Dist. 16, 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/16/q/bon-sent-III-d16-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether the pain was more intense in the rational part of Christ's soul or in the sensual part.*

Thirdly it is asked, in which part of Christ's soul the pain was more intense, whether in the rational part or in the sensual part. And that it was in the sensual part is shown.

1. That suffers more at the presence of the afflicting thing which is more passible; but the sensuality in Christ was more passible than the reason itself, for it was more fragile: therefore it seems that Christ's soul was more afflicted according to sensuality than it would be afflicted according to reason.

2. Likewise, everything that in suffering is removed further from consolation suffers and is afflicted more; but sensuality withdrew further from joy in the passion than the reason itself, as is manifest: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, where the passion of fear is more vigorous, there the passion of pain is more intensified; but Christ feared more according to sensuality than according to reason — for according to reason he was secure, although sensuality dreaded — therefore by parity of reasoning he grieved more on the part of sensuality than of reason.

4. Likewise, just as joy is in the conjunction of the fitting with the fitting, so pain is in separation: therefore there is greater pain where there is separation of what is more fitting; but the soul agrees more with the flesh according to sensuality than according to reason, as Augustine says in the book *On the Spirit and the Soul*: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, that which is more bound to something and has more need of it suffers and is afflicted more in its corruption and loss; but sensuality is more bound to the flesh and has more need of the flesh for exercising its operation than reason does: therefore, the flesh suffering, the soul was afflicted more in sensuality than in reason.

**On the contrary:**
1. As Augustine says *On the City of God*: « Pain is the testimony of a good nature », therefore in a better nature pain is more intense; but the nature of the soul is better according to reason than according to sensuality: therefore pain is more intense on the part of reason than on the part of sensuality.

2. Likewise, that which grieves from several causes grieves more intensely than that which grieves from one only; but the pain was in sensuality only from the flesh, whereas reason not only suffered-with the flesh, but also with sensuality and with us: therefore it seems that the pain was more intense in reason than in sensuality.

3. Likewise, where love is more intense, there pain is more intense; but Christ loved in us the life of grace more than he would love in himself the life of nature: therefore he grieved more over this, that we had lost the life of grace, than over this, that he himself was losing the life of nature. But the first pain was in reason, the second in sensuality: therefore he grieved more according to reason than according to sensuality.

4. Likewise, pain is more intense in that part which has the greater ground for grieving; but sensuality had no ground for grieving except on account of the affliction of its own flesh, whereas reason had a ground for grieving on account of the dishonoring of the divine majesty; but one ought to grieve more over the dishonoring of God than over the affliction of the flesh; and Christ grieved according as he ought: therefore the pain was more intense in Christ as regards the rational part than as regards the sensual part.

5. Likewise, Christ loved others as himself, because he had perfect charity: therefore he grieved over the separation of others from God as much as if he himself were separated from him; but it is certain that every right soul would grieve more over separation from God than over separation from its own body: therefore Christ's soul had more compassion for others than for its own flesh. If therefore compassion with respect to others was in reason, compassion with respect to the flesh was in sensuality; therefore the pain was more intense according to the rational part than according to sensuality.

> ### Conclusion.
> As regards the pain of passion, Christ grieved more in the sensual part; as regards the pain of compassion, more in the rational part; but the pain of compassion itself was more intense than the pain of passion.

**I respond:** For the understanding of what has been said, it must be noted that in Christ there was a twofold pain, according to what the Saints say, namely the pain of passion and the pain of compassion, and each pain was intense and bitter. For he grieved much in himself, and grieved-with us much; and each of these pains was both in sensuality and in reason, but with the order interchanged. For the pain of passion and of the flesh first reached the soul according to sensuality, and then according to the other powers. But the pain of compassion was first in reason, and from reason redounded into sensuality. For just as, when our reason grieves for our sins, the sensuality groans and weeps; so also Christ, because he grieved much for our sins, wept over our sins.

When, therefore, we compare the pain of sensuality to the pain of reason, this can be in a twofold kind; and if indeed it be understood of the pain of passion, since that first reached the sensuality, it must be granted that Christ's soul grieved more according to the sensual part, as the arguments for the first part show. — But if it be understood of the pain of compassion, by which he was inwardly affected on account of our crimes, since that takes its rise and origin from reason, it must be granted that he grieved more according to reason, as the arguments adduced for the following part show. — And thus the response to the question proposed is clear, and the response to the objections is also clear. For the members of this question stand to one another as exceeding and exceeded, and the objections conclude truly according to diverse ways.

But if anyone further asks, since reason and sensuality mutually exceed one another according to the two kinds of pain, which of them was more intense in Christ — namely whether the pain of passion or of compassion — it can be answered that the pain of compassion was more intense. — And the reason of this is: that, although there was a great cause for grieving in sensuality on account of its separation from the flesh, and there was also a great disposition for grieving on account of the excellent complexion; nevertheless in the pain of compassion there was a fuller ground for grieving on account of the dishonoring of God and our separation from God, and there was also a greater disposition for grieving on account of the excess of love. For according as love is greater, accordingly the wounds of compassion are greater. Hence by much more did the compassion of Christ exceed the compassions of others than his passion exceeded their passions, just as there was in him a greater

excellence of love than of passion with respect to others, although in each he greatly exceeded. — And that that pain was more intense is gathered from a twofold sign. One is, that he preferred his soul to be separated from the body rather than that we should be separated from God. But the other sign is, that he wept for our sins, but did not weep for the punishments of his own body, as Bernard says; and lamentation is a sign of bitterness and pain. And therefore Chancellor Philip elegantly expresses this in a certain very notable and devout sequence. For he speaks thus:

> O man, behold what I suffer for you!
> To you I cry, I who die for you.
> Behold the pains by which I am afflicted,
> Behold the nails by which I am pierced!
> Though the outward pain be so great,
> The inward lamentation is yet heavier,
> While I find you so ungrateful.

---