Dist. 16, Dubia
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-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

#### Doubt I.

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and a question arises concerning the words of Hilary, which seem to be false and doubtful and erroneous; and if we should say that they were retracted, according to what was touched on before, all calumny will be removed; but because the writing of this retraction has not been published, therefore the words of Hilary are to be verified, in so far as we are able.

For first there is a doubt about that statement which he makes: *Christ indeed suffered while he was struck, while he was hung up, while he died,* etc. For he seems to say two contraries: that in the body of Christ there was true suffering, and yet that there was not true pain — which does not seem to be intelligible, that an ensouled body was truly suffering, and yet was truly not in pain. — And if you wish to say that he understands this with respect to the person of the Word, this is nothing, because, just as pain is foreign to the person of the Word, so too is suffering; and Hilary says that «he suffered, although he did not feel pain». — Likewise, if you wish to say that he did not feel pain, that is, did not have the cause and merit of pain, you can likewise say that he did not have the merit of suffering.

**I respond:** It must be said that these words of Hilary, even though they seem to be against the faith, are nevertheless in favor of the faith; and this is clear if the cause of his saying it is attended to. For Hilary speaks against those who said that Christ wholly succumbed to suffering and was overcome by suffering; against whom Hilary says that, even though Christ truly suffered, nevertheless he did not feel pain, that is, he did not succumb to the sufferings. For he does not wish to deny the *sensation* and the *experience* of suffering, but the *force* and the *dominion* of suffering. And that this is the meaning is clear from the *manner of speaking* and from the *sequence of the words* and from the *property of the words*: for *pain* states a relation to the will, according to what Augustine says in the fourteenth book of *On the City of God*, that «pain is a dissent from those things which happen to us against our will». Since therefore neither the divine will of Christ nor his created will succumbed to the sufferings, therefore Hilary does not concede that Christ felt pain, that is, that he, being unwilling, lay under the sufferings. Hence when he says: «The power of the body received in itself the force of the punishment raging against it without the sensation of the punishment», etc.; the *power of the body* is called the rational will, ruling over that body; this received the force of the punishment without the sensation of the punishment, that is, without dissent from the punishment, because it willed to suffer. — And this is shown by the *sequence of the following text*. For he proves that that body could not feel pain, because «it could be borne up over the waves». For it is established that the body of Christ was not borne up over the waves by the nature of the body itself, which was heavy, but by the command of the will. — This same thing is clear by another reason, which he adds: because «the flesh of Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, therefore that man had a *body for suffering*, but *did not have a nature for feeling pain*». From the understanding of this reasoning and of the text it is made manifest that what was said before is true. For because that flesh was conceived of the Holy Spirit, therefore it had passibility, not *against* the will, but *from* the will; and this is what he says: «having a *body for suffering*, he suffered», namely from the will; «but *not having a nature* for feeling pain», that is, for suffering against the dissent of the will.

**I respond:** It must be said that the aforesaid text can be expounded in a threefold way, according to the threefold manner of expounding the preceding things: in one way, so that it is referred to the uncreated Word, of whom Hilary concedes that he could suffer, but not be passible, because, «although he subjected himself to the sufferings, nevertheless he was not changed by suffering». — In another way it can be expounded, as the Master expounds it, so that by the fact that it is *passible* there is denoted a disposition arising from the *merit of fault*, which Hilary removes from Christ, although in him there was truly suffering. — In a third way it can be expounded, so that by the fact that it is *passible* there is denoted the full subjection of the one suffering with respect to the suffering; and such was not in Christ, whose mind, reason, and will were borne up above the sufferings. And that this is the meaning is clear through the following text. For he says thus: «He could suffer, he could not be *passible*, because passibility is the signification of an infirm nature, but suffering is the undergoing of those things which are inflicted». And thus he wishes to attribute to Christ the bearing of suffering and to remove the subjection.

#### Doubt II.

Likewise it is doubtful concerning this which he says: *Nor can it be that the fear of him should be signified in words, whose confidence is contained in deeds.* For it seems to contradict that which is said in Mark, the fourteenth chapter: *Jesus began to be afraid and to be weary.* It seems also to contradict the other Saints, who say that he truly feared. It seems also to contradict himself, because he says that «Christ was sorrowful for the Apostles unto death». If he was sorrowful, why did he not likewise fear?

**I respond:** It must be said that Hilary does not intend to remove fear from Christ in so far as *Scripture* and the *Saints* attribute fear to him, but in so far as the *heretics* attributed it, who said that he feared from a defect of security; and such is the fear of faint-heartedness, of which it is undoubtedly true that it was not in Christ. Hence it must be very much attended to that Hilary does not remove *sorrow* from Christ, but does remove *fear*, because *fear* is wont to arise from a defect of virtue and from faint-heartedness, whereas *sorrow* frequently arises from virtue and piety. — And that this is the meaning is clear from the following proof. For he proves that in Christ there was no *infirmity*, nor was there *faint-heartedness*. There was no *faint-heartedness*, because «he went forth to meet those who were armed»; there was no *infirmity*, because «at his approach the bands of his pursuers, thrown into confusion, fell back with their bodies overturned». Hence he does not exclude *fear* from Christ, but *fear opposing the will*; and so too *pain*, as is clear to one who looks at the sequence of the text.

#### Doubt III.

Likewise it is doubtful, thirdly, concerning this which he says in that little note drawn from *On the Synods*: *He could suffer and could not be passible.* For that statement seems to imply a contradiction within itself, because «of that whose is the potency, of it is the act»: therefore if he was passible, he could suffer; and if he could suffer, he was passible. — Besides, *passible* is nothing other than *able to suffer*: therefore it seems that in the aforesaid statement the same thing is removed from itself.

#### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says lastly, that *Christ received something from every state of man*; because according to this it seems that Christ was in a fourfold state. But we do not posit that Christ was except in the state of wayfarer and of comprehensor. — Likewise, he seems to say something false when he says that Christ assumed the fullness of grace from the third state: because grace is not perfected except through glory, according to that which the Apostle says in the first epistle to the Corinthians, the thirteenth chapter: *When that which is perfect shall have come, that which is in part shall be done away:* therefore the fullness of grace was not assumed according to the state of the way, but according to the state of the homeland.

**I respond:** It must be said that that fourfold state is to be reduced to a twofold one. For under the state of the *way* are comprehended three states, namely of *innocence*, of *fallen nature*, and the state *under the law of grace*. But those four states the Master enumerates for the greater explanation of the conditions of the assumed nature itself.

To that which is objected, that the fullness of grace is not had except according to the state of glory, it must be said that there is a fullness of grace either *simply*, or *with respect to meritorious work*: the fullness of grace simply pertains to the state of glory, as the objection has it; but the fullness with respect to meritorious work pertains to the state of the way. And it is of this that the Master understands in his text, as is clearly evident.

---