Dist. 1, Art. 2, Q. 3
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/1/q/bon-sent-III-d1-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Which of the three persons was more fitting for the incarnation.*

Thirdly it is asked, which of the three persons was more fitting for the incarnation. And it is shown first, that the person of the *Father* [was].

*Concerning the Father.*

1. For to recreate belongs to him to whom it belongs to create; but creation is most attributed and proper to the power of the Father, therefore also recreation: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems that the incarnation [belongs to him] as well.

2. Likewise, to adopt sons belongs to him to whom it belongs to beget; but the incarnation is ordered to adoption, as is said in Galatians 4: therefore it seems that it most belongs to him to whom it belongs to beget: therefore it most belongs to the Father to be incarnate.

3. Likewise, the Son has the whole of what he has from the Father: therefore it is more fitting for the Father to have something which the Son does not have, than for the Son to have something which the Father does not have: if therefore the incarnation makes human nature be had by the person who is incarnate, it seems that this more belongs to the person of the Father than to the person of the Son.

That it more belongs to the person of the *Holy Spirit* is shown:

4. Because that which most has the character of grace most belongs to the mission of the Holy Spirit; but that God became man is the highest grace, as Augustine holds in the thirteenth book of *On the Trinity*: therefore it seems that this ought rather to be in the person of the Holy Spirit than in the person of the Son.

5. Likewise, the Spirit of love makes us adoptive sons of God, according to that text of Romans 8: *You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear, but the spirit* etc.: therefore if the incarnation exists in order that we may become adoptive sons of God, it seems that the incarnation ought most to be in the person of the Holy Spirit.

6. Likewise, to be sent expresses a subordinate authority in the one sent, therefore being sent more belongs to him in whom the character of subordinate authority is more found; but the character of subordinate authority is more found in the person of the Holy Spirit than of the Son: therefore if the incarnation is a being-sent into flesh, it seems that it more befits the Holy Spirit than the Son.

That it more befits the *Son* is seen as follows.

*Concerning the Son. The arguments.*

1. It more befits the middle person to hold the role of mediator than another; but the incarnation is ordered to the effect of a mediator, and the middle person in the Trinity is the person of the Word: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it more befits the Son of God to be the son of a man than another person; but through the incarnation the one who is incarnate is made the son of the Virgin: therefore it seems that for the person of the Son to be incarnate is more becoming and fitting.

3. Likewise, it is more fitting for the Son to supplicate the Father than another person; but the incarnation is ordered to this, that there be some mediator who intercedes with God on behalf of men: therefore etc.

### Conclusio.

> It was more fitting for the Son to be incarnate than another divine person.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that the person of the Word, among the other persons, was more fitting for the incarnation, whether we speak of the incarnation in itself, or insofar as it is ordered to the redemption of the human race.

*First, threefold reason.* For if we speak of the incarnation in itself, it was more congruous for the person of the Son to be incarnate, both insofar as he is *Image*, and insofar as he is *Word*, and insofar as he is *Son*. Insofar as he is *Image*, because man was assumable by reason of the dignity of the image; and because the Son is the Image of the Father, therefore it was more fitting that the person of the Son should assume the creature. — *Again*, because the Son of God is the Word of the Father, he proceeds from him in such a way that the Father manifests himself through him; and therefore, just as for the manifestation of an intention the intelligible word is joined to a sensible voice, so for the revelation of the divinity it was congruous that the Word of the Father be united to flesh. — *Lastly*, because the Son is once begotten from eternity, and thus it was congruous that God should assume flesh, so as to be of the race of men, and so the son of a man; and therefore it became him to be incarnate rather than the Father or the Holy Spirit. And this is what Augustine says in the book *On the Trinity*, and the Master in the text, that the Son of God « sought nothing but a mother on earth, because he already had a Father in heaven ». — It was therefore more becoming for the Son to be incarnate than another person, if we speak of the incarnation in itself.

*Second, threefold reason.* It was also more congruous, if we speak of the incarnation by comparison to the redemption of the human race; and this appears if we consider man's fall, and the manner of his repair, and the fruit of the repair. If we consider man's fall, we shall see that the fall was by seeking a false likeness and equality with God; and because equality is first attributed to the Son, hence it is that, as it were from him, fallen man took the occasion [of his fall]; and therefore from thence he ought to take his repair. And this Bernard says in expounding that which is said in Jonah 1: *On account of me this tempest has arisen; take me up and cast me into the sea.* Or certainly in this, that man had presumed the likeness of God, he sinned directly against the Son; and therefore vengeance and pardon more befitted the Son.

And this is what Anselm says in the book *Why God Became Man*: « The man, for whom he was to pray, and the devil, whom he was to overcome, had both presumed a false likeness of God. Whence they sinned more especially against the Son. To him, therefore, to whom the injury is especially done, the vengeance and pardon of the fault is more fittingly attributed ». — *Again*, if we consider the manner of the repair, it more befits the Son. For we have been repaired through the obedience and supplication of the mediator; and because it more befits the son to supplicate and obey the father: hence it is that it more befits the person of the Son to be incarnate than another. Whence Anselm in the book *Why God Became Man*: « It sounds more fitting that the Son supplicate the Father than another person ». — *Lastly*, if we consider the fruit or effect of the repair, it more befitted the Son to be incarnate: because the incarnation is ordered to this, that we be sons of God: if therefore the latter must be brought back through that which is prior in the same genus, it was congruous that we should be made sons of God through him who is the natural Son. Whence Augustine in the fourth book of *On the Trinity*: « That man might be born of God, first God was born of those very ones. For it was necessary that we be made adoptive sons through him who is the natural Son ».

And thus it is clear in every way that it was more fitting for the Son to be incarnate than another. — Whence the arguments which were brought forward for this are to be granted.

*Solution of the opposing arguments.* 1. To that which is objected, that the work of recreation more befits the Father, as does that of creation; it must be said that the Father is the author of recreation just as of creation; and just as he made all things through the Word, so also he remade all things through the Word. But from this it does not follow that the Father ought rather to be incarnate, because the incarnation does not regard the person of the author, but of the mediator. And because the character of mediation does not befit the Father, but rather the Son; hence it is that it does not follow that the incarnation more befits the Father than the Son; rather the contrary.

2. To that which is objected concerning adoption, it must be said that it is true that adoption befits the Father as the principal author; but he ought to do this only through the Son, whose the whole inheritance is, and through whom others must be admitted to the inheritance.

3. To that which is objected, that the Son has from the Father whatever he has; it must be said that the Son is said to have something by natural origin, *Distinction.* something by gratuitous union. And if it be understood in the first way, whatever he has, he has from the Father, in such a way that the same thing which is in the Son from the Father is in the Father from himself, speaking of essentials. But if we speak of that which he has by gratuitous union, then he has it from the Father as from an effective principle, not as from a begetter; because according to this the Son is less than the Father, and because it more befits that the Son according to human nature be less than the Father; hence it is that in this way it more befits the Son to have something which the Father does not have, than the contrary.

4. To that which is objected, that it more befits the Holy Spirit, because this is the highest grace; it must be said that by that reason it is not concluded that the incarnation ought to be done in the person of the Holy Spirit, but that the work of the incarnation ought to be attributed to the Holy Spirit; and this will be better seen below. And similarly an answer is to be given to that which follows concerning adoption.

5. To that which is objected concerning the mission, it must be said that the mission into flesh was for redeeming from bondage; and because it is necessary that man first be freed from bondage before being adopted into sonship; hence it is that the mission into flesh befitted that person to whom it first

befitted to be sent; and because the person of the Son has being-sent only from the Father, the person of the Holy Spirit has being-sent from both: hence it is that it first became the Son to be sent into flesh, so that, the redemption accomplished, he himself together with the Father might send the Holy Spirit into the mind. And this is what the Apostle says in Galatians 4: *When the fullness of time came, God sent his Son* etc.; and after: *That we might receive the adoption of the sons of God* etc.; and after: *But because you are sons of God, God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts.* Therefore it does not follow that if a greater character of subordinate authority is in the Holy Spirit than in the Son, that for that reason he ought to be sent into flesh; rather the contrary can be inferred. For the Father, because he is from no one, ought not to be sent. And this is what Augustine says in the fourth book of *On the Trinity*: *It was not fitting that the Father be sent by another, because he was not from another. But it was fitting that first the Son be sent, because he is from the Father alone, then the Holy Spirit, who is from the Father and the Son. First the Son came, that men might be freed; then the Holy Spirit, that men might be beatified.*