Dist. 10, Divisio Textus
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/10/q/bon-sent-III-d10-divisio
----------------------------------------
## Commentary on Distinction X.
### *On the communication of idioms in comparison to the person.*

*It is also wont to be asked by some, etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the communication of idioms by the comparison of nature to nature; here he treats of the communication of idioms in comparison to the person. And since, of such properties and idioms, some are such as ring of nobility and dignity, and others of a certain defectibility, therefore this part is divided into two: in the first of these he determines concerning the first kind; in the second, concerning the second kind, and the second part begins in the last chapter of this distinction, there: *But if it be asked whether,* etc.

The first part has two [parts]. In the first the Master inquires whether the condition of personality belongs to Christ as man, that is, according to His human nature. In the second, whether the filiation of adoption according to the human nature belongs to the same, there:
*But if it be asked whether Christ is a son,* etc. And each of these — namely both the condition of personality and the filiation of adoption — seems to import dignity and nobility. The first part has two parts. In the first he raises the question and determines it. In the second he refutes the sophistical reasoning which impugns the determined truth, there: *But they strive to prove otherwise,* etc.

Likewise the second principal part has two [parts]. In the first he determines the question by which it is asked whether Christ is an adoptive son according to the human nature. In the second he objects against this and determines it, there: *But against this it is objected thus,* etc. The subdivisions of the parts, moreover, are manifest in the text. — Now the general sense of the distinction turns upon two things, namely upon showing that neither the condition of personality nor the filiation of adoption belongs to Christ as man.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part there falls here a question concerning two matters. First it is asked concerning the comparison of Christ as man to the condition of personality. Second, concerning the comparison of the same to the filiation of adoption.

Concerning the first, three things are briefly to be inquired into. The first is, whether this is to be conceded: Christ, as man, is God. Second it is asked concerning this: Christ, as man, is a person. Third it is asked whether this is to be conceded: Christ, as man, is an individual.

---