Dist. 3, Part 2, Art. 2, 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/3/q/bon-sent-III-d3-p2-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On the conveying of Christ's flesh.*

Next it is asked about the conveying of Christ's flesh. And concerning this two things are asked.

First it is asked whether Christ's flesh was in the first parents according to a quality of purity or of defilement.

Second it is asked whether it was otherwise than according to the law of propagation.

### Question I. *Whether Christ's flesh in Abraham and the other Fathers was distinct in quality from the flesh of other men.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is shown that Christ's flesh in Abraham and the other Fathers was distinct in quality from the flesh of the other sons.

1. *Wisdom* 7: *Nothing defiled enters into her:* therefore if Christ's flesh was united to the Son of God, who is *the power of God and the wisdom of God*, it seems that it was never defiled; but the flesh of others was defiled in the parents: therefore it seems that Christ's flesh was otherwise in Abraham than that of others.

2. Likewise, in Christ there ought to have been the greatest purity; but that which was never defiled is more pure than that which was at some time defiled: therefore it seems that Christ's flesh neither in itself nor in the parents was subject to the foulness of corruption: therefore it was distinct in quality from the flesh of other men.

3. Likewise, medicine and that which is cured by medicine are of a different quality; but Christ's flesh was in the loins of the Fathers as medicine, as Augustine says in the tenth book *On Genesis according to the Letter*, whereas the flesh of other men was as something needing medicine: therefore it seems that it had one quality and another.

4. Likewise, that which is totally corrupted is not capable of being cured: therefore if Adam was capable of being cured, some particle remained in him uncorrupted. But from that particle, which was without corruption, it was most fitting that flesh be generated which should be without original stain: therefore it seems so, etc.

**Sed contra:** 1. Augustine in the tenth book *On Genesis according to the Letter*: « For the same flesh, not of Abraham only, but of the first earthly man himself, had at once the *wound* of transgression and the *medicament of the wound* » : therefore if the *medicament* of the wound pertains to Christ, the *wound* of transgression pertains to others, therefore the flesh of Christ in the first parents was the same as the flesh of others: therefore it was not distinct from others.

2. Likewise, the Master at the beginning of this distinction, speaking of Christ's flesh: « It must be believed, according to the agreement of the holy Doctors, that it was first subject to sin, just as was the rest of the Virgin's flesh » : it therefore remains as before, that it was not distinct from others.

3. Likewise, whatever is conveyed by the law of corruption is corrupted; but the whole flesh of Isaac, which was conveyed from Abraham, was corrupted: therefore either Christ's flesh was not conveyed from Abraham into Isaac, or, if it was conveyed, it was not distinct from other men.

4. Likewise, either Christ's flesh was like the rest of the flesh of Abraham, or not. If like, I have my point; if unlike: then it does not seem that such flesh was suited to the redemption of the human race. If therefore this is false and unfitting, it remains, then, that Christ's flesh was not distinct from the flesh of other men.

5. Likewise, distinction according to opposite qualities presupposes distinction according to substance, because opposite qualities cannot be in the same thing and according to the same; but the flesh of the sons in the first parents could not have a distinction according to substance, because there would not be found as many atoms in the body of Adam as there were sons procreated from it: therefore if Christ's flesh in the first parents could not
be distinguished from the flesh of others according to *substance*, it seems so, etc.

6. Likewise, if pure flesh was transfused, it was either *corruptible* or *incorruptible*. If *incorruptible*: then Christ's body ought to have been impassible; which is false. If *corruptible*: then it seems that it could be transmuted into the rest of the flesh and increased by other flesh: therefore other flesh too could by parity of reasoning be transmuted into others: therefore either that flesh was consumed before it reached Christ, or it was so multiplied that a thousand bodies could be formed from it. But this is false: therefore, etc.

### Conclusio

> Christ's flesh, in the loins of the parents in which it was materially, was not distinct in quality or in form from the flesh of other men.

**Respondeo:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that concerning this question there was a certain erroneous position of certain men saying that Christ's flesh had a distinction from the flesh of other men not only when it was united to Christ's soul, but even when it was in the loins of the first man. For they said that, because Adam sinned reparably, in his sin God did not permit the whole to be corrupted; and so there remained in his seed some uncorrupted portion, that through it there might be a medicament for the rest of the flesh; and from that little portion they say Christ's flesh was formed, which they say is the medicine of the human race. And this particle Adam transmitted to Noah, and Noah to Abraham, and Abraham to David, and David down to the Virgin, of whom Christ was born. — But this position, although it may seem to have probability on the surface, inwardly contains error; because it is not only against the truthful sayings of the Saints, but also against the *documents of the true faith*. It is repugnant to *the authorities of the Saints*: because Damascene, the Greek doctor, and Augustine, the chief Latin doctor, agree in this, that Christ's flesh before its union with the Word was undistinguished from the rest of the Virgin's flesh. Damascene says that « it was formed from the most pure blood of the Virgin » ; Augustine says that « he assumed the first-fruits of our mass ». — And this indeed it is necessary to hold, because the Virgin's sanctification would not have been necessary in order that Christ's flesh be formed without any sin. — Nor would Christ truly be of the seed of David and Abraham, but only of Adam; since, if in the aforesaid way that particle had descended, it would pertain to none of the others except as a conduit, just as water is compared to a channel. — Nor would there be in such flesh a true assumption of passibility nor a true repair of our infirmity, because he would not have fashioned flesh for himself from fallen nature, but rather from constituted nature. — All which things are unfitting and adverse to *sound faith*. And therefore the aforesaid position must be rejected as erroneous, just as the Master well intimates in the text, and Master Hugh in the book *On the Sacraments*.

It is therefore plain according to Catholic doctrine that Christ's flesh, in the loins of the parents in which it was materially, was not distinct in quality, or in form, from the flesh of other men, although, after it was united to the Word, it has a distinction, in that it is not *the flesh of sin*, but *like sinful flesh*. And for this reason Augustine says that « Christ's flesh came from the height of human nature », not that in the first parents it was without pollution, but because it was so purified and cleansed in its assumption that it was like the flesh in the state of innocence. On account of which it is said by Boethius to have « received something of every state », as will be better shown below. — Hence the reasonings which are brought forward for this part are to be granted.

*Ad 1.* To that which is first objected to the contrary from *Wisdom* 7, that nothing defiled enters into her; it must be said that it is true; for this is understood of the *divine* Wisdom according to the *divine nature*, which is in no way defiled by any creature; nevertheless, if it be also understood according to the *human nature*, it still has no instance against us, because Christ's flesh, from the time it was united to the Word of God, was holy and immaculate. But from this it does not follow that it was immaculate in the first parents, because, although in the loins of the parents it was unitable, it was nevertheless in a remote disposition.

*Ad 2.* To that which is objected, that the greatest purity ought to be in Christ's flesh; it must be said that it is true, according as it is suited to the repair of the human race. Understanding it thus, no greater purity can be conceived than that from the sinful mass flesh be formed altogether free from sin; and so it was done in the flesh united to the Word, by the working of the Holy Spirit. But if that flesh be understood never to have been subject to sin in itself or in the parents; it is not thereby conceived how it was apt for our repair; and therefore it is not conceived how and as it ought, but rather it is assigned how it ought not.

*Ad 3.* To that which is objected, that Christ's flesh is medicine; it must be said that it is true for the time at which it is medicine; and it is medicine for the time at which it was assumed by the Word; and thus it is of a different quality than that of other men. But for the time at which it was before the assumption, it was not medicine, except materially speaking. According to that time it need not be formally distinguished from other flesh, because from the same material principle there can be formed what is healthy and what is sick. For food of the same kind is converted in a healthy man into healthy flesh and in a leper into corrupt flesh.

*Ad 4.* To that which is objected, that if the whole were corrupted, his disease would no longer be curable: it must be said that that argument fails in two ways. First, because, even if the whole man were corrupted, it does not follow that he was incurable, unless that corruption inseparably adhered to him. Furthermore, even if the whole man were corrupted as to the things that were in him, yet the whole human race, which is fashioned from that man's flesh, would not be corrupted; but only that which proceeded according to the law of concupiscence. And since Christ's flesh was fashioned in the Virgin apart from the law of concupiscence by the sanctifying Holy Spirit, hence it is that it lacked corruption and held the account of medicine from its primary formation.