COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. II, d. 17, a. 2, q. 1: S. BONAVENTURAE

S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis S. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis	St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio Cardinal Bishop of Alba & Doctor of the Church
Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum	Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences
Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis	of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris
SECUNDI LIBRI	BOOK TWO
COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVII.	COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVII
ARTICULUS II. Quaestio I.	ARTICLE II Question 1
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 418-420. Cum Notitiis Originalibus	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 418-420. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
ARTICULUS II. De productione hominis quoad corpus.	ARTICLE II On the production of man in regard to the body.
Consequenter quaeritur de productione primi hominis ex parte corporis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.	Consequently there is asked concerning the production of the first man on the part of the body. And about this three (questions) are asked.
Primo quaeritur, utrum corpus primi hominis produci debuit pure de natura caelesti.	First there is asked, whether the body of the first man ought to have been produced from a purely celestial nature.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum productum fuerit pure de natura elementari.	Second there is asked, whether it was produced from a purely elementary nature.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum conditum fuerit in complexione aequali, vel inaequali.	Third there is asked, whether it was founded in an equal, and/or unequal, complexion (of the elements).

p. 419

QUAESTIO I. Utrum corpus Adae debuerit produci de natura pure caelesti.	QUESTION 1 Whether the body of Adam ought to have been produced from a purely celestial nature?
CIRCA PRIMUM sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod corpus Adae produci debuerit pure de natura caelesti, sic.	ABOUT THE FIRST (the argument) is advanced thus and there is shown, that the body of Adam ought to have been produced from a purely celestial nature, thus:
1. Nobilissimae formae debet dari nobilissima materia;¹ sed nobilissima inter formas est anima rationalis innocens et absque peccato, qualis fuit anima Adae; sed nobilissima inter naturas corporales est natura caelestis: ergo etc.	1. To the most noble form there ought to be given the most noble matter;¹ but the most noble among forms is the innocent and sinless [absque peccato], rational soul, of which kind was the soul of Adam; but the most noble among corporal natures is the celestial nature: ergo etc..
2. Item, motoris ad mobile debet esse proportio;² sed anima rationalis est motor incorruptibilis: ergo debuit ei dari corpus impassibile.	2. Likewise, there ought to be a proportion between the mover and the movable;² but the rational soul is an incorruptible mover: therefore there ought to have been given it an impassible body.
3. Item, finis imponit necessitatem his quae sunt ad finem;³ sed totus Adam factus est ad perceptionem beatitudinis, locus autem beatitudinis spiritualis est ipse Deus, corporalis est caelum: ergo sicut spiritus Adae non quiescit nisi in Deo, sic debuit ei dari corpus, quod non quiescit nisi in caelo; hoc autem est corpus de natura caelesti: ergo etc.	3. Likewise, the end imposes a necessity upon those which regard the end;³ but the whole Adam was made for the perception of beatitude, moreover the place of spiritual beatitude is God Himself, of corporal (beatitude) is Heaven: therefore just as the spirit of Adam does not rest but in God, so there ought not have been given him a body, which rests but in Heaven; but this the body of a celestial nature: ergo etc..
4. Item, spiritus rationalis, prout absque culpa conditus fuit, maxime erat potens et idoneus ad agendum, perfectus erat cognitionis lumine et⁴ idoneus ad cognoscendum, liber erat voluntate et rectitudine, et ideo facilis ad tenendum in sui optimum: ergo debuit ei dari corpus, cui maxime competit agere et ad cognitionem disponere, et quod minime habet retardationem; hoc autem est lux et natura caelestis: ergo corpus Adae pure produci debuit de caelesti corpore.	4. Likewise, the rational spirit, insofar as it was founded apart from fault, was in the greatest manner able [potens] and suitable [idoneus] for acting, was perfected by the light [lumine] of cognition and⁴ suitable for cognizing, was free in will and (moral) rectitude, and for that reason facile to tend [ad tendendum] unto its best: therefore a body ought to have been given to it, which suited [competit] (it) most of all to act and disposed (it) to cognition, and which had in the least a retardance [retardationem]; but this (body) is light [lux] and the celestial nature: therefore the body of Adam ought to have been produced from a purely celestial body.
SED CONTRA: 1. « Anima rationalis quodam modo est omnia ».⁵ Si igitur corpus debet proportionari animae, corpus eius debet habere cum omnibus convenientiam; sed hoc non haberet, si esset pure de natura caelesti et non communicaret elementis: ergo etc.	BUT ON THE CONTRARY: 1. « The rational soul is in a certain manner all (things) ».⁵ If, therefore, the body ought to be proportioned to the soul, its body ought to have a convening with all (things); but this it would not have, if it were of a purely celestial nature and did not communicate with the elements: ergo etc..
2. Item, anima rationalis, quamvis sit simplex in essentia, tamen est multiplex in effectu:⁶ ergo si corpus ei debet correspondere, necesse est, quod corpus eius habeat varietatem in partium compositione et organizatione; sed hoc non haberet, si esset corpus pure caeleste: ergo etc.	2. Likewise, the rational soul, though it be simple in essence, yet is multiple in effect:⁶ therefore if the body ought to correspond with it, it is necessary, that its body have a variety in the composition and organization of (its) parts; but this it would not have, if it were a purely celestial body: ergo etc..
3. Item, vegetabilis et sensibilis disponunt ad rationalem, et magis ad ipsam appropinquant quam natura alicuius corporis, nec alicui corpori unitur rationalis potentia absque vegetabili et sensibili: nullum ergo corpus est habile ad actum vitae rationalis, nisi prius fuerit habile ad actum vitae vegetabilis;⁷ tale autem est corpus cibabile, et huiusmodi non potest esse corpus pure caeleste: ergo etc.	3. Likewise, the vegetable and sensible (soul) dispose to the rational (soul), and approach it more than the nature of any body, nor is the rational power united to any power apart from the vegetable and sensible (soul): therefore not body is able [habile] for the act of rational life, unless it first was able for an act of vegetable life;⁷ but such is the body able to feed [corpus cibabile], and the purely celestial body cannot be of this kind: ergo etc..
4. Item, corpori simplici debetur unus motus tantum, sive illud corpus sit caeleste, sive elementare;⁸ corpori autem, quod movetur ab anima, debetur motus in omnem differentiam, cum anima sit motor sufficiens: ergo corpus Adae non potuit esse omnino de natura corporis simplicis, ergo nec pure de natura caelesti.	4. Likewise, for a simple body there ought to be one movement only, whether that body is celestial, or elementary;⁸ but for the body, which is moved by the soul, there ought to be a movement in regard to every difference [in omnem differentiam], since the soul is a sufficient mover: therefore the body of Adam could not be entirely from the nature of a simple body, therefore neither from the nature of a purely celestial one.
CONCLUSIO. Corpus Adae non fuit formatum nec debuit formari de natura pure caelesti.	CONCLUSION The body of Adam was not formed nor ought it to have been formed from a purely celestial nature.
RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod corpus Adae non fuit pure formatum de natura caelesti, sicut innuit textus Genesis,⁹ qui dicit eum formatum de limo terrae. Nec debuit pure de naturae caelesti formari, immo de natura elementari, hoc exigente ordinis congruentia, quam in omnibus suis operibus semper servat Sapientia divina. Requirebat enim hoc ordo hominis, sive in se, sive ad creaturam inferiorem, sive ad creaturam parem, sive ad Deum finem.	I RESPOND: It must be said, that the body of Adam was not formed from a purely celestial nature, just as the text of Genesis⁹ indicates [innuit], which says that he (was) formed from the slime of the earth. Nor ought it have been formed from a purely celestial nature, nay from an elementary nature, this being required by the congruence of the order, which the Divine Wisdom keeps always in all Its works. For the order of man, whether in himself, or regarding an inferior creature, or regarding a peer creature [creaturam parem], or regarding God as (his) End, required this.
Ordo ipsius hominis in se ipso hoc requirebat. Quia enim homo conditus fuit ut natus multa cognoscere, non solum cognitione intellectiva, sed etiam sensitiva; ideo debuit ei dari corpus multiforme, ut diversa organa diversitati sensuum deservirent ad diversa obiecta cognoscenda. Quia etiam¹⁰ conditus fuit in vertibilitate liberi arbitrii ut potens vivere in iustitia et mori per culpam; dari debuit etiam corpus, quod non tantum esset habile ad vivendum, sed etiam, quod posset fieri habile ad corrumpendum sive moriendum. Et ita ordo hominis ipsius in se requirebat, ut corpus daretur homini multiforme et ad corruptionem possibile, et ideo non caeleste, sed elementare.	The order of man in his very self required this. For because man was founded as one bound to cognize many (things), not only by intellective cognition, but even by sensitive (cognition); for that reason a multiform body ought to have been given him, so that the diverse organs would zealously serve the diversity of senses for the cognize of diverse objects. Because he was also¹⁰ founded in the vertibility of free will as one able [potens] to live justice and to die through fault; there also ought to have been given (him) a body, which was not only able [habile] to live, but also, which could become able to be corrupted or to die. And thus the order of man himself in himself required, that there would be given man a multiform body and one able [possibile] for corruption.
Ordo etiam hominis ad creaturam inferiorem requirebat. Quia enim corporales naturae inferiores factae sunt, ut deservirent creaturae rationali, sicut supra¹¹ ostensum fuit; factae sunt etiam, ut . . .	The order of man to the inferior creature also required (this). For because inferior corporal natures were made, to zealously serve the rational creature, just as was shown above,¹¹ they were also made, to . . .
¹ Cfr. supra pag. 380, nota 1. — Conclusionem arg. codd. Y aa ita supplent: ergo corpus Adae constitui debuit de natura caelesti pure. ² Vide supra pag. 216, nota 3. et pag. 346, nota 4. ³ Secundum Aristot., II. Phys. text 88. seqq. (c. 9.). — De Deo ut loco spirituali cfr. supra d. 2. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. et scholion. ⁴ Cod. W et ideo si, Vat. et ideo. ⁵ Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 37. (c. 8.). ⁶ Sive operatione. Cfr. supra d. 15. a. 1. q. 2. fundam. 3. ⁷ Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 31. seq. (c. 3.). ⁸ Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 7 (c. 2.). ⁹ Cap. 2, 7. — Paulo inferius plures codd. quem in omnibus pro quam in omnibus. ¹⁰ Ita codd. F I aa; alii cum edd. 1, 2 enim, Vat. vero. ¹¹ Dist. 15. a. 2. q. 1. et infra pag. 421, nota 4.	¹ Cf. above d. 15, a. 1, q. 3, p. 380, footnote 1. — Codices Y and aa supply the conclusion of the argument thus: therefore the body of Adam ought to have been constituted from a purely celestial nature [ergo corpus Adae constitui debuit de natura caelesti pure]. ² See above d. 7, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, p. 216, footnote 3, and d. 14, p. I, a. 3, q. 1, p. 346, footnote 4. ³ According to Aristotle, Physics, Bk. II, text 88 ff. (ch. 9). — On God as a spiritual place, cf. above d. 2, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, and (its) Scholium. ⁴ Codex W has and for that reason if (it was) [et ideo si], the Vatican and for that reason [et ideo], for and [et]. ⁵ Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. III, text 37 (ch. 8). ⁶ Or in operation. Cf. above d. 15, a. 1, q. 2, 3rd argument of the fundament. ⁷ Cf. Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. II, text 31 f. (ch. 3). ⁸ Aristotle, On Heaven and the World, Bk. I, text 7 (ch. 2). ⁹ Gen. 2:7. — A little below this several codices have which (order) [quem in omnibus] for which (congruence) [quam in omnibus]. ¹⁰ Thus codices F I and aa; the others, together with editions 1 and 2, have For because he was [enim] for Because he was also [etiam]; the Vatican edition has But because he was [vero]. ¹¹ Distinction 15, a. 2, q. 1, and here in Question 2, p. 421, footnote 4.

p. 420

mediante illa quodam modo perducantur in finem: hinc est, quod debuit fieri rationalis creatura taliter composita, quod obsequium inferiorum creaturarum esset ei utile, et quod, mediante illa creatura, naturae inferiores quodam modo perducerentur ad beatitudinem. Et ideo, ut naturae inferiores possent homini deservire et in homine quodam modo glorificari, debuit homo non tam ex natura superiorum corporum quam ex natura elementorum constitui.	be lead thoroughly unto (their) end in a certain manner by means of that (creature): hence it is, that the rational creature ought to have been made as one composed in such a manner, that the service [obsequium] of inferior creatures would be useful to it, and that, by means of that creature, inferior natures would be led in a certain manner thoroughly to beatitude. And for that reason, so that the inferior natures might be able to zealously serve man and to be in a certain manner glorified in man, man ought to have been constituted not so much out of the nature of superior bodies as out of the nature of the elements.
Ordo etiam ad creaturam parem, id est ad Angelum, hoc requirebat. Sicut enim facta est una rationalis creatura prope Deum et in loco supremo, ut in empyreo; sic debuit fieri alia rationalis creatura in loco infimo, scilicet terra. Et ideo corpus eius constitui debuit ex natura tali habitationi convenienti, et ideo magis ex natura elementari quam caelesti.	The order (of man) regarding a peer creature, that is regarding the Angel, also required this. For just as one rational creature was made near God and in the supreme place, such as the empyrean (Heaven); so another rational creature ought to have been made in the lowest place, namely the Earth. And for that reason his body ought to have been constituted out of a nature convening with such a habitation, and for that reason out of an elementary nature rather than a celestial one.
Ordo etiam ad finem¹ hoc requirebat. Debebat enim homo subiici, ut per humilitatem subiectionis ascenderet unde angelus ceciderat per sublimitatem elationis; et ideo debuit sibi dari corpus constitutum de natura inferiori, ut, se ipsum pulverem reputans, Deo per omnia subiaceret. Unde et Scriptura maluit eum dicere de limo terrae productum, ut ex hoc homo proficeret et ascenderet per humilitatis meritum. — Et ideo concedendae sunt rationes, quae ad hoc sunt inductae.	The order (of man) regarding (his) End¹ also required this. For man ought to have been subjected (to God), so that through the humility of subjection he might ascend whence the angel had fallen through the sublimity of (his) elation; and for that reason there ought to have been given him a body constituted from an inferior nature, so that, reputing himself (but) dust, he might subject (himself) to God through all (things). Wherefore even Scripture prefers to say that he (was) produced from the slime of the earth, so that from this man might make progress and ascend through the merit of (his) humility. — And for that reason, the reasons, which have been brought forward for this, are to be conceded.
1. Ad illud vero, quod obiicitur in contrarium de nobilitate formae, dicendum, quod nobilitas materiae venit ex ordinatione ad formam. Quoniam igitur corpus magis erat ordinabile ad animam, quod erat constitutum ex varietate naturae, quam corpus, quod esset pure caeleste; hinc est, quod si² illud sit nobilius in se, tamen in relatione ad formam corpus ex diversis elementis compositum magis est nobile.	1. To that, however, which is objected unto the contrary concerning the nobility of form, it must be said, that the nobility of matter comes out of (its) ordination to form. Therefore, since the body, which had been constituted out of the variety of nature, was more able to be ordered [ordinabile] to the soul, than the body, which was purely celestial; hence it is, that if² the latter is more noble in itself, yet in relation to form the body composed out of diverse elements is more noble.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod motoris ad mobile debet esse proportio; dicendum, quod quamvis anima sit immortalis morte naturae, quando tamen creata fuit, mori potuit morte culpae. Et quia corpus datum est ei non solum ad vivificandum, sed etiam ad merendem; ideo non solum debuit dari corpus aptum eius immortalitati, sed etiam aptum eius vertibilitati, et ideo non solum necessarium ad perpetuitatem, sed etiam possibile ad mortalitatem.	2. To that which is objected, that there ought to be a proportion of the mover to the movable; it must be said, that though the soul is immortal according to the death of nature, yet when it was created, it could die by the death of fault. And because there has been given it a body not only to vivify, but also to merit; for that reason there ought to have been given (it) not only a body apt for its immortality, but also apt for its vertibility, and for that reason not only one necessary for perpetuity, but also possible for mortality.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod homo factus est propter beatitudinis perceptionem; dicendum, quod etsi factus est propter beatitudinem, ita tamen, ut illuc³ perveniret per merita et bona opera, et ita prius esset viator quam comprehensor; et quia prius oportuit eum transire per viam, quam perveniret ad patriam: ideo in primaria sui conditione debuit ei dari corpus conveniens secundum statum viae. Et quia locus sibi deputatus ad merendum erat locus inferior, scilicet paradisus terrestris;⁴ inde est, quod competebat, corpus suum de natura terrestri assumi, non principaliter de caelesti. Cum autem assumetur in gloria, tunc corporis eius dispositio erit variata, sicut patet in quarto,⁵ ubi agitur de dotibus corporum glorificatorum.	3. To that which is objected, that man was made for the sake of the perception of beatitude; it must be said, that even if he was made for the sake of beatitude, yet thus, that he might arrive there³ through merits and good works, and thus that he might be a wayfarer before a comprehensor; and because it was necessary [oportuit] that he pass by through the way before arriving at the Fatherland: for that reason in his primary foundation there ought to have been given him a body convening (with him) according to the state of the way. And because the place deputed for him to merit was an inferior place, namely the terrestrial Paradise;⁴ hence it is, that it was suitable [competebat], that his body be assumed from a terrestrial nature, not principally from a celestial one. But when he will be assumed in glory, then will the disposition of his body be a varied one, just as is clear in the Fourth (Book),⁵ where one deals with the endowments [dotibus] of glorified bodies.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod anima illa erat potens ad agendum et cognoscendum et tenendum in Deum; dicendum, quod etsi erat potens ad actionem, non tamen ita perfecte potens erat, quin esset possibilis ad defectionem.⁶ Et ideo non sequitur, quod deberet sibi ad haec complenda dari corpus caeleste, quod est incorruptibile, sed magis elementare, quod ex bona dispositione et complexione aequali esset ideoneum ad agendum, et nihilominus, si homo peccaret, esset possibile ad patiendum.	4. To that which is objected, that that soul was able [potens] to act and cognize and tend unto God; it must be said, that even if it was able for action, yet it was not so perfectly able, that it was not able [possibilis] for defection.⁶ And for that reason it does not follow, that there ought to have been given it a celestial body, which is incorruptible, to complete these (acts), but rather an elementary one, which was from a good disposition and equal complexion suitable for acting, and nevertheless, if man would sin, one able to suffer.
SCHOLION.	SCHOLIUM
I. Tres huius articuli quaestiones in compedium redigunt doctrinam Alexandri Hal., qui integra quaestione (S. p. II. q. 77.) diffuse disputat de causa materiali corporis humani, et q. 81. m. 1. de compositione eiusdem. Alii auctores adhuc brevius et plerumque una quaestione has tres qq. fere in eadem sententia resolvunt. — Supponantur autem plura, quae supra d. 15. a 1. q. 2. 3. de compositione corporum animalium dicta sunt.	I. The three Questions of this Article reduce to a compendium the doctrine of Alexander of Hales, who disputes at length (Summa., p. II, q. 77) in an entire question concerning the material cause of the human body, and in q. 81, m. 1, of the composition of the same. The other authors resolve these three questions in nearly the same sentence yet more briefly and for the most part in one question. — Moreover, there are supposed (here) several (things), which have been said above in d. 15, a. 1, qq. 3 and 3, concerning the composition of the bodies of animals.
II. De his 3 qq. praeter laudatum Alexandrum Hal., Scot., in utroque Scripto, II. Sent. d. 15. q. unica, et apud Hier. de Montefortino, t. II. p. I, q. 91. a. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1; S. I. q. 91. a. 1. et a. 3. ad 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. p. II. q. 76. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 2. 3. — Aegid. R., II. Sent. d. 18. q. 1. a. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4.	II. On these three Questions, besides the mentioned Alexander of Hales, (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, in each version of his Commentary, Sent, Bk. II, d. 15, q. sole, and in Friar Jerome of Montefortino’s, (Summa Scoti,) tome II, p. I, q. 91, a. 1. — St. Thomas, here in q. 3, a. 1; Summa., I, q. 91, a. 1, and a. 3, in reply to n. 1. — Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), here in a. 3; Summa., p. II, q. 76. — (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 2, aa. 1 and 2. — Richard of Middleton, herein a. 2, qq. 1, 2 and 3. — Giles the Roman, Sent., Bk. II, d. 18, q. 1, a. 2. — (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, here in q. 4.
¹ Vat. Deum finem; codd. F I autem post subiici addunt Deo. ² Vat. etsi. ³ In multis codd. et ed. 1 desideratur illuc. ⁴ Gen. 2, 8. ⁵ Dist. 49. p. II. art. princ. 1. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. ⁶ Unus alterque cod. cum Vat. defectum.	¹ The Vatican edition has God (his) End [Deum finem]; codices F and I, however, after been subjected [subici] add to God [Deo]. ² The Vatican edition has even if [etsi]. ³ In many codices and edition 1 there is wanting there [illuc]. ⁴ Gen. 2:8. ⁵ Distinction 49, p. II, principle Article I, a. 1, q. 1 ff. ⁶ One and the other codex, together with the Vatican edition, have for failing [ad defectum] in place of for defection [ad defectionem].

This English Translation and the digitization of the Latin and English texts, the HTML markup, all emendations and corrections of the Latin text, and all notes by the Translator, are © 2007, 2008 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo. The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation than that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator.
Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.

Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum

Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVII.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVII