Dist. 16, Dubia
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/1/d/16/q/bon-sent-I-d16-dubia
----------------------------------------
### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the *littera*, and first there is doubt about what he says, that *the Son, insofar as he is sent, that is, made, is less than the Father*. Against which it is objected thus: every act, according to which something is made less, is of unworthiness. If therefore the Son by reason of mission is made less, then mission pertains to unworthiness. Likewise, whenever someone from being equal becomes less, he is changed; but the Son before mission was equal, and now is less: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said, that some things are said of the Son of God *by essence*, some *by union*, which was so great that it made man God and God man. Speaking essentially, in no way is the Son of God less; but this was said by reason of union, because all things which are said of the man can be said of the Son of God; and so it is clear that there is no unworthiness from this, no mutability in his person; and thus both objections are resolved, since both reasonings proceed [only] if it is understood that he became less according to the same nature according to which he was equal, and so would cease to be equal. But now he is at the same time less and equal.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *the Son is less even than himself*. For it appears to speak ill, because greater diversity is implied by the [pair] *greater and less* than by *one and another*, since the first does not fall in the divine nature, but the second does. If therefore this is true: *the Son is less than himself*, then also this: *the Son is one and another*, and so two persons — which is not granted.

**I respond:** It must be said, that it is true that *greater and less* state a greater diversity, namely a diversity of power and of natures; but to this diversity, although it is greater, there does not follow a diversity in person, because several natures can be in one person. Therefore since in Christ there falls a diversity of natures and so of powers, but not of persons: therefore he is called *greater and less* by reason of the diverse powers, but not *one and another*, since he does not have diverse persons.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *he was made a little less than the Angels*. For it appears false, because on that [text] of Hebrews 2: *Him who was made a little less than the Angels*, the Gloss says: "The nature of the human mind, such as Christ assumed, which could be depraved by no sin, only God is greater than it". Likewise, the blessed Virgin, who is purely a creature, is exalted above all the Angels: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said, that one can speak of Christ in comparison to the Angels with respect to four things, namely *with respect to grace*, *with respect to the nature of mind*, *with respect to the nature of body*, and *with respect to the state of passibility*. With respect to grace he is simply greater; with respect to the nature of mind he was at least not less, because, as the Gloss says: "He was less than the Angels in body, not in mind"; with respect to the nature of body he was less; but with respect to the state of passibility he was less and made *a little* less, because the state of passibility was a little after to be converted into the state of glory and honor.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what Hilary says, that *the Father is greater than the Son*; because if what he says is true, since wisdom, power, goodness, and greatness are the same in God: therefore if he is greater, he is also more powerful and wiser and better. Furthermore, in God there is no greatness of mass, but [only] of power: therefore if the Father is greater, he is more powerful; which cannot stand. Likewise, *greater* either states essence or notion. Not essence, because [the persons] are equal in essence; if [it states] notion, I ask: which? If you say *paternity*; on the contrary: a comparison according to *more and* *less* is attended only among co-participants, whence it is not said: *the swan is whiter than the raven*; but the Son is not co-participant in paternity: therefore etc. Likewise it is asked: why is he not called greater than the Holy Spirit?

**I respond:** It must be said, that in the Father there is *authority* with respect to the Son and the Holy Spirit, in the Son with respect to the Holy Spirit, and therefore in the Father there is *greater authority* and *greater fecundity*; and because no name fits as well to express authority as the name *great*: therefore Hilary says that the Father is greater than the Son. From this the objections are clear, because *greater* does not state essence, like power and wisdom, but states notion. If you ask: which? I say that it states notion *commonly*, but yet *in the account of principle*, just as *sub-authority* [does] in the account of one emanating; and hence it is, that the Father is called greater than the Son, because although both have notion in the account of principle, the Father is in the account of principle only, and therefore has more of the account of authority; but the Holy Spirit is the principle of no person, and therefore he is not compared to them according to greatness.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *Greater therefore is the giver, but less* etc. For it appears false, because in whatever mode *greater* is taken, it is said relatively to a less one: therefore if there is to be posited a greater Father, there is to be posited a less Son. Likewise, the Father is called greater because he has authority over the Son: therefore since the Son has sub-authority with respect to the Father, he ought to be called less.

**I respond:** It must be said, that nothing impedes why the Son should not be called less than the Father by reason of sub-authority, just as the Father [is called] greater, except that *names of unworthiness in God ought not to be drawn into use*; or because the holy Doctors, as much as they can, distance themselves from the fallacy of heretics. Therefore when Hilary had said the Father [is] greater, he did not wish that the Son be called less, lest that greatness should appear [to be] not only of authority but also of inequality. And although Hilary said there is authority in the Father, yet he is not read to have said sub-authority in the Son; but that word was added by the custom of those disputing.

---