Dist. 11
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/11/q/bon-sent-III-d11-littera
----------------------------------------
# DISTINCTION XI.

### Chapter I. *Whether Christ is a creature, or made.*

It is also wont to be asked whether it ought to be said simply and conceded that Christ is *made*, or *created*, or a creature. — To which it can be said that this is less fittingly said simply and without qualification; and even if at times, for the sake of brevity, it be declared simply, it ought nevertheless never to be understood simply; because, as Augustine says in the first book *On the Trinity*, "when we speak of Christ, the prudent and diligent and pious reader ought to understand *what* is said, *in what respect*, and *on what account*." — He who shows that Christ, or the Son of God, is not *made* nor a creature, in the first book *On the Trinity*, does so, saying thus: "*In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was made flesh; and all things were made through him.* Nor does he say 'all things' save those which were made, that is, every creature. Whence it plainly appears that he himself is not *made*, through whom all things were made; and if he is not *made*, he is not a *creature*. But if he is not a creature, he is of the same substance with the Father. For every substance which is not God is a creature; and what is not a creature is God. But if the Son is not of the same substance as the Father, then he is a *made* substance; and if he is a *made* substance, not all things were made through him; but all things were made through him: therefore he is not a *made* substance, but is together with the Father an unmade substance." Likewise in the same work: "If the Father made even the Son, whom the Son himself did not make, then not all things were made through the Son; but all things were made through the Son: therefore he himself was not made, so that with the Father he might make all things that were made." The same, in the book *Of Eighty-three Questions*: "Whatever the Father God made through the Son is called a creature, who cannot be called a *creature*, since through him all things were made." Ambrose, in the first book *On the Trinity*: "Let us prove, he says, that the Son of God is not a creature. For we have heard in the Gospel that the Lord charged the disciples: *Preach the Gospel to every creature.* He who says *every* creature excepts *none*. And where are they who call Christ a creature? For if he were a creature, he would charge that the Gospel be preached to himself," and he would be subject to vanity, since, as the Apostle attests: *Every creature is made subject to vanity.* Therefore Christ is not a creature, but the Creator, who charges the disciples with the office of teaching the creature.

### Chapter II. *On the perfidy and punishment of Arius.*

This is read to have been the perfidy of Arius, that he confessed Christ to be a creature. Therefore the bowels of Arius gushed out, and he burst asunder in the midst, cast down upon his face, polluted in that foul mouth wherewith he had denied Christ. By these and very many other testimonies we are instructed that it ought not to be hidden simply that Christ is *made*, or a *creature*; but with a qualification added, it can rightly be said, as if it be said *made according to the flesh*, or *according to the man*, so that the making be attributed to the humanity, not to God. For as Ambrose says in the first book *On the Trinity*: "Not as God was he *made*, but as God the Son of God he was *born*; but afterward, according to the flesh, he was *made* man of Mary. *For God sent his Son made of a woman, made under the Law; his Son*, he says, that is, not one of many. When he says *his own*, he signified the property of the eternal generation. Afterward he asserted *made of a woman*, so that the making might be ascribed not to the Divinity, but to the assumption of the body. Therefore he says *made of a woman* on account of the taking up of the flesh, *under the Law* on account of the observance of the Law." "Generation does not prejudice generation, nor flesh the divinity." "For the eternal God took up the sacrament of the incarnation, not divided, but one and in both one, namely in Divinity and in body. For he is not *one* from the Father, *another* from the Virgin, but the same one *otherwise* from the Father, *otherwise* from the Virgin," "who was made according to the assumption of our nature, not according to the substance of the eternal life," "whom we read to be *firstborn* and *only-begotten*:firstborn, because none before him; only-begotten, because none after him." — From these it is evidently handed down with what understanding it is to be taken when Christ is said to be *made*, either simply, or with an addition, so that the making, namely, or the creature, be referred not to the assuming God, but to the assumed man. For in God there cannot be a creature, as Ambrose says in the first book *On the Trinity*: "Was Christ *made* by a word? Was Christ *created* by a command? But how can a creature be in God? For God is of a simple nature, not of a conjoined and composite one, to which nothing accrues, but which has only what is divine in its nature." — Although, therefore, Christ is said to be a creature according to the man, yet he is not to be predicated simply a creature. Nor from this, that Christ is said to be a creature according to the man, can anyone proceed to argue thus: if, insofar as he is man, Christ is a creature; he is either rational, or not; either that which is God, or not; striving thereby to prove that Christ is something not divine; because what he himself is according to the man, that he is. And therefore, if according to the man he is some substance not divine, he is assuredly something not divine. — But from tropical locutions there is no right procedure of argumentation; and that locution is tropical whereby Christ is said to be a creature, either simply, or with an adjunct.

### Chapter III. *Whether that man always existed.*

After the foregoing it is asked whether that *man* began to be, or always existed: just as we simply declare that Christ, or the Son of God, always was and did not begin. Concerning this Augustine speaks thus on John: "The Son of God had at some time what that same man-son did not yet have, because he was not yet man." The same, in the same place: "Before the world was, neither were we, nor was he himself the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus." The same, on the Psalms: "Our Christ, even though perhaps he is recently man, is nevertheless eternal God." — But elsewhere it is read that that *boy* created the stars; and Christ says that he is the *beginning* and is *before Abraham*. In nothing, therefore, resisting these authorities, we say that that man, insofar as he is *man*, began; insofar as he is *Word*, always was. For here a response is not to be borne without a distinction. For Augustine himself too uses a distinction of this kind in many places, saying that all things were made through Christ, insofar as he is the *Word*; but according to that whereby he is *man*, that he himself was made and glorified. If therefore you regard the person, say confidently that that man always existed; but if the nature of the man, concede that he began.

---