Dist. 6, 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/6/q/bon-sent-III-d6-divisio
----------------------------------------
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VI.

*On the mode of that union according to the various opinions of the doctors.*

But from what has gone before a question emerges.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master determined concerning the mode of that most excellent union according to the assertion of faith; in this part he determines [it] according to the varied opinion of the doctors. And since according to the variety of opinions the understanding of the locutions concerning the mystery of that union is varied, therefore this part has two parts.

In the first of these he explains several opinions concerning the mystery of the union. But in the second he shows in what way, according to those opinions, the ambiguous locutions are to be determined, below, in distinction seven: *But according to the first it is said that God was made* etc.

The first part is divided into two parts. In the first of these the Master sets forth the ambiguous locutions. But in the second he explains the diverse opinions concerning the mode of the divine union, there: *But in the unlocking of this question* etc. The first part remains undivided. But the second is subdivided into three according to the three opinions. In the first he sets down the first opinion; in the second the second, there: *But there are also others, who in this part agree with these.* But in the third [he sets down] the third, there: *But there are also others, who in the incarnation of the Word* etc. The first is divided into two. In the first he narrates the opinion; in the second he confirms [it], there: *But lest they be thought to speak from their own sense* etc. Likewise the second has two parts. In the first he sets down that opinion; in the second he confirms [it], there: *Concerning this Augustine in the book of Prosper.* Likewise the third part also has two, since in the first he sets down the meaning of the third position; in the second he confirms [it] by the testimonies of the Saints, there: *But lest they be thought to flow in from their own sense.*

### PREFATORY REMARKS ON THE THREE OPINIONS.

*(Opinion 1.)* But it is to be noted here at the beginning, that the explanation of the first opinion consists of four articles, according to what can be gathered from the words of the Master himself. For first they held that in the incarnation itself one man was constituted from soul and flesh, yet in such a way that nothing third was constituted from the man and God. — But secondly they said that this man was assumed by the Word. — But thirdly, since God is man and conversely, they said that the one assuming is predicated of the one assumed. — And from this followed the fourth position, that Christ is two. For since the one assuming is one thing, and the one assumed is another, and Christ is God assuming and a man assumed; the foregoing being supposed, they necessarily have to hold that Christ is two. And this is the last point, in which this position is consummated and named.

*(Opinion 2.)* Likewise the explanation of the second opinion consists of four articles. For first it said that in the incarnation not only is one nature constituted from soul and body, but also that divinity and humanity concurred to constitute one person, in such a way that the person of the Word before the incarnation of the Word was simple, but in the incarnation became composite. — But secondly, together with this, it said that if in the incarnation of the Word the person in some way became composite, nevertheless it did not become another, but remained the same, which it was before. — But thirdly it subjoined that even though the person of the Word in the incarnation of the Word can be called composite, nevertheless it cannot be called made; nor is it to be conceded that the person was made, although it can be conceded that the person of a man was made. — And therefore in the fourth place it said that Christ was one, not many, because the person of the Word had not assumed the supposit of a man, but the nature.

*(Opinion 3.)* The third position likewise consisted of four articles. For first it denied what the first position says; for it asserted that in the incarnation a third nature was not constituted from flesh and soul. — But secondly it denied what the second opinion says, for the reason that it did not concede that from those two natures a person was composed. — But thirdly it subjoined that the person of the Word had assumed true flesh and a true soul in the manner of a garment, so that it might appear visible to the eyes of men. — But fourthly it subjoined that Christ is not anything, insofar as he is man; for man is not predicated of Christ in the manner of a substance, but in the manner of a habit, in which manner he who has a habit is said to be clothed.

But all the things that have been said can be drawn from those things which are said in the text [of the Master]. But many things could also be added to these, since, one thing being posited, many follow. Nevertheless these things that have been said are the principal positions of the aforesaid opinions and can be gathered from the words of the Master.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

But for the understanding of those things which are said concerning this part, a question falls here principally concerning two things. It is asked first concerning the variety of these opinions, namely in which there is greater probability. Secondly concerning the quality and nobility of that union, from which arises the diversity of these opinions.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked whether Christ is one, or two, as the first opinion said.

Secondly it is asked whether the person of Christ is simple, or composite, as the second opinion says.

Thirdly it is asked whether Christ, insofar as he is man, is some substance, or whether man is only said of Christ according to habit, as the third opinion said.

---