Dist. 7, 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/7/q/bon-sent-III-d7-divisio
----------------------------------------
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VII.

*The ambiguous locutions are explained.*

*But according to the first it is said that God was made* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master related the opinions of many. In this part he applies [them] to the principal proposition, namely to explaining the ambiguous locutions. Now this part is divided into three parts according to those three opinions. In the first of these he explains the ambiguous locutions according to the first opinion. But in the second according to the second opinion, there: *But in the second [account] of this tradition.* But in the third according to the third, there: *In this account therefore it is said thus: God made man* etc.

The first part is divided into two. In the first of these he sets forth the ambiguous locutions according to the first account. But in the second he resolves those things which seem contrary to the aforesaid opinion, there: *But against this account it is objected.*

But the second principal part is divided into three parts. In the first of these he explains the locutions set forth earlier. But in the second he explains the authorities set down before, there: *But the authorities determine, which first* etc. But in the third he reduces to concord the other authorities which seem to be adverse, there: *But to these [authorities] some seem to be adverse* etc. And that part could be divided into many parts according to the many authorities, as is plain in the text.

Likewise the third principal part is divided into three parts. In the first of these he explains the locutions set forth according to the third account. But in the second he draws out from the foregoing that a certain other locution is not to be received, there: *And although man be called God* etc. But in the third and last he shows that he held his judgment in suspense among the preceding opinions, in such a way that he inclined to none of the aforesaid opinions more than to another, there: *Diligently enough, according to the judgments of various men* etc. — And from this it is plain that it is not to be imputed to the Master that he was of the third opinion.

### PREFATORY REMARKS.

Note therefore that in this whole part he explains these two locutions: *man was made God*; and: *Christ was predestined to be the Son of God*.

For the first opinion concedes that *God was made man*, and conversely; because the man in Christ is a certain substance, which began to be God by grace. — But the second opinion concedes that *God was made man*, and conversely; because God began to be subsisting in two natures, and from this it came about that the one subsisting in two natures is God. — According to the third opinion it is said: *God was made man*, and conversely; because God took a man, and from this it came about that the one having a man is God.

Likewise the first opinion concedes that *Christ was predestined to be the Son of God*; because that man is the Son of God not by nature, but by grace, and this indeed was foreseen from eternity. — But the second opinion says that *Christ is predestined to be the Son of God*; because that person, insofar as he is man, that is, insofar as he is subsisting in two natures, namely soul and flesh, is predestined, and so by reason of the humanity, not of the divinity. — But the third opinion says that Christ, insofar as he is man, is predestined, not because that man is predestined, nor because that person subsisting in two natures is predestined, but because what was predestined for him from eternity was conferred on him in time by grace; for he did not have the humanity from eternity, but received [it] by grace from time, according as God had foreseen eternally.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

But for the understanding of this part a question falls here concerning two things according to the two kinds of locutions which are set forth in the text.

First it is asked concerning the locutions expressing the union itself.

Secondly it is asked concerning the locutions expressing the predestination of the union.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked concerning this locution: *God is man*, and *man is God*.

But secondly it is asked concerning this: *God was made man*.

Thirdly it is asked concerning this: *man was made God*.

---