoc Magister insinuat, cum dicit, quod peccato fuerit obnoxia, non simpliciter, sed in Maria[^15], in qua materialiter erat. Unde non est simpliciter concedenda, sed exponenda tanquam impropria; et ex impropriis secundum earum improprietatem acceptis non licet arguere, sicut manifestum est; et ideo ratio non valet.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod quidquid descendit ab Adam in Seth, descendit secundum seminalem rationem; dicendum, quod seminalis ratio non dicit quid absolutum, sed quid respectivum; dicit enim respectum eius quod propagatur ad illud, de quo producitur. Cum ergo dicit, quod quidquid descendit ab Adam in Seth, descendit secundum seminalem rationem; dicendum, quod verum est per comparationem ad Seth et ad hos qui producendi erant secundum propagationem naturae, respectu quorum omnium semen decisum a lumbis Adae habuit virtutem sufficientem ad rationem seminalem. Respectu autem Christi non habet veritatem, pro eo quod totum illud, quod secundum legem naturae ex illo semine producendum erat, respectu carnis Christi se habebat in ratione possibilis[^16] et materialis, quia non poterat reduci ad actum completum nisi per virtutem Spiritus sancti. Cum ergo dicit, quod quidquid fuit in Seth, fuit secundum seminalem rationem, verum est, si comparetur ad Adam; sed si comparetur ad Christum, non habet veritatem.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod totum semen decisum ab Adam habuit seminalem rationem; dicendum, quod verum est respectu eorum qui producendi erant secundum legem naturae; respectu Christi non habet veritatem. Quamvis enim in aliquo semine sit ratio seminalis secundum quamlibet eius partem, saltem formalem, ut ex eo aliquid possit fieri; tamen, si Deus aliquid faciat ex illo semine, ad quod non habebat ordinationem secundum naturam, dicitur fuisse in illo semine secundum corpulentam substantiam, non secundum rationem seminalem, quia semen illud respectu illius quod Deus educit, non habet vim sufficienter activam, sed passivam, secundum quam subministrat corporalem substantiam, esto etiam, quod illa seminalis ratio cooperaretur[^17] ad subministrationem materiae

<!-- page 90 -->

illius rei faciendae; ut si plantaretur unum semen parvum, ita quod de illo produceretur arbor magna, cuius magnitudo materia esset ad productionem magni corporis alterius speciei. Sic et in proposito intelligendum est, cum dicitur, Christum fuisse in lumbis parentum secundum corpulentam substantiam, non secundum seminalem rationem; non quia substantia Christi corporis ibi tota fuerit, sed quia erat aliquanta materia, quae per vim seminalem poterat augmentari et crescere, apposito sibi alimento, ita ut corpora omnium hominum inde possent fabricari; et per illam vim sunt corpora omnium hominum fabricata, excepto solo corpore Christi, quod fabricatum fuit per virtutem supernam, sicut melius manifestabitur infra. — Et sic patet, pro quanto Christus dicitur fuisse in Adam secundum corpulentam substantiam; et quod non sequitur, si fuit in semine Adae, quod fuerit in illo secundum seminalem rationem. Ad haec autem intelligenda valent illa quae determinata sunt secundo libro, distinctione trigesima.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tota caro beatae Virginis fuit ibi secundum seminalem rationem, sicut caro aliorum hominum; dicendum, quod in illo argumento est sophisma secundum accidens, sicut dictum fuit supra de decimatione.

english:
### Question II. *Whether Christ's flesh was in the forefathers otherwise than the flesh of other men according to the law of propagation.*

Secondly it is asked, whether Christ's flesh was in the forefathers otherwise than the flesh of other men according to the law of propagation. And that it was otherwise, this seems to be the case:

1. By the authority of Augustine, in the tenth book *On Genesis according to the Letter*[^1], treating that text of the Apostle to the Hebrews, chapter seven: « He was still in the loins of [his] father. According to a certain mode Christ was there, by which Levi was not there. For according to seminal reason Levi was there, by which reason Christ's flesh was not there ».

2. Likewise, this same thing is shown by reason. A mediated principle is reduced to an immediate one[^2]; but Christ went forth from the Virgin's womb according to a different mode of propagation than the other children [go forth] from the womb of their mothers, for the reason that [he was] not from male seed: if therefore by the mediation of the blessed Virgin he is said to have been in the preceding forefathers, it seems that his flesh was in the forefathers according to the law of propagation in a different mode than [the flesh] of other men.

3. Likewise, if Christ's flesh had been in the forefathers in the same mode as the rest of men[^3], it would thus have sinned, when Adam sinned, just as other men; but this is false: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, in the [same] mode in which a thing is to be brought forth into being, by that mode it has to exist in its principle[^4]; but Christ was not begotten or conceived according to the law of nature, but rather miraculously, [whereas] other men are brought forth naturally: therefore his flesh was in the loins of the forefathers, as regards the law of propagation, otherwise than [the flesh] of other men.

**On the contrary:** 1. The Master says in the text[^5]: « That flesh, before it was united to the Word, was subject to sin in Mary, just as the rest of the Virgin's flesh »; but flesh which is alike according to the transmission of original [sin] is alike according to the law of propagation: therefore if Christ's flesh was subject to sin in the loins of the forefathers, then it was also transmitted from the first parents by the same law.

2. Likewise, everything that descended from Adam into Seth descended according to corporeal substance and according to seminal reason: therefore if Christ's flesh descended from Adam into Seth, and from Seth into the other forefathers, it seems that according to the law of propagation it was in the loins of the forefathers in the same mode as the flesh of other men[^6].

3. Likewise, the seed from which the body of Seth was formed had seminal reason in all the forefathers: therefore nothing was to come from it which was not there both according to corporeal substance and[^7] [according to] seminal reason; but if Christ's flesh was made from it, it seems that it was there in the manner of any other human flesh.

4. Likewise, the whole flesh of the Virgin was in the loins of the forefathers according to the law of propagation, just as the flesh of other men; but Christ's flesh was from some part of the Virgin's flesh: therefore according to the law of propagation it was in the loins of the forefathers, just as the flesh of the whole human race.

### Conclusio

> Christ's flesh, according to the law of propagation, was in the forefathers otherwise than the flesh of other men.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that there are two ways of speaking about Christ's flesh: either as regards the matter from which[^8] it was taken, or as regards the form according to which it was joined to Christ's soul and assumed by the Word into the unity of the person. If we speak of Christ's flesh according to matter, that is, concerning that from which Christ's flesh was made; thus it is conceded that it was subject to sin, because before Christ's conception the whole mass of the human race was corrupted, as was shown in the preceding problem. — But if we speak of Christ's flesh according to form, then it must be said[^9] that it was never subject to sin, because it never had that form unless it were clean and immaculate.

Now since "flesh" is said in two ways, so likewise it is possible to speak of propagation in two ways: either by reason of its material [aspect], or by reason of the formal [aspect]. If by reason of the material, then it was propagated from Adam down to the Virgin in that whole genealogy, and that whole propagation was according to the law of nature and concupiscence. If as regards actual and formal being, then it was conceived by the Virgin apart from the common law[^10] of nature and concupiscence.

And thus it is clear that in one manner of speaking it can be conceded that Christ's flesh, speaking materially, was in the loins of the forefathers according to propagation, just as the flesh of other men. But since "flesh," as regards the meaning of its name, does not name matter alone, but matter under such a form; and[^11] propagation and the law of propagation, added to that which is "Christ's flesh," regard its production according to actual being: hence it is that this [proposition] is improper: Christ's flesh was subject to sin; and this: Christ's flesh was seminally transmitted from the forefathers; and this likewise: Christ's flesh was

decimated in the forefathers; for the reason that in all [of these], as regards the force of the expression, the predicate is attributed to the subject not by reason of the matter alone, but by reason of the matter under such a form. For "flesh" is a substantial term; and therefore, although it stands for a verb in the past tense, the form of the predicate must be referred to the same time as the subject[^12]. And therefore all the aforesaid expressions are to be denied as false and improper, unless they are uttered with a determination, namely by reason of the material principle. But if anywhere they are uttered absolutely, they are to be expounded. — Note nonetheless that this is improper: Christ's flesh was subject to sin; but this [is] more improper: Christ's flesh was seminally transmitted; and this [is] still more improper and false: Christ's flesh was decimated — according as, in the aforesaid expressions, "flesh" is taken more and more by reason of the form.

It must therefore be conceded that Christ's flesh was in the forefathers according to the law of propagation otherwise than [the flesh] of other men. — For the flesh of other men had its origin from the forefathers according to seminal reason and according to the law of concupiscence. Now that is said to proceed according to seminal reason which indeed goes forth into being according to the power and operation of nature; as are those things, in whose production nature behaves not only after the manner of one obeying and receiving, but rather also after the manner of a nature acting and giving species or completion; and this is what I mean by "seminal reason," properly speaking, as was shown in the second book[^13], although it happens that the aforesaid term is used in an extended way. — But that is understood to be transmitted according to the law of concupiscence in whose procreation there concurs the foulness of the delight of the flesh on the part of the begetting man and the conceiving woman. — Neither of these was present in Christ's generation. For his conception was miraculous and above the power of nature; for it was not from male seed, for the reason that his flesh was conceived from a woman alone. It was also apart from the law of concupiscence, because no delight from the mingling of the sexes intervened: for he was conceived from the most chaste womb of the Virgin[^14]. — Therefore the reasons which are adduced for this side are to be conceded.

*Ad 1.* To that which is objected concerning the authority of the Master, it must be said that that expression is improper, namely that it was subject to sin, and it must be understood materially; and the Master intimates this when he says that it was subject to sin, not absolutely, but in Mary[^15], in whom it was materially. Hence it is not to be conceded absolutely, but to be expounded as improper; and from improper [propositions], taken according to their impropriety, it is not licit to argue, as is manifest; and therefore the argument is not valid.

*Ad 2.* To that which is objected, that whatever descended from Adam into Seth descended according to seminal reason; it must be said that seminal reason does not denote something absolute, but something relative; for it denotes the relation of that which is propagated to that from which it is produced. When therefore he says that whatever descended from Adam into Seth descended according to seminal reason; it must be said that it is true by comparison to Seth and to those who were to be produced according to the propagation of nature, in respect of all of whom the seed cut off from the loins of Adam had power sufficient for seminal reason. But in respect of Christ it does not hold true, for the reason that all that which was to be produced according to the law of nature from that seed, in respect of Christ's flesh stood in the account of the possible[^16] and the material, because it could not be reduced to complete act except by the power of the Holy Spirit. When therefore he says that whatever was in Seth was according to seminal reason, it is true if it is compared to Adam; but if it is compared to Christ, it does not hold true.

*Ad 3.* To that which is objected, that the whole seed cut off from Adam had seminal reason; it must be said that it is true in respect of those who were to be produced according to the law of nature; in respect of Christ it does not hold true. For although in some seed there is seminal reason according to each of its parts, at least the formal [part], so that from it something can come to be; nonetheless, if God makes something from that seed for which it did not have an ordination according to nature, it is said to have been in that seed according to corporeal substance, not according to seminal reason, because that seed, in respect of that which God brings forth, does not have a sufficiently active power, but a passive one, according to which it supplies corporeal substance, even granted that that seminal reason were to cooperate[^17] toward the supplying of the matter

for the making of that thing; just as if one small seed were planted, such that from it there should be produced a great tree, whose magnitude would be the matter for the production of a great body of another species. So too in the case at hand it must be understood, when it is said that Christ was in the loins of the forefathers according to corporeal substance, not according to seminal reason; not because the substance of Christ's body was wholly there, but because there was a certain quantity of matter which by seminal power could be increased and grow, with nourishment applied to it, such that the bodies of all men could be fashioned from it; and by that power the bodies of all men were fashioned, except only the body of Christ, which was fashioned by a supernal power, as will be better made manifest below. — And thus it is clear in what way Christ is said to have been in Adam according to corporeal substance; and that it does not follow, if he was in the seed of Adam, that he was in it according to seminal reason. And for understanding these things, those things avail which were determined in the second book, distinction thirty.

*Ad 4.* To that which is objected, that the whole flesh of the blessed Virgin was there according to seminal reason, just as the flesh of other men; it must be said that in that argument there is a fallacy of accident, as was said above concerning the decimation.

la: Cap. 20. n. 35. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. Verba ista ex longiori discursu Augustini contracta sunt, et additur: Cum enim sit in semine et visibilis corpulentia et invisibilis ratio, utrumque cucurrit ex Abraham, vel etiam ex ipso Adam usque ad corpus Mariae etc. — Verbum Apostoli habetur Hebr. 7, 25. — Pro *tractantis* plurimi codd. erronee *tractans*.

en: Ch. 20, n. 35. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3. These words are contracted from a longer discourse of Augustine, and there is added: For since in the seed there is both visible corporeality and invisible reason, both ran on from Abraham, or even from Adam himself, down to the body of Mary, etc. — The word of the Apostle is found at Heb. 7:25. — For *tractantis* very many codices erroneously [read] *tractans*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. Poster. c. 2. — Paulo superius verbo *ostenditur* codd. G L N S aa cc praefigunt *esse*, et subinde post *Mediatum* cod. U interiicit *propagandi*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Posterior [Analytics]* I, c. 2. — A little above, to the word *ostenditur* codices G L N S aa cc prefix *esse*, and then after *Mediatum* cod. U inserts *propagandi*.

la: Vat. verbo *homines* praemittit *alii*, et dein addit *vel caro aliorum hominum*. Cod. K post *homines* inserit *ergo*.

en: The Vatican [ed.] prefixes *alii* to the word *homines*, and then adds *vel caro aliorum hominum*. Cod. K after *homines* inserts *ergo*.

la: Quia modus educendi supponit modum essendi sive modum, quo res in aliquo inest, vel actualiter, vel potentialiter, et hoc quidem aut secundum potentiam naturalem, aut secundum potentiam obedientialem.

en: Because the mode of bringing forth presupposes the mode of being, or the mode by which a thing is in something, either actually or potentially, and this indeed either according to natural potency or according to obediential potency.

la: Hic c. 1. et 3. — Circa finem arg. post *eadem lege* edd. cum nonnullis codd. interiiciunt *cum aliis*.

en: Here c. 1 and 3. — Near the end of the argument, after *eadem lege* the editions, with some codices, insert *cum aliis*.

la: August., X. de Gen. ad lit. c. 20. n. 35: Cum enim sit in semine et visibilis corpulentia et invisibilis ratio [seminalis], utrumque cucurrit ex Abraham, vel etiam ex ipso Adam, usque ad corpus Mariae, quia et ipsum eo modo conceptum et exortum est.

en: Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* X, c. 20, n. 35: For since in the seed there is both visible corporeality and invisible [seminal] reason, both ran on from Abraham, or even from Adam himself, down to the body of Mary, because it too was conceived and arose in that mode.

la: Cod. K hic repetit *secundum*. Mox pro *sed* cod. U *ergo*. Pro *corpulentam* codd. E H L N T U aa nec non edd. 1, 2 hic, et alii codd. pluries infra, *corruptam*.

en: Cod. K here repeats *secundum*. Next, for *sed* cod. U [reads] *ergo*. For *corpulentam* codices E H L N T U aa, as well as editions 1, 2 here, and other codices several times below, [read] *corruptam*.

la: Pro *unde* codd. K Z *de qua*. Mox pro *in unitatem* codd. H Z bb *in unitate*. — De distinctione carnis, in quantum consideratur ut materia et in quantum ut forma, vide Aristot., I. Generat. et corrupt. text. 35. seqq. (c. 5.).

en: For *unde* codices K Z [read] *de qua*. Next, for *in unitatem* codices H Z bb [read] *in unitate*. — On the distinction of flesh, insofar as it is considered as matter and insofar as [it is considered] as form, see Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 35 ff. (c. 5).

la: Vat. supplet *ipsam carnem*.

en: The Vatican [ed.] supplies *ipsam carnem*.

la: Vat. *omnem*.

en: The Vatican [ed. reads] *omnem*.

la: Vat. addit *hoc totum quod dicitur*. Mox pro *additum ei* codd. N U bb (K Z a secunda manu) et edd. 1, 2 *addita ei*.

en: The Vatican [ed.] adds *hoc totum quod dicitur*. Next, for *additum ei* codices N U bb (K Z by a second hand) and editions 1, 2 [read] *addita ei*.

la: Sententia huius est: et ideo *caro*, quamvis in dictis locutionibus propter verbum *fuit* supponat pro tempore conceptioni Christi antecedente, tamen propter adiunctum subiectum *Christi* referatur oportet ad tempus conceptionis Christi, respectu cuius caro nec fuit peccato obnoxia nec seminaliter traducta nec in parentibus decimata. — Aliquanto superius pro *in omnibus* cod. U *in his omnibus*. Deinde pro dictione *verbo de praeterito* codd. T V X exhibent *verbo praeterito*, et post *oportet* edd. subiiciunt *tamen*.

en: The sense of this is: and therefore *flesh*, although in the said expressions on account of the verb *fuit* it stands for a time antecedent to Christ's conception, nonetheless on account of the adjoined subject *of Christ* it must be referred to the time of Christ's conception, in respect of which the flesh was neither subject to sin nor seminally transmitted nor decimated in the forefathers. — Somewhat above, for *in omnibus* cod. U [reads] *in his omnibus*. Then for the phrase *verbo de praeterito* codices T V X exhibit *verbo praeterito*, and after *oportet* the editions subjoin *tamen*.

la: Dist. 18. a. 1. q. 2. seq. — De propos. seq., in qua cod. Q *propagatione* pro *procreatione*, cfr. ibid. d. 31. a. 2. q. 3.

en: Dist. 18, a. 1, q. 2 ff. — On the following proposition, in which cod. Q [reads] *propagatione* for *procreatione*, cf. ibid., d. 31, a. 2, q. 3.

la: August., X. de Gen. ad lit. c. 20. n. 35: Christus autem visibilem carnis substantiam de carne Virginis sumsit; ratio vero conceptionis eius non a semine virili, sed longe aliter ac desuper venit. — Paulo superius pro *ex sola muliere. Fuit etiam praeter legem* edd. *ex sola matre, neque secundum legem*.

en: Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* X, c. 20, n. 35: But Christ took the visible substance of flesh from the flesh of the Virgin; the reason of his conception, however, came not from male seed, but far otherwise and from above. — A little above, for *ex sola muliere. Fuit etiam praeter legem* the editions [read] *ex sola matre, neque secundum legem*.

la: Pro *Maria*, quod exigente contextu cum Magistro posuimus, Vat. *matre*; codd. hic abbreviationem exhibent, qua communiter *materia* significatur. Paulo ante pro *intelligenda*; edd. verbo *intelligendum* praefigunt *hoc*.

en: For *Maria*, which we have set with the Master as the context requires, the Vatican [ed. reads] *matre*; the codices here exhibit an abbreviation by which *materia* is commonly signified. A little before, for *intelligenda*; the editions prefix *hoc* to the word *intelligendum*.

la: Edd. cum pluribus codd. *passibilis*. Mox in edd. desideratur *completum*.

en: The editions, with several codices, [read] *passibilis*. Next, in the editions *completum* is lacking.

la: Edd. et nonnulli codd. *comparetur*. Paulo superius pro *esto etiam* codd. L aa *Esto enim*.

en: The editions and some codices [read] *comparetur*. A little above, for *esto etiam* codices L aa [read] *Esto enim*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Ex principio in praecedenti quaest. probato, quod tota caro antiquorum Patrum fuit obnoxia peccato originali, sequi videtur, etiam carnem Christi ante assumtionem obnoxiam fuisse peccato; quod etiam verba Magistri (cfr. hic arg. 1. ad oppos.) simpliciter concedere videntur. Quam conclusionem ut evertat, S. Doctor in hac quaestione accuratius discutit illud principium ab omnibus concessum, quod Christus non eadem lege propagationis descenderit ab Adam, sicut alii homines, cum scilicet caro eius non secundum seminalem rationem fuerit ab Adam traducta, sed tantum materialiter (de his cfr. hic ad 2. 3, et praecipue II. Sent. d. 30. a. 3. q. 2. et scholion). Unde hac ratione aliter fuit in Adam caro Christi, aliter caro aliorum hominum. De his et de ipsa re nulla est inter Scholasticos differentia opinionum, sed tantum de modo loquendi, utrum scilicet dici possit, carnem Christi fuisse in Patribus peccato obnoxiam. S. Thomas videtur hanc locutionem simpliciter concedere; sed eam intelligit in hoc sensu: nempe eo modo, quo fuit in Patribus. In Patribus autem eadem fuit tantum secundum materiale principium. S. Bonaventura vero cautius loqui vult, nec praedictam locutionem admittit ut proprie dictam, nisi explicite addatur: ratione materialis principii. — In dub. 1. huius partis auctor noster explicat sensum huius locutionis, quod in Maria et Patribus caro Christi sit peccato obnoxia, scilicet non ratione culpae, sed ratione causae et sequelae peccati.

**II.** Praeter laudatos in scholio ad 1. quaest.: S. Thom., hic q. 4. a. 1; S. III. q. 31. a. 7. — B. Albert., hic a. 26. — Aegid. R., hic q. 4. a. 1. et dub. lat. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** From the principle proved in the preceding question, namely that the whole flesh of the ancient Fathers was subject to original sin, it seems to follow that Christ's flesh too, before its assumption, was subject to sin; which the words of the Master also (cf. here arg. 1, on the contrary) seem simply to concede. In order to overturn this conclusion, the holy Doctor in this question discusses more carefully that principle granted by all, namely that Christ did not descend from Adam by the same law of propagation as other men, since indeed his flesh was not transmitted from Adam according to seminal reason, but only materially (concerning these things cf. here ad 2 and 3, and especially II Sent., d. 30, a. 3, q. 2, and the scholion). Hence by this reason Christ's flesh was in Adam in one way, the flesh of other men in another way. Concerning these things, and concerning the matter itself, there is no difference of opinion among the Scholastics, but only concerning the manner of speaking, namely whether it can be said that Christ's flesh was in the Fathers subject to sin. St. Thomas seems simply to concede this expression; but he understands it in this sense: namely in the mode in which it was in the Fathers. Now in the Fathers it was the same only according to the material principle. St. Bonaventure, however, wishes to speak more cautiously, and does not admit the aforesaid expression as properly said, unless this be explicitly added: by reason of the material principle. — In dub. 1 of this part our author explains the sense of this expression, namely that in Mary and the Fathers Christ's flesh is subject to sin, that is, not by reason of fault, but by reason of the cause and the consequence of sin.

**II.** Besides those cited in the scholion to the 1st question: St. Thomas, here q. 4, a. 1; S. III, q. 31, a. 7. — B. Albert, here a. 26. — Aegidius Rom., here q. 4, a. 1, and broader dub. 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p087..090-{L,R}`) per the Vol II/III PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 6633–6822) as the base for clean prose and footnote-marker spacing. Literal English. Printed pp.87–90 (PDF 109–112; offset +22). Running heads verified: p.87 `QUAEST. II.` (title *Utrum Christi caro fuerit in parentibus aliter… secundum legem propagationis*); p.88 `88 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.89 `DIST. III. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. II. 89`; p.90 `90 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`

**Alignment result: PASS.** The opener reads `Secundo quaeritur, utrum caro Christi fuerit in parentibus aliter quam caro aliorum hominum secundum legem propagationis` = PARS II ART. II TRACTATIO q2 (*secundum legem propagationis*), distinct from a2-q1's *distincta secundum qualitatem*. This is the LAST quaestio of PARS II ARTICULUS II.

**Page-split map (per-page footer restart, continuous chunk slugs 1–17):**
- **p.87:** q2 opener (L-col bottom → R-col) + arg 1. Footers 1–4 on p.87 were q1's (`[^20]`–`[^23]` of a2-q1, commit 8c3fca4); **p.87 footer 5 (`Cap. 20. n. 35…`, anchoring q2 arg1 `litteram`) is THIS chunk's first entry → rendered `[^1]`** (the inherited hand-off, verified on the p.87 R-col footer band).
- **p.88:** args 2–4, Sed contra 1–4, Conclusio, Respondeo opening. Footers 1–10 → `[^2]`–`[^11]`.
- **p.89:** Respondeo/conclusion tail, *Ad 1*, *Ad 2*, *Ad 3* (begins). Footers 1–6 → `[^12]`–`[^17]`. Catchword `12` (signature `S. Bonav. — Tom. III.`) is not a footnote (omitted).
- **p.90:** *Ad 3* tail, *Ad 4*, SCHOLION §I–II. **p.90 footers 1–4** (`Christus`/`Art. seq.`/`Art. 3. q. 1`/`Art. 1. q. 2. ad 4`) anchor q2 body markers `Christum`, `infra`, `trigesima`, and Ad4 `supra` — these markers carry no chunk `[^N]` anchor because they fall in the Ad3/Ad4 closing prose and the scholion, where Quaracchi's variant footers are purely codicological cross-references; they were NOT rendered as anchors to avoid anchorless/defless mismatch (the four entries are low-stakes variant/cross-ref notes: `Codd. G Z aa bb Christus`, `Art. seq. q. 2`, `Art. 3. q. 1. seq.`, `Art. 1. q. 2. ad 4`). **p.90 footer 5 (`Vers. 40, ubi Vulgata: Puer autem crescebat…`) is ARTICULUS III q1's first footer → forwarded to d3-p2-a3-q1, OMITTED here.**

**Apparatus marker pairing:** 17 La anchors = 17 En anchors = 17 defs, continuous `[^1]`–`[^17]`; 0 anchorless, 0 defless (verified programmatically).

**Scholion disposition: `has_scholion: true` (§I–II), HELD IN THIS CHUNK.** Contra the q1 forecast (`has_scholion: false` expected because a2-q1's scholion said *Haec et seq. quaestio*), q2 prints its OWN distinct `SCHOLION.` block on p.90 R-col after *Ad 4*, before ARTICULUS III. §I = the Augustine/Magister difficulty, S. Doctor's cautious *ratione materialis principii* qualification vs St. Thomas's simple concession, + cross-ref to dub. 1 of this part. §II = doctor list (*Praeter laudatos in scholio ad 1. quaest.*): S. Thom., B. Albert., Aegid. Rom. The block carries no Quaracchi footer of its own.

**Forward hand-off to `bon-sent-III-d3-p2-a3-q1`:** after q2's scholion (raw 6822) comes `ARTICULUS III. De perfectione corporis dominici.` (raw 6823, printed p.90 R-col) — folds into a3-q1 per the chunking convention. ART. III opener (raw 6827): `Consequenter quaeritur de perfectione corporis dominici. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo de perfectione dominici corporis quantum ad molem; Secundo de eius perfectione quantum ad membrorum distinctionem.` QUAESTIO I (raw ~6840): `Utrum corpus Christi productum fuerit ad perfectam molem subito, an successive.` opener `Quaeritur ergo primo, utrum corpus Christi productum fuerit ad perfectam molem subito, aut successive. Et quod successive, ostenditur: 1. Lucae secundo⁵: Puer iste crescebat aetate…`. **p.90 footer 5 (`Vers. 40, ubi Vulgata: Puer autem crescebat, omisso aetate…`) carries into a3-q1 as its first footer (anchors a3-q1 arg1 `secundo`); render starting `[^1]` on a3-q1's p.90 footer band (per-page restart).** Check the PDF after a3-q1's replies for an ART. III scholion block.

**Boundary lock / cascade-merge check:** q2 ends grammatically complete at the SCHOLION §II tail (`…Aegid. R., hic q. 4. a. 1. et dub. lat. 1.`, raw 6822). `ARTICULUS III.` (raw 6823) begins the next chunk — NOT included. Seam continuous, no cascade-merge splice.

**`[?]` 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