Dist. 15, Art. 2, Q. 3
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-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether in Christ there was a passion or affection of anger.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether in Christ there was a passion or affection of anger. And that there was, it seems.

1. In whomever there is to be posited a zeal for vengeance, there is to be posited a movement of anger; but in Christ there was a zeal for vengeance, as is clear, when he cast out those buying and selling from the temple: therefore it seems that he had in himself an affection of anger.

2. Likewise, to detest evil is nothing other than to be angry at evil; but in Christ there was a perfect detestation of evil: therefore in Christ there was a passion, which is anger.

3. Likewise, just as the rational [power] is ordered to discerning, so the irascible is ordered to being angry: therefore just as in Christ on the side of the rational there was a use of prudence, so on the side of the irascible there was an affection of anger.

4. Likewise, anger befits the state of the way more than the state of the fatherland; but the Lord on the day of judgment will be angry at the wicked, as is often said in Scripture: therefore much more strongly did he have an affection of anger in the state of the wayfarer.

**On the contrary:** 1. Upon that text of Job, chapter five: *Anger slays the foolish man;* Gregory: « Anger through vice blinds the eye of the mind, anger through zeal disturbs it »; but the eye of the mind in Christ could neither be blinded nor disturbed, since in him it was in the continual use of contemplation: therefore it does not seem that there was in him any affection of anger.

2. Likewise, Damascene, defining anger, says that « anger is the avenger of an injured concupiscence »; and again, that « anger is the desire for repayment »; but in Christ there was neither an injury of concupiscence nor a love of vengeance: therefore neither was there in him a passion of anger.

3. Likewise, Christ was as perfectly meek as he was humble; but in Christ the humility was so perfect that there was no pride: therefore the meekness was so perfect that there was no anger.

4. Likewise, « anger according to nature is a kindling of the blood about the heart, according to what the Philosopher and Damascene hold, from the evaporation of the bile »: therefore if this denotes a foul passion, which has joined to it disquiet and disturbance; it seems that such a passion is not to be posited in Christ.

### Conclusion.

> In Christ there was an affect of anger, inasmuch as it denotes an affect of detestation and a commotion of the sensual part, which nevertheless is subject to reason.

**I respond:** It must be said that anger in one way denotes purely an *affection*, and thus anger is called an affect of detestation of some evil, or of an apparent evil. In another way anger denotes an affect with punishment; and thus anger has disturbance and disquiet annexed to it. And this can be in a threefold difference: for either that disturbance touches only the *lower powers* and in no way touches the *eye of the mind;* or it touches the *eye of the mind* by disturbing it for a time, but not by blinding it; or it reaches the *eye of the mind* itself by disturbing and beclouding it. And according to this the movement of anger is found in a fourfold difference, according to what is gathered from the sayings of the Saints: in one way it denotes purely an affect of detestation; and in this way it could have been in Adam in the state of innocence. — In another way it denotes a movement of detestation with disquiet and disturbance of the sensual part without any disturbance of the mind, and in this way there was in Christ an affection of anger; for as the Gospel says: *Groaning, he troubled himself.* — In a third way it denotes an affect of detestation with commotion and disturbance not only of the sensual part, but also of reason for a time; and in this way anger is found in just men, who are angry with anger through zeal, of whom Gregory says that « thereby the disturbed mind makes progress, so that it grows clear; just as the eye is for a time disturbed by the eye-salve applied to it, so that afterwards it may be made clearer ». — In a fourth way anger denotes an affect of detestation with commotion of the sensuality and also of the mind, so that that commotion has annexed to it a disturbance of the mind, or is ordered to it; and thus anger is through vice, and is found in sinners and is forbidden by the Lord.

And through this distinction the response to the question and to the reasons on both sides is clear. For in a certain way there was in Christ a passion of anger or affection of anger, namely inasmuch as it denotes an affect of detestation and a commotion of the sensual part, which nevertheless is subject to reason. And thus the reasons adduced for the first part proceed, proving that an affection of anger was in Christ, as is clear to one who looks; and therefore they are to be conceded. And in a certain way it was not, namely inasmuch as it denotes a disturbance of the mental eye, and inasmuch as it denotes an affect of repayment, insofar as that affect is from a craving for vengeance, not from a zeal for justice; for thus it is a disturbing passion.

**On the solution of the opposing arguments:**

*To 1 and 2.* And in this way the first two reasons proceed to the second part; and therefore along that way they conclude truly and can be conceded.

*To 3.* As for that which is objected, that in Christ there was no pride, therefore there ought to have been no anger, since he was perfect in meekness as in humility; it must be said that the case is not alike, because pride directly names a vice, and therefore it always has the opposite [relation] with humility, and therefore it cannot stand with perfect humility. But anger does not always name a vice; rather it even names a virtue; therefore it does not have such an opposition with meekness. And on account of this it does not follow that, if he was of perfect meekness, on account of this he did not have an affection of anger.

*To 4.* As for that which is objected, that anger is from a kindling of the blood about the heart; it must be said that this is true in us, in whom the flesh struggles against the spirit, and the sensuality against reason, who have not only the corruption of penalty but even of foulness; but this need not be in Christ. — If, however, anyone should say that in Christ there was a kindling of the blood, but a moderate one, it does not seem to be unfitting.

---