Dist. 3, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2
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-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether Christ's flesh was in the forefathers otherwise than the flesh of other men according to the law of propagation.*

Secondly it is asked, whether Christ's flesh was in the forefathers otherwise than the flesh of other men according to the law of propagation. And that it was otherwise, this seems to be the case:

1. By the authority of Augustine, in the tenth book *On Genesis according to the Letter*, treating that text of the Apostle to the Hebrews, chapter seven: « He was still in the loins of [his] father. According to a certain mode Christ was there, by which Levi was not there. For according to seminal reason Levi was there, by which reason Christ's flesh was not there ».

2. Likewise, this same thing is shown by reason. A mediated principle is reduced to an immediate one; but Christ went forth from the Virgin's womb according to a different mode of propagation than the other children [go forth] from the womb of their mothers, for the reason that [he was] not from male seed: if therefore by the mediation of the blessed Virgin he is said to have been in the preceding forefathers, it seems that his flesh was in the forefathers according to the law of propagation in a different mode than [the flesh] of other men.

3. Likewise, if Christ's flesh had been in the forefathers in the same mode as the rest of men, it would thus have sinned, when Adam sinned, just as other men; but this is false: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, in the [same] mode in which a thing is to be brought forth into being, by that mode it has to exist in its principle; but Christ was not begotten or conceived according to the law of nature, but rather miraculously, [whereas] other men are brought forth naturally: therefore his flesh was in the loins of the forefathers, as regards the law of propagation, otherwise than [the flesh] of other men.

**On the contrary:** 1. The Master says in the text: « That flesh, before it was united to the Word, was subject to sin in Mary, just as the rest of the Virgin's flesh »; but flesh which is alike according to the transmission of original [sin] is alike according to the law of propagation: therefore if Christ's flesh was subject to sin in the loins of the forefathers, then it was also transmitted from the first parents by the same law.

2. Likewise, everything that descended from Adam into Seth descended according to corporeal substance and according to seminal reason: therefore if Christ's flesh descended from Adam into Seth, and from Seth into the other forefathers, it seems that according to the law of propagation it was in the loins of the forefathers in the same mode as the flesh of other men.

3. Likewise, the seed from which the body of Seth was formed had seminal reason in all the forefathers: therefore nothing was to come from it which was not there both according to corporeal substance and [according to] seminal reason; but if Christ's flesh was made from it, it seems that it was there in the manner of any other human flesh.

4. Likewise, the whole flesh of the Virgin was in the loins of the forefathers according to the law of propagation, just as the flesh of other men; but Christ's flesh was from some part of the Virgin's flesh: therefore according to the law of propagation it was in the loins of the forefathers, just as the flesh of the whole human race.

### Conclusio

> Christ's flesh, according to the law of propagation, was in the forefathers otherwise than the flesh of other men.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that there are two ways of speaking about Christ's flesh: either as regards the matter from which it was taken, or as regards the form according to which it was joined to Christ's soul and assumed by the Word into the unity of the person. If we speak of Christ's flesh according to matter, that is, concerning that from which Christ's flesh was made; thus it is conceded that it was subject to sin, because before Christ's conception the whole mass of the human race was corrupted, as was shown in the preceding problem. — But if we speak of Christ's flesh according to form, then it must be said that it was never subject to sin, because it never had that form unless it were clean and immaculate.

Now since "flesh" is said in two ways, so likewise it is possible to speak of propagation in two ways: either by reason of its material [aspect], or by reason of the formal [aspect]. If by reason of the material, then it was propagated from Adam down to the Virgin in that whole genealogy, and that whole propagation was according to the law of nature and concupiscence. If as regards actual and formal being, then it was conceived by the Virgin apart from the common law of nature and concupiscence.

And thus it is clear that in one manner of speaking it can be conceded that Christ's flesh, speaking materially, was in the loins of the forefathers according to propagation, just as the flesh of other men. But since "flesh," as regards the meaning of its name, does not name matter alone, but matter under such a form; and propagation and the law of propagation, added to that which is "Christ's flesh," regard its production according to actual being: hence it is that this [proposition] is improper: Christ's flesh was subject to sin; and this: Christ's flesh was seminally transmitted from the forefathers; and this likewise: Christ's flesh was

decimated in the forefathers; for the reason that in all [of these], as regards the force of the expression, the predicate is attributed to the subject not by reason of the matter alone, but by reason of the matter under such a form. For "flesh" is a substantial term; and therefore, although it stands for a verb in the past tense, the form of the predicate must be referred to the same time as the subject. And therefore all the aforesaid expressions are to be denied as false and improper, unless they are uttered with a determination, namely by reason of the material principle. But if anywhere they are uttered absolutely, they are to be expounded. — Note nonetheless that this is improper: Christ's flesh was subject to sin; but this [is] more improper: Christ's flesh was seminally transmitted; and this [is] still more improper and false: Christ's flesh was decimated — according as, in the aforesaid expressions, "flesh" is taken more and more by reason of the form.

It must therefore be conceded that Christ's flesh was in the forefathers according to the law of propagation otherwise than [the flesh] of other men. — For the flesh of other men had its origin from the forefathers according to seminal reason and according to the law of concupiscence. Now that is said to proceed according to seminal reason which indeed goes forth into being according to the power and operation of nature; as are those things, in whose production nature behaves not only after the manner of one obeying and receiving, but rather also after the manner of a nature acting and giving species or completion; and this is what I mean by "seminal reason," properly speaking, as was shown in the second book, although it happens that the aforesaid term is used in an extended way. — But that is understood to be transmitted according to the law of concupiscence in whose procreation there concurs the foulness of the delight of the flesh on the part of the begetting man and the conceiving woman. — Neither of these was present in Christ's generation. For his conception was miraculous and above the power of nature; for it was not from male seed, for the reason that his flesh was conceived from a woman alone. It was also apart from the law of concupiscence, because no delight from the mingling of the sexes intervened: for he was conceived from the most chaste womb of the Virgin. — Therefore the reasons which are adduced for this side are to be conceded.

*Ad 1.* To that which is objected concerning the authority of the Master, it must be said that that expression is improper, namely that it was subject to sin, and it must be understood materially; and the Master intimates this when he says that it was subject to sin, not absolutely, but in Mary, in whom it was materially. Hence it is not to be conceded absolutely, but to be expounded as improper; and from improper [propositions], taken according to their impropriety, it is not licit to argue, as is manifest; and therefore the argument is not valid.

*Ad 2.* To that which is objected, that whatever descended from Adam into Seth descended according to seminal reason; it must be said that seminal reason does not denote something absolute, but something relative; for it denotes the relation of that which is propagated to that from which it is produced. When therefore he says that whatever descended from Adam into Seth descended according to seminal reason; it must be said that it is true by comparison to Seth and to those who were to be produced according to the propagation of nature, in respect of all of whom the seed cut off from the loins of Adam had power sufficient for seminal reason. But in respect of Christ it does not hold true, for the reason that all that which was to be produced according to the law of nature from that seed, in respect of Christ's flesh stood in the account of the possible and the material, because it could not be reduced to complete act except by the power of the Holy Spirit. When therefore he says that whatever was in Seth was according to seminal reason, it is true if it is compared to Adam; but if it is compared to Christ, it does not hold true.

*Ad 3.* To that which is objected, that the whole seed cut off from Adam had seminal reason; it must be said that it is true in respect of those who were to be produced according to the law of nature; in respect of Christ it does not hold true. For although in some seed there is seminal reason according to each of its parts, at least the formal [part], so that from it something can come to be; nonetheless, if God makes something from that seed for which it did not have an ordination according to nature, it is said to have been in that seed according to corporeal substance, not according to seminal reason, because that seed, in respect of that which God brings forth, does not have a sufficiently active power, but a passive one, according to which it supplies corporeal substance, even granted that that seminal reason were to cooperate toward the supplying of the matter

for the making of that thing; just as if one small seed were planted, such that from it there should be produced a great tree, whose magnitude would be the matter for the production of a great body of another species. So too in the case at hand it must be understood, when it is said that Christ was in the loins of the forefathers according to corporeal substance, not according to seminal reason; not because the substance of Christ's body was wholly there, but because there was a certain quantity of matter which by seminal power could be increased and grow, with nourishment applied to it, such that the bodies of all men could be fashioned from it; and by that power the bodies of all men were fashioned, except only the body of Christ, which was fashioned by a supernal power, as will be better made manifest below. — And thus it is clear in what way Christ is said to have been in Adam according to corporeal substance; and that it does not follow, if he was in the seed of Adam, that he was in it according to seminal reason. And for understanding these things, those things avail which were determined in the second book, distinction thirty.

*Ad 4.* To that which is objected, that the whole flesh of the blessed Virgin was there according to seminal reason, just as the flesh of other men; it must be said that in that argument there is a fallacy of accident, as was said above concerning the decimation.