Dist. 15, Art. 2, 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-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether there was a passion of sorrow in Christ.*

Secondly it is asked, whether there was a passion of sorrow in Christ. And that there was, seems [to follow].

*Foundations.*
1. Matthew twenty-six: *My soul is sorrowful even unto death:* if therefore the Truth could not utter a falsehood, it seems that he was truly sorrowful.

2. Likewise, Christ wept over Jerusalem, according to what is said in Luke nineteen; but weeping is a sign of inward grief: therefore, since Christ did nothing through duplicity, he truly had in himself an affect of sorrow.

3. Likewise, Christ loved and desired our salvation; but whoever loves something is saddened at its loss: therefore, since Christ saw many neglecting their own salvation, it seems that on their account he truly felt in himself an affect of sorrow.

4. Likewise, the greater the bowels of compassion are in someone, the more he has compassion for the afflicted; and the more he has compassion inwardly, the more he is affected by grief; but Christ had in himself the most abundant bowels of compassion: therefore it seems that in the necessities and infirmities of others he truly and intensely had the passion of sorrow.

**To the opposite:**
**On the contrary:** 1. Isaiah forty-two: *He shall not be sorrowful nor turbulent,* is said of Christ: therefore Christ had in himself neither disturbance nor sorrow.

2. Likewise, Proverbs twelve: *Whatever may befall him, it shall not sadden the just man;* but Christ was most just: therefore it seems that Christ was saddened by nothing befalling him.

3. Likewise, Seneca proves by manifold reasoning that « sorrow does not fall upon the wise man », and the foundation of his reasoning is that « nothing can injure virtue, just as nothing can take it away »: therefore if Christ was truly wise and had unshaken virtue, it seems that he did not have the passion of sorrow in himself.

4. Likewise, no one is saddened except over that which happens against his own will; but nothing could happen against Christ's will, since in all things it was fulfilled: therefore it does not seem that he truly had sorrow in himself.

### Conclusion.

> In Christ there was true sorrow, yet not in every manner in which it is in us, but only according to what reason dictated to him.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt, as the Master says in the text, and the evangelical text also confirms, in Christ there was true sorrow, yet not in every manner in which it is in us. *Conclusion 1.* For there is a certain sorrow which is apart from the command of reason; and there is a sorrow which is against the right judgment of reason; and there is a sorrow which is subject to the command and judgment of reason. *Threefold sorrow.* And that sorrow is apart from the command of reason which arises from a certain necessity and stealth, like the first movements; and this indeed is common to the wise and the foolish, and to the good and the bad. — But that sorrow is against the right judgment of reason in which reason is subjected to sensuality and is not only disturbed but even thrown into turmoil. — But that [sorrow] is according to the command and judgment of reason, when someone is saddened, reason dictating and persuading, that he ought to be saddened only so much and in such a way over something.

*Conclusion 2.* I say therefore that in Christ there was sorrow only in this third manner, because he was saddened over nothing except according to what reason dictated to him. And this same thing is in­

timated in John eleven, where it is said: *But Jesus groaned in spirit and troubled himself;* in which it is shown that disturbance and sorrow did not preside over reason, but lay subject to it. But in the first two manners there was no sorrow in Christ. — Through this is clear the response to the arguments adduced for either side. *To the arguments.* For the arguments for the first part proceed concerning sorrow in the third manner; but the arguments to the opposite proceed according to the first manner and the second: and this is clear to one running through them one by one.

*Solution of the opposed [arguments].*
1, 2, 3. For what is said in Isaiah: *He shall not be sorrowful* etc.; this does not exclude every sorrow, but disturbing sorrow. — Similarly what is said in Proverbs: *It shall not sadden the just man* etc.; is understood of that sorrow which overturns the state of the mind, not of that sorrow by which someone is saddened in having compassion for another, or even in fleeing some evil inflicted upon himself. — Similarly what Seneca says must be understood. For Seneca does not wish to prove that disturbing sorrow is not in the wise man, but that there is not in the wise man a sorrow that throws into turmoil. *What turmoil is.* Now turmoil means a deflection of reason from rectitude; and in this manner the wise man is neither saddened nor thrown into turmoil. But Seneca does not wish to show that the wise man is in no way disturbed; for this is well-nigh impossible to be found in anyone; and moreover, neither to be disturbed, nor not to be saddened, over the things by which a man ought [to be], that is not [a mark] of wisdom but rather of hardness, *Note.* since the Apostle says to the Romans twelve: *To rejoice with those who rejoice, and to weep with those who weep.*

4. But to that which is objected, that nothing happens against Christ's will; it must be said that this is true of the absolute will of reason, but it is not true of the will of sensuality, or of the conditioned will. Now sorrow does not only arise from the absolute will of reason, but also according to other differences, as will be better made manifest below, when the will of Christ is treated.

---