Dist. 17, 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/17/q/bon-sent-III-d17-dubia
----------------------------------------
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about this which is said: *He left behind the affection of weakness, by which no one wishes to die, which is so very natural,* etc. For this seems false, since many kill themselves — as is evident in the despairing — and desire to die: therefore what he says is not true. — Likewise, Augustine relates in the book *On the City of God* of a certain man who, "having read Plato's book in which he discoursed on the immortality of the soul, threw himself headlong from a wall, that he might pass from this life to that which he believed better." From this very thing it seems that there are some who desire to die.

*I respond:* It must be said that there is a natural affection, and there is a deliberative affection. By the natural affection
no one wishes to die; rather, every man flees death. But by the deliberative affection one can desire death and flee life, not because the one is death and the other is life, but by reason of something that is annexed, or is reckoned to be annexed; just as the despairing and those who are vehemently confounded in life, on account of the confusion annexed to it, flee life; and so it is also with other troubles. In this manner too some desire death who believe that after death they will rest and rejoice, as is the case with those of whom he raises the objection, against whom the instance is not brought to bear against Augustine's word. For Augustine speaks *of itself,* and he speaks also of the *natural* appetite, not the *deliberative.*

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *the pious affection of the mind desires to be dissolved and to be with Christ,* since the contrary seems [true], in the second [letter] to the Corinthians, the fifth [chapter]: *We do not wish to be unclothed, but to be clothed over.* If you say that by the *natural* will, or [the will] of *sensuality,* he did not wish to be unclothed, but by the will of *reason* or the deliberative [will] he desired to be dissolved; against this it is objected by what is said to the Philippians, the first [chapter]: *But to remain in the flesh is necessary for your sake;* but the Apostle by the *deliberative* will rather desired and willed that which was more necessary for the brethren: therefore by that will it seems that he would not desire to be dissolved, or that he desired two contraries at once.

*I respond:* It must be said that in our flesh there are two things to be found, namely the *nature* itself and the *weakness* burdening the soul, according to what Augustine says in the thirteenth [book] *On the City of God*, that the body burdens the soul, not because it is body, but because it is corruptible. When therefore it is said: *We do not wish to be unclothed,* etc., this is said with regard to the very nature of the flesh, of which it is said to the Ephesians, the fifth [chapter]: *No one ever hated his own flesh.* But with regard to the *weakness* that burdens, it is said: *I desire to be dissolved,* etc. And thus there is no contrariety there.

But as to that which is asked, how he desired at once to be dissolved and to remain in the flesh; it must be said that there is an *absolute* will and a *con-*
ditional will; and nothing prevents one from willing two opposites, so that one wills one of them by the *conditional* will, the other by the *absolute* will. Therefore the Apostle willed to remain in the flesh for the benefit of the brethren by the *absolute* will, and he willed nonetheless to be dissolved and to be with Christ, but this not *absolutely,* but insofar as it lay *in himself;* and thus there was no repugnance, yet there was a certain anguish of mind arising from this twofold desire; on account of which he says: *I am straitened between two: having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ.*

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about that word of Ambrose: *As a man he doubts, as a man he spoke.* For this seems to be false: because Christ had the knowledge of all future things under certainty: therefore it seems that he could doubt about nothing. — Likewise, into whomever doubt falls, ignorance and error can fall; but none of these could fall in Christ: therefore it seems that he could not doubt.

*I respond:* It must be said that *doubt* properly bespeaks an indifference of the judgment of reason with respect to each side of the contradiction, so that it prefers neither to the other; and taking doubt in this way, in Christ there was no doubt. In another way *doubt* is said [to be] a certain indifference of the sensible part toward following the affection of nature that inclines, or the reason that commands; and such a doubt could be in Christ; and of this Ambrose understands [it], but concerning the other the objection runs [its course].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about that word of Hilary: *He was not sad for himself, nor does he pray for himself that the cup pass, but for the disciples.* For this seems to be false by the very tenor of the prayer. For he says: *Let this cup pass from me;* if he asks that the cup pass from him: therefore it seems that he prayed for himself. — Likewise, he asked just as he willed; but Christ perceived that he willed something which the Father did not will, as he himself said: *Not as I will, but as thou [wilt]:* if therefore by some will of his own he
fled the cup of the passion, it seems that, when he asked the cup to pass from him, he prayed *for himself.*

*I respond:* It must be said that to pray for someone happens in two ways: either according to the *form* of the prayer, or according to the *intention* of the one praying. According to the *form* of the prayer Christ was praying *for himself,* that is, for his sensual will; but according to the *intention* of the one praying, in that petition Christ did not pray *for himself,* but rather *for us.* For he did not believe that he
would obtain anything for himself in that petition, nor would reason have willed to obtain deliverance from the passion for itself, but rather he prayed for our threefold benefit, as has been done in the preceding [matters]. Hilary therefore speaks in that second way; whence his discourses, which are set down in the text, are to be referred to the principal intention of Christ; but all the objections run their course according to the prior way.

---