Dist. 15, Art. 2, Q. 1
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-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On the defects assumed by Christ in particular.*

Next there is inquiry concerning the defects assumed by Christ in particular. And concerning this three things are asked.

First it is asked whether he had ignorance in the rational [faculty].

Second, whether he had sorrow in the concupiscible [faculty].

Third, whether he had anger in the irascible power.

### Question I. *Whether Christ had ignorance in the rational [faculty].*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is asked, whether Christ had ignorance in the rational [faculty]. And that he did, it seems:

**For the opposite:**

1. First, by the authority of Damascene: "It must be known that he assumed a servile and ignorant nature"; he speaks of the Word incarnate: therefore the nature assumed in Christ was ignorant, and so it had the defect of ignorance.

2. Likewise, Ambrose in the first book *On the Holy Spirit*: "Through human imprudence he is ignorant of what he has not yet learned": therefore he had ignorance.

3. Likewise, Pope Leo in the Homily *On the Epiphany*: "They adored the infant, in no way distinguished from the generality of others"; but in general other infants are ignorant: therefore Christ too in his infancy had ignorance.

4. Likewise, *knowledge puffs up*; but Christ humbled himself utterly and assumed those defects which make for humility: therefore he had in himself a defect and lack of knowledge. But this defect is ignorance: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, Christ in his infancy had a defect of eloquence, although he was the Word of the Father, in order to show in himself the truth of human nature: therefore by parity of reasoning, although he was the wisdom of the Father, according to human nature he ought to have had a defect of wisdom. But this is ignorance: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, although Christ was the power of the Father — according to that which the Apostle says in the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, chapter one: *We declare Christ to be the power of God and the wisdom of God* — yet he had a defect of strength according to the exigency of human nature: it seems therefore by parity of reasoning that he had a defect of wisdom.

**On the contrary:**

1. The assumption of flesh was the work of divine wisdom; but wisdom, as such, is not the principle of ignorance: therefore Christ did not assume that defect which is ignorance.

2. Likewise, Christ had come to teach us; but it does not belong to one who is ignorant to teach: therefore he ought not to assume ignorance.

3. Likewise, one is to be believed only if he is knowing; but Christ came in the flesh to this end, that we might believe in him: therefore it seems that he ought to have come with wisdom, not with ignorance.

4. Likewise, that soul could not be united to the Word without being deiform; but deiformity removes the obscurity of ignorance: therefore it seems that it was impossible for Christ to assume in himself, according to human nature, the defect of ignorance.

### Conclusion.

> Christ did not have the defect of ignorance.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Master says in the text, Christ did not have the defect of ignorance. — And the reason for this is: because it neither befitted him, nor was expedient for us. It did not befit him, because his soul ought to be deiform, and by this filled with the light of wisdom and the rectitude of justice; but ignorance is a privation of knowledge and can be a way into error and a deviation from the rectitude of justice, and by this it did not pertain to Christ. — Nor was it expedient for us, whom he had come to redeem and to direct. For if he had had the defect of ignorance, he would not have known how to redeem us; he would also not have known how to direct us, because indeed, *if a blind man gives guidance to a blind man, both fall into the pit*. — And therefore it neither befitted him, nor was expedient for us, that he should assume such a defect. — It must therefore be granted that Christ in no way had the defect of ignorance in himself. And the reasons adduced for this are to be granted.

**Solution of the opposing [arguments]:**

1. To that which is objected from Damascene, that he assumed a servile and ignorant nature; it must be said that ignorance and servility are not attributed to the assumed nature by reason of that singular nature which was joined to the Word in unity of person, but as regards the other natures similar in species, as if to say: he assumed our nature, which is ignorant — not in Christ, but in us.

2. To that of Ambrose, where it is said that Christ was ignorant of what he had not learned; it must be said that one kind of knowledge is of *simple cognition*, another of *experience*. But Ambrose is not there speaking of ignorance insofar as it signifies the privation of *any knowledge whatever*, but insofar as it signifies the privation of *experience*, according to what was determined in the preceding [questions].

3. To that which is objected concerning Pope Leo, that that infant was in no way distinguished from the generality of others; it must be said that Pope Leo is speaking as regards those things which appeared outwardly; for as regards those things which lay hidden within, he differed from others in many respects.

4. To that which is objected, that *knowledge puffs up*; it must be said that one may speak of knowledge either insofar as it is *without charity*, or insofar as it is *conjoined to charity*. If insofar as it is *divided from charity*, then the Apostle says that it puffs up. But if insofar as it is *conjoined to charity*, then it is not a way to inflation, but rather to rectitude and edification and humility. For from the knowledge of oneself and of God arises the perfection of humility; and in this second way it was in Christ.

5. To that which is objected, that in Christ there was a defect of eloquence, therefore likewise also of wisdom; it must be said that it is not similar, because in the defect of eloquence, as in the other infantile necessities, the truth of the assumed nature was made manifest; but the defect of wisdom lies hidden within; therefore it would have been of no avail, had it been in Christ. And therefore it is not similar.

6. To that which is objected, that Christ, the power of God, had a defect of strength; it must be said that it is not similar, both because the defect of strength appeared outwardly and was in the flesh, whereas the defect of wisdom was inwardly in the soul, which from the beginning ought to have been perfectly disposed for its union with the Word; and also because the defect of strength is matter for the exercise of virtue, but not so the defect of cognition, which rather impedes it. Therefore it is not similar on the one side and the other.