Dist. 2, 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/2/q/bon-sent-III-d2-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether Christ had a common species with other men.*

Thirdly it is asked whether Christ had a common species with others. And it seems that he did.

*Foundations.*

1. To the Philippians, chapter two: *Made in the likeness of men*: if, therefore, the commonness of species is regarded according to a likeness in the form of humanity, it seems that Christ agrees in specific form with other men.

2. Likewise, the one begotten is of the same species as the one begetting in a univocal generation; but Christ was begotten of the blessed Virgin: therefore he is of the same species as she.

3. Likewise, a rational soul, united to flesh, constitutes a man of the same common species; but in Christ there was a rational soul united to flesh: therefore Christ had a common species with others.

4. Likewise, in Christ's incarnation human nature was exalted and repaired; but this would not be so if Christ did not have a common species with other men: therefore, etc.

*To the contrary.*

**On the contrary:** 1. John Damascene, and it is found in the text [of the Master]: « In the Lord Jesus Christ there is no taking of a common species ».

2. Likewise, the Master in the text: « *Nature* is not taken in Christ as when it is said: there is one nature of all men »; but when it is said: there is one nature of all men, it is said to be one by a unity of species: therefore it does not seem that in Christ one is to take a single nature, with which he has in common with others as in a specific species.

3. Likewise, « species, as Boethius says, states the whole being of individuals »; but humanity does not state the whole being of Christ: therefore Christ is not contained under man as an individual under its proper species.

4. Likewise, specific form is taken from that which is noblest and most perfect in the thing; but the noblest and most perfect in Christ is not the created nature, but the uncreated; but in respect of the uncreated nature there is no taking of a common species with other men: therefore in no way [does he have it].

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** Christ, by reason of his human nature, had a common species with other men, but not by reason of both natures, namely the divine and the human.

**I respond:** It must be said that *species* states a form, and not just any form, but the form of the whole, that is, a form embracing the whole being. *(What species is.)* According to which Boethius says that « species is the whole being of individuals »: and Avicenna and other philosophers also agree in this. Therefore common specific form can be understood in two ways: either according to *predication*, or according to *constitution*. *(Twofold sense.)* According to predication, "man" states a form common to Peter and Paul; according to constitution, "man" states a form which regards at once soul and body, and which results from the conjunction of soul with body. For soul and body come together to constitute one essence. And hence it is that what is constituted of soul and body has one specific form, common to itself and to others so constituted by predication; common nonetheless to the constituting parts by a certain *informing* and completion.

When, therefore, it is asked whether in the Lord Jesus Christ there is a taking of a common species; this can be understood in two ways: either by reason of the *assumed nature*, or by reason of *both* [natures], namely the human and the divine. *(Application and distinction.)* If by reason of the human nature, then there is a taking of a common species of Christ with respect to other men: because, just as in other men from the conjunction of soul to flesh by way of perfecting and informing there results the form of humanity, so also in Christ. *(Conclusion 1.)* And therefore in this way one is to take in him a common species, both by predication and also by constitution. — But if we speak of Christ by reason of the divine nature and the human, then in the Lord *(Conclusion 2.)*

Jesus Christ there is no taking of a common species, because the divine nature is not united to the human for the constitution of one essence; therefore from the conjunction of divinity to humanity in Christ there results no common or universal form, in which he could be likened to others. And therefore Damascene says, adding in the same authority, that « in Christ there is no taking of a common species, because he has neither been made nor will ever be made another »; it must be understood: one that would share with him in one form from the fact that he is called Christ. For otherwise his reasoning would not hold, since, granted that there were but one single man, just as there is one single sun, there would still be in him a taking of a common species. *(Epilogue.)* — In one way, therefore, there is in Christ a taking of a common species, and in another way not; because, since there is in him a threefold substance, from the conjunction of two, namely soul and flesh, there results one specific form, in which he has [something] in common with other men. — And thus proceed the arguments which are brought to the first part.

*(Solution of the contrary arguments.)*

*To 1 and 2.* From the conjunction of divinity to created nature there results no form whatever; and as regards this the saying of Damascene and the Master is to be understood, who say that there is not one nature of Christ, as [there is one nature] of all men.

*To 3.* As for that which is objected, that species states the whole being of individuals; it must be said that this is true insofar as it is an individual contained under that species. But Christ is an individual contained under the human species by reason of the created nature, not by reason of the uncreated nature.

*To 4.* As for that which is objected last, that specific form is taken in respect of that which is noblest and most perfect in the thing; it must be said that this is true, speaking of those things according to which a thing has being in a genus; but Christ, according to his divine nature, is not placed in any genus, but only by reason of the created nature. Thus, therefore, it must be conceded that Christ assumed true flesh and a true soul, and these united, inasmuch as they come together into the truth of one most special species.