Dist. 15, Art. 1, Q. 2
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/15/q/bon-sent-III-d15-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether Christ assumed all our defects except sin.*

Secondly it is asked concerning defects of this kind in respect of their universality, and the question is whether Christ assumed all our defects except sin. And that he did, it seems:

1. *To the opposite [view]:* By Damascene, who in the third book says thus: «He, the Whole, assumed the whole of me, that he might bestow salvation on the whole of me»: therefore if he came to cure all our defects, it seems that he ought to have assumed them all.

2. Likewise: «What was unassumable was incurable»: therefore if any of our defects were unassumable by Christ, they were incurable; if then all were curable, all were assumable: therefore it seems that he assumed them all.

3. Likewise, in the assumption of our defects the divine mercy is manifested, therefore in the assumption of more defects greater mercy is shown, and in the assumption of all the greatest is shown; but the greatest mercy of God was shown in the assumption of our infirmities and defects: therefore it seems that Christ ought to have assumed all defects.

4. Likewise, in the assumption of our defects there was humiliation; but he humbled himself as much as he could, according to what Bernard says: «He descended as far as he could descend»: if then there is greater humiliation in the assumption of more defects than of fewer, and in the assumption of all than of some; it seems that Christ ought to have assumed the totality of our defects.

**On the contrary:** 1. *Foundations.* In ourselves we see defects of the limbs and of certain outward senses, such as sight and hearing; but such defects Christ did not assume, nor was it fitting for him to assume them: therefore it was not fitting for him to assume all our penal defects.

2. Likewise, in us are found contrary diseases, as is plain in fevers and other infirmities, and there are also found incurable diseases: therefore if «contraries cannot be at the same time in the same subject», it seems that he neither could nor ought to have assumed all our penal defects at the same time.

3. Likewise, the tinder and proneness to evil is not a fault, since it can be in us when every fault is removed; but Christ neither had nor could have such a defect, since he could not sin, therefore neither could he have proneness to sin: and thus the same thing returns as before.

4. Likewise, an objection is raised concerning the difficulty toward the good, which is a penal defect in us; but in Christ such a defect did not and could not exist: therefore it is asked in general what defects he assumed, if he did not assume all.

> **Conclusion.** Christ assumed penal defects only, not vicious ones; nor all penal defects, but only natural ones, not however personal ones.

**I respond:** It must be said that, without doubt, «Christ did not assume all our defects, as the Master says in the text, but only those which it was fitting for him to assume and expedient for us». But which these defects are still requires inquiry, just as also

primum, and the Master suggests that it was fitting and expedient for him to assume those defects which contribute «either to the showing forth of the truth of the assumed nature, or to the consummation of the work for which he had come». But still, which these defects are, is difficult to discern.

Now some wished to say that these are the defects which «God *planted* in our nature». For there are certain defects which take their origin from the absence of grace, such as ignorance and the rebellion of the flesh against the spirit and the like. But there are others which take their origin not only from this, but also from the composition of the constituent parts, such as hunger, thirst, death, pain and the like, which take their origin not only from fault, but from this, that human nature is constituted out of contraries; and such are the defects which contribute to the manifestation of the truth of the assumed nature and to the consummation of the undertaken work; but others not at all. — But this still has a difficulty, on account of this, that many diseases take their origin from the complexion of the man, which it is agreed Christ did not assume. Moreover, all our penal defects seem rather to have followed from our transgression and the divine punishment than from a primary planting.

And therefore it can be said in another way, that certain defects are *from fault*, but certain others are *from fault and toward fault*, such as proneness to evil and difficulty toward the good. But those defects which are not only *from fault*, but also *a way toward fault*, it was not fitting for Christ to assume, because Christ was a minister of justice, wholly set apart from sin. But the other defects it was fitting for him to assume, yet not all, because certain defects are *natural*, certain *personal*. Now I call those *natural* defects which regard the whole human nature universally, such as hunger and thirst and like defects. But *personal* defects are those which regard certain persons specially, such as the various species of diseases. Since therefore Christ had come to redeem human nature in common, without distinction of persons; hence it is, that he ought to have in himself *natural* defects, not *personal* defects, *penal* only, not *vicious*, as the reasons adduced for this side show.

**Solution of the opposing [arguments].** 1. 2. To that, then, which is objected on the contrary concerning Damascene, that he assumed the whole that he might cure the whole; it must be said that this is to be understood of those things which belong to the constitution of nature, not of those which pertain to a defect of nature; and the very word suggests this. For properly what is cured is called the nature, but the disease is that from which it is cured, since the disease is expelled, but the nature is preserved. — And by this the answer to the next [argument] is plain, where it is said that the unassumable is incurable; for this is understood of the nature and its parts, which properly are said to be cured, not of defects, which are rather said to be co-assumed than assumed, and are said rather to be expelled than healed.

3. To that which is objected concerning the showing of mercy, it must be said that mercy always shows itself with the rectitude of justice and the order of wisdom preserved; therefore he ought to assume no defects which were not ordered to our advancement and the expediting of our salvation; but there are many which would rather have hindered than helped, such as the defects of the limbs, or of the senses and other like things. And therefore that [argument] does not follow.

4. To that, however, which is last objected concerning humiliation, it must be said likewise that all virtuous and laudable humiliation takes its origin from the discretion of reason; for it ought not to proceed from impulse, but from a reasonable cause. And since concerning certain defects it was not reasonable that Christ should humble himself by their assumption, since he would rather have rendered himself useless than useful by that humiliation, as if he had been blind, or hunchbacked and the like; therefore such defects he ought in no way to have assumed, but only those of which it was said above, namely those which regard the nature itself and afford a way to justice, not to fault.

---