Dist. 12
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-littera
----------------------------------------
# DISTINCTION XII.

### Chap. I. *Whether God could have taken another man, or [taken him] from elsewhere than from the race of Adam.*

It is also customarily asked whether God could have assumed another man, or a man from elsewhere than from the race of that Adam. — To which it can soundly be said that He could have assumed another soul and another flesh, since it is by grace alone that that soul and flesh were assumed by the Word of God. For as Augustine says: « Among things that arise in time, this is the highest grace, that man is conjoined to God in unity of person ». God could therefore have assumed another soul and another flesh, and the flesh indeed from elsewhere than from the race of Adam. Whence Augustine, in the thirteenth book *On the Trinity*: « God could indeed have taken up a man from elsewhere, in whom there would be a mediator of God and men, not of the race of that Adam who by his sin bound the human race, just as He created him whom He first created not of the race of anyone. He could therefore either thus, or in whatever other way He willed, have created another man, by whom the conqueror of the first might be conquered. But He judged it better to assume a man from the very race that had been conquered, through whom He might conquer man's enemy; and yet from a Virgin, whose conception the spirit, not the flesh, faith, not lust, preceded, nor was there present the concupiscence of the flesh by which the rest are conceived who contract original sin; but by believing, not by lying together, was her holy virginity made fruitful ». — From these things it is plainly shown that God could have assumed both another man and one from elsewhere.

### Chap. II. *Whether that man could have sinned, or could have not been God.*

Hence it is not without reason asked whether that man could have *sinned*, or could have *not been God*. For if he could sin, he could also be damned; if he could be damned, he could not be God: therefore if he could sin, he could not be God; since being God and being able to *will iniquity* cannot stand together at once. — Here a distinction is needed, whether the matter concerns the *person* or the *nature*. For if it concerns the *person*, it is manifest that he could not sin, nor could he fail to be God. But if it concerns the *nature*, it must be discussed whether one is treating of it as united to the Word, or of it as not united to the Word and yet a being — that is, whether of it according as it was united to the Word, or of it according as it could *be* and *not united* to the Word. For it is not ambiguous that that soul, being united to the Word, cannot sin; and it is without ambiguity true that the same soul, if it were also not united to the Word, could sin.

Some, however, attempt to prove that even when *united* to the Word it could sin, because it has free will, and thus can be bent toward either part. This is frivolous, since the Angels too have free will, and yet by grace from God they are confirmed so that they cannot sin. How much more, then, that man, to whom *the spirit was given without measure?* They also adduce an authority to prove the same thing; for it is written in the book of Wisdom: *He who could transgress and did not transgress; do evil, and did not do it.* But this must be taken according to the *members*, or partly of the *head*, partly of the *members*: of the head: *he did not transgress and did not do evil*; of the members: *he could transgress and do evil*.

### Chap. III. *Whether God could have assumed man in the female sex.*

It is also customarily asked, though out of curiosity, by some, whether God could have assumed human nature according to the female sex. — Some think that He could have assumed man in the female sex, as He assumed in the male. But it was done more fittingly and more suitably that He should be born of a woman and assume a man, so that thus the liberation of each sex might be shown. Whence Augustine in the book *On Eighty-three Questions*: « The liberation of man ought to appear in each sex. Therefore, since it was fitting to take up a man, which is the more honorable sex, it followed that the liberation of the female sex should appear from this, that that man was born of a woman ». The Wisdom of God, therefore, which is called the only-begotten Son, by taking up a man in the womb and from the womb of the Virgin, manifested the liberation of man.