Dist. 5, Divisio Textus
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-divisio
----------------------------------------
## Commentary on Distinction V

*On the mode of the union of the two natures according to the assertion of the faith.*

*Moreover it must be inquired, since from what has been said before, etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the mystery of the incarnation as regards the true union of the natures. In this part he intends to inquire into the mode of uniting. And since one can proceed in inquiring in two ways, either according to the stability of the faith or according to the probability of opinion, therefore this part has two parts. For in the first he determines about the mode of the union of those two natures according to the assertion of the faith, showing that this union is in the person. In the second, however, he determines according to the opinion of the various doctors, below: *But from the premises a question emerges.*

The first part contains the present distinction, which is divided into two parts. In the first the Master raises a manifold question concerning the union of the two natures in the person, or concerning the assumption of the human nature by the divine. In the second, however, he determines, where: *This inquiry, or the manner of inquiring, etc.*

The first part remains undivided, but the second part is divided into three parts. In the first of these the Master determines the principal question. In the second, however, he determines the incidental question, there: *But it is asked whether the same divine nature, etc.* In the third, however, he returns to the explanation of the principal question, there: *But therefore not the person of the man, etc.*

The first part is divided into two parts. In the first of these he answers the question proposed according to its threefold article, and shows the perplexity to be a fourth article on account of the apparent contrariety of the authorities. In the second, however, he reduces the authorities which seem to be contrary to [right] understanding, concord, and truth, there: *But we, [free] of all falsehood, etc.*

The second principal part, where he determines the incidental question, has two parts. In the first he determines the first doubt. In the second he resolves a certain sophistical argument, there: *From the premises it is established.*

Likewise also the third principal part, in which he explains the principal solution, has two parts. In the first of these he confirms the foregoing solution by reason. In the second, however, he dissolves the objections which seem to attack it, there: *Here by some it is objected that the person assumed a person, etc.* The subdivisions of the parts are manifest in the text. — Now the general understanding turns on the assumption of the human nature by the divine into the unity of the person, both on the part of the assuming and on the part of the assumed nature.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Now for the understanding of this part a question arises here concerning the assumption of the human nature by the divine. And here the question turns principally on two things.

First it is asked about the assumption itself on the part of the one assuming.

Second, however, it is asked on the part of the thing assumed.

Concerning the first, five things are asked.

First it is asked whether to assume is an act befitting the divine nature.

Second it is asked whether it is an act befitting the divine person.

Third it is asked whether it befits the person in itself, or by reason of the nature.

Fourth it is asked whether it befits the nature, with every person abstracted.

Fifth it is asked whether this is to be conceded: the divine nature is made flesh.

---