Dist. 5, Art. 1, 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/5/q/bon-sent-III-d5-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether assuming befits the person by reason of the nature, or conversely.*

Thirdly it is asked whether assuming befits the person by reason of the nature, or conversely. And that it befits [the person] by reason of the nature is seen [as follows].

(*Arguments for the first part.*) 1. By reason of it [the nature] the work of re-creation befits the person, to which [person] the work of creation befits; but the work of creation befits the person by reason of the nature: therefore also

the work of re-creation; but assumption is a work of re-creation: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, assumption is a virtuous operation; but every virtuous operation befits the supposit by reason of the nature, or of the natural power: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, that which befits one person in such a way that it befits another person, this befits [it] by reason of the nature, not by reason of the person: therefore, since assumption befits the person of the Son in such a way that it could befit another person, as was said above, it is seen that, if it befits the Son, it befits [him] by reason of the nature.

4. Likewise, assumption posits a diversity in the extremes; but in the assumption of the flesh by God there is a diversity of natures, not of persons: therefore it is seen that assumption first befits the nature, and through the nature the person.

**On the contrary:** (*Arguments for the second part.*) 1. Assumption signifies a relation; but a relation does not befit the person by reason of the nature, but rather by reason of itself: therefore also assuming [does not].

2. Likewise, assumption signifies an ordering to some unity; but it is established that [this is] not to the unity of the nature, but of the person: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if it befits the person by reason of the nature; and everything of this kind is said of the three: therefore assuming too would befit the three persons. But this is false: therefore also the first [is false].

4. Likewise, if assuming befits the person by reason of the nature, then it befits the nature in itself; and what befits [a thing] in itself befits [it] universally, therefore for any of its supposits: there would follow therefore the same thing as before, namely that assumption would befit any person whatever.

> (*Conclusion.*) Assuming, insofar as it signifies an action, befits the divine person by reason of the nature; insofar as it signifies a termination, befits the nature by reason of the person; insofar as it signifies a relation, befits both in common.

**I respond:** It must be said that to this question the response is sufficiently clear from the things that have been said. For since there are three [elements] belonging to the understanding of this word, which is "to assume" (*The three [elements] in assumption.*), namely action and relation and termination; the first befits the person by reason of the nature, the last befits the nature by reason of the person, but the middle one belongs in common to both (*Conclusion.*). — For the very action of assuming befits the person by reason of the nature, because the person acts by the power of the nature, whence that power and operation befits any person whatever (*It is explained.*). But the term of the assumption regards [the person] itself properly and in itself; whence to the personal unity, and of one sole person, is the very action of assuming and the relation of union terminated. But the middle [element], namely the relation, belongs in common to both: both the divine nature and the divine person is united to the human, and the human nature is united to the divine nature and to the divine person, because to both it has an order and a formal distinction and a gracious conjunction, which are implied in that relation.

And according to this the response to both parts is clear (*To the arguments.*). For the reasons conclude truly according to diverse ways, nor have they in themselves any contradiction. And this is better clear to one who treats them singly.

---