Dist. 13, 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/3/d/13/q/bon-sent-III-d13-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked concerning that which he says: *Christ is the head, in whom are all the senses, but in the Saints as it were touch alone.* But on the contrary: Origen on Leviticus distinguishes five spiritual senses, corresponding to the five bodily ones. And in the same place he says that all those senses are in holy and spiritual men: therefore he does not say that in the Saints there is touch alone. — Likewise, among the spiritual senses touch is the nobler and more perfect sense, for the reason that it joins one more closely to that one in which is the highest nobility, namely God: therefore it seems that much more than touch ought the other senses to be found in holy men.

It is therefore a question what Augustine here calls the five spiritual senses. And in connection with this, what the spiritual senses are, and how they are distinguished.

**I respond:** It must be said that "sense" names the use of some power existing in a living thing and from a living thing according to nature. In this same way too, among spiritual things "sense" means the use of the gratuitous gifts, which gifts indeed are vital in the very respect in which they are gratuitous. — "Sense," therefore, can be taken *broadly*, for any perfect and evident use of grace. And thus does Augustine take it in the text, when he says that in Christ there were «all the senses, but in the others touch alone»; because Christ had the gifts of graces with respect to the habits and their uses in every kind of fullness of multitude and of perfection; but the others have them only insofar as suffices for the use of the spiritual life. And because touch is the sense most necessary to life, therefore he says that in the other Saints there is touch alone. Hence, just as a perfect animal exceeds imperfect animals in the nobility of life and the integrity of the senses; so Christ in the fullness of grace has excellence with respect to all the Saints.

In another way "sense" can be said *strictly*; and thus the spiritual sense is called the interior use of grace with respect to God himself according to a proportion to the five senses. And thus do Origen and Bernard take it, who distinguish five interior senses, the number of which

it is easy to assign. For each of those senses, as Bernard holds, has its root in the *intellect* and the *affection*, for the reason that they express an experiential cognition. But some of them hold more on the side of the *intellect*, as sight and hearing; some on the side of the *affection*, as smell, taste, and touch. And their sufficiency is shown thus: because on the side of the intellect it happens that one is occupied about the cognition of something in two ways: either by *one's own intuition*, and thus there is sight; or by *another's prompting* or instruction, and thus hearing. — But concerning the affection one happens to find a threefold state: either in *remoteness*, and thus smell; or in *approach*, and thus taste; or in *union*, and thus touch, which is the more perfect among all the senses and the more spiritual on account of this, that it most of all unites one to him who is the highest spirit; on account of which it is said in First Corinthians, chapter six: *He who clings to God is one spirit.* — From these things the text and the response to what was asked are clear. For Augustine takes "senses" otherwise than Origen and Bernard. That also is clear which was asked in the last place.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says, that to the Saints God gives *the spirit by measure.* On the contrary, James, chapter one: *Who gives to all abundantly* etc.; the Gloss: «He gives all things to all not in measure»: therefore etc. — Likewise, with the same bounty and liberality he gives grace to the members, with which he gives grace to the head; but the first he did with immense liberality: therefore the second also.

**I respond:** It must be said that when God is said to give the spirit *not by measure* or *not in measure*, this can be understood in two ways: either because there comes to be a privation of measure with respect to the *gift given*; and thus Augustine takes it, when he says that there does not apply to the Saints that which is said of Christ, that the spirit was given to him not by measure. In another way the privation of measure can be understood with respect to the *liberality of the bestower himself*; and thus is that aforesaid Gloss understood, since it does not intend to say that the grace conferred on each is without measure, since the Apostle says: *To each one, according as God has meted out the measure of faith;* but it means to say that that grace is conferred out of immense liberality, the sign of which is that *he gives to all abundantly and does not upbraid.* And thus the response to the objections is clear. — It could also be said that Augustine understands it with respect to the *singular person*, but the aforesaid Gloss with respect to the *whole Church*; and therefore there is no controversy, since in the Church there is a fullness of multitude, which exceeds the measure of any single Saint, as was said above.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *They have received of the fullness not according to essence, but according to likeness.* For it seems false to say it, since according to this it could be said that we have received of the fullness of Peter's grace according to likeness; for we have had grace like to his. — Likewise, to this exposition the text following in the text of the Gospel seems to be opposed, when it is added: *The Law was given through Moses, grace and truth came to be through Jesus Christ;* but Moses communicated that same Law to others, which he received: therefore Christ the same grace. — Likewise, we participate in his flesh and blood through truth and substance: therefore by parity of reasoning also in grace; or if not, it is asked: why not?

**I respond:** It must be said that when someone is said to receive *of* something, *of* can import the relation of a part to the whole, as one receives of the wine that is in the cask; or it can import the relation of the originated to its principle, as, if someone kindles a candle at the fire of another candle, he is said to have received of its light. But in each of these comparisons this preposition *of* imports some unity and agreement; but in the first it notes an agreement in *substance* and nature, while in the second it notes an agreement in a certain *conformity*, which is regarded according to something common. — Since, therefore, the grace of Christ was not transfused into us by a cutting off of part from part, but had efficacy, so that God should give us a grace conformed to him by the merit of Christ's grace; hence it is that the Master says that we have received of the grace of Christ; not as to *essence*, but as to *agreement of likeness*, not intending by this to exclude the redundance and influence of the grace of the head, but intending to remove the division and transmutation of grace from one subject into another, lest that evangelical word be falsely understood. — Nor is the case the same regarding the Law and the body of Christ with respect to grace, because both the Law and the body of Christ can be transferred from hand to hand, not

so grace from subject to subject. And by this the whole is clear.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *It can rightly be said that he, according to the man, received the fullness of grace from conception;* since upon that text of Luke, chapter four: *Today is the Scripture fulfilled,* the Gloss says: «Before all the Saints he was anointed with a spiritual anointing, when the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove»: but this was when he was already thirty years old: therefore not from conception itself. — Likewise, if from conception itself he had the fullness, then in vain did the Holy Spirit descend upon him while he is baptized by John, as is said in Luke, chapter three, and Matthew, chapter three.

**I respond:** It must be said that one may speak of fullness according to *existence* and according to *manifestation* and according to *redundance.* I say therefore that in Christ from the instant of conception there was fullness according to *existence*, because he had every perfection of grace. — But according to *manifestation* it was at the descent of the dove, where he had testimony from on high that he himself was the only-begotten Son of God; and then it appeared that he was full of every grace, when the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove rested upon him. Hence in past times he appeared through exterior works to make progress, but then it appeared that he was filled with every good. — According to *redundance* it was from that time and thenceforth, because from that time he sanctified some and disseminated the words of life and afterward consummated the mystery of our reparation. — And thus it is clear that there is no controversy, since that Gloss is understood as to redundance, or manifestation; not so the present text.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked concerning that response of the Master, by which he explains the words of Ambrose, saying in the last chapter: *The human sense in him made progress according to manifestation and the opinion of other men.* For it seems to be said insufficiently, that it could thus be said of the sense of God, that it made progress according to manifestation. — Likewise, this exposition does not seem to suffice for the understanding of Ambrose, because Ambrose wishes to prove two natures and two senses in Christ, through this, that Christ made progress. If therefore the truth of the nature is not proved except through the truth of progress, it seems altogether that Ambrose means to understand that Christ made progress by a true progress.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt the Master speaks the truth; but Ambrose wished to say something more, yet did not wish to say so much as the words seem to sound. For he seems in these words to have meant that Christ according to his human nature had an ignorance, which was expelled through acquired knowledge. On account of which it must be known that he does not mean to say that, but he means to say this, that the exterior sense made progress truly as to the cognition of experience. Hence if he says that that boy was ignorant, it is nothing other than to say that he was inexperienced; and by this the truth of the human nature is sufficiently proved, because such experience belongs to him according to the assumed nature. But these things will be better made clear when treatment is made of Christ's knowledge, which indeed will be done in the next distinction.

---