Dist. 12, Art. 3, Q. 1
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/12/q/bon-sent-III-d12-a3-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article III. *On the condition of the nature with respect to sex.*

Next it is asked concerning the condition of the assumed nature with respect to sex. And concerning this two questions are raised.

First it is asked whether it was fitting for God to assume the female sex.

Second, whether it was fitting to assume flesh from a woman alone.

### Question I. *Whether it was fitting for God to assume the female sex.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether it was fitting for God to assume the female sex for the repairing of the human race. And that it was so seems to be the case:

1. Because the order of reparation ought to correspond by way of opposite to the fall; but our ruin came about through a woman: therefore [also] the relieving [of it]. But the relieving was effected through the assumed nature: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, God assumed a fragile nature for this reason, that, while by His fragility He might conquer the strong one, the power of God might shine forth in this the more wondrously: if therefore the female sex is more fragile, it seems that His power would have been the more manifested, had He overcome the devil in the female sex: therefore it was more fitting that a woman rather than a man should be assumed by the Word of God.

3. Likewise, a rational spirit is just as indifferently unitable to the female sex as to the male: therefore by parity of reasoning the uncreated Spirit also: therefore both sexes are related indifferently to the union, so far as it is on the part of the nature. If therefore the female sex was more deeply sunk into misery than the male; since the Son of God was incarnate to relieve our misery, it seems that He ought rather to have assumed the female sex than the male.

4. Likewise, offspring ought to be made like to its principle; but Christ was born from the Virgin mother alone: therefore if He drew flesh from a woman, He ought rather to be made like to His mother than to another: therefore if He did not degenerate, He ought rather to have drawn from her the sex which the Virgin had, than another.

**On the contrary:** 1. The Philosopher in the book *On Animals* says that « woman is a man manqué », that is, imperfect: therefore if the assumed man ought to be most perfect, then the woman ought not to have been [assumed], but only the male.

2. Likewise, what is greater, the Apostle in the first to the Corinthians, the eleventh [chapter], says that *the head of the woman is the man*, and not the reverse; but the assumed man is the head of the whole Church: therefore there ought not to have been the female sex, otherwise a perversion of order would arise; which indeed God ought not to do in His incarnation, but rather He ought to repair the destroyed order.

3. Likewise, the principle of all generation is the male sex, for *from one man are all*; but the assumed man ought to be the principle of all spiritual generation: therefore not the female sex, but the male.

4. Likewise, if He had assumed the female sex, then, since the communication of idioms takes place, He would have to be called *goddess* and would have to be called *daughter*: if therefore it is fitting that there be only God and Son in that highest Trinity, and not goddess or daughter; in no way was it fitting for God to assume a woman.

### Conclusion.

> Without doubt it was not as fitting for God to assume the female sex as the male, into the unity of person.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt it was not as fitting for God to assume the female sex as the male, into the unity of person. — And the reason for this is that the female sex is not of as great a dignity as
the male. For the male sex excels the female both as to *dignity in originating*, and as to *power in acting*, and as to *authority in presiding*. As to *dignity in originating*, because all, both men and women, came from one man, in whom there is an express representation of the going-forth of things from that one first and highest principle. — As to *power in acting* likewise it surpasses, since it belongs to the man to act, and to the woman to undergo. Hence the male sex has more of active power, on account of which it is both stronger in fact and in name. — As to *authority in presiding* also it pre-excels. For according to right order it is not the woman who is set over the man, but the man who is set over the woman as the head over the body, as the Apostle says. — Since therefore in the Word assuming human nature there is preeminent *dignity in originating* and *power in acting* and *dominion in presiding*; hence it is that it was more fitting that the male sex rather than the female be assumed by the uncreated Word, because to that assumed nature these three things had to be communicated in an excellent way. — And therefore the reasons for this position are to be conceded.

1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that the ruin came about through a woman; it must be said that although in the female sex our ruin was begun, yet in the male sex it was consummated. And since our reparation had to be consummated in the assumed nature, hence it is that according to right correspondence it was more fitting that a man rather than a woman be assumed.

2. To that which is objected concerning fragility, it must be said that it was thus fitting that Christ conquer through fragility in suffering, that afterward He might conquer through power in rising again; and therefore He ought to assume such a sex as would also be fragile for a time on account of the quality of passibility, and nonetheless be capable of being ordered toward power according to the quality of [its] nature; and such was the male sex rather than the female.

3. To that which is objected concerning the union of the rational spirit to either sex, it must be said that it is not similar: *first*, because the spirit is united to the body in such a way that from these there comes about one [thing], and there is no communication of idioms; but it is not so with the eternal Word, which remains in its own property, communicating to the assumed man its [own] properties, for the communicating of which the male sex was more fitting than the female. — *Moreover*, it is not similar, because the uncreated Spirit is most noble, and the union by which it unites our nature to itself in person is most noble; and therefore it ought to assume a more noble sex. But it is not so with the rational spirit.

4. To that which is objected, that the offspring ought to be made like to its principle; it must be said that this is true when [the principle] produces the offspring wholly according to the proper power of its nature; but it is not so in the case at hand. For the Virgin conceived being moved and aided by the Holy Spirit; and therefore the offspring rather had the sex which the Holy Spirit chose, than the sex which it found in the mother. Nor in such a generation is there degeneration, but rather an ennobling; because it is not against the nature of a woman to conceive the male sex, nay rather a woman naturally desires the more to have a male child than a female.