Dist. 2, 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/2/q/bon-sent-III-d2-dubia
----------------------------------------
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and it is asked first about what he says: *All things which he planted in our nature, the Word of God assumed.* But *on the contrary:* God planted immortality in the first man: therefore he assumed immortality; which is false, since he was mortal. — Likewise, in our nature he planted each sex, namely female and male: therefore he assumed each; which is likewise false.

**I respond:** It must be said that God planted in our nature certain things which regard its *constitution;* certain things which regard its *state* and accidental disposition. When, therefore, it is said that he assumed *all* the things which he planted, *all* there means the things which belong to its constitution. — When, therefore, he argues against this from immortality and the distinction of sex, he does not press the objection according to the truth, but rather, through a shifting of the predicate, he reasons fallaciously or presses the objection sophistically; and through this those two objections are answered.

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says against the heretics: *If clean visible things cannot be defiled by unclean visible things, how much more the immutable truth.* For that reasoning seems not to hold. For although the rays of the sun are not defiled by the foulness of what is illuminated, yet the soul, which is more spiritual, is infected by its conjunction with the flesh. — Moreover, the Son of God is passible on account of the assumption of passible flesh, therefore likewise he became *carnal;* but the spirit is befouled and infected when it becomes carnal: therefore it seems that the heretic spoke truly in this, in that he said that the divinity is stained by its association with the flesh.

**I respond:** It must be said that that example against the heretics, and the reasoning, is good and effective. For the ray is not defiled by foul things, because it does not share in transmutable matter, nor even depend upon them. If therefore the Truth stands much further from foul things and is independent of them, it necessarily follows that it is much less contaminable. — Nor does that objection about the soul hold, on account of the fact that the soul, although it be spiritual, nevertheless has from the body a dependence and an inclination.

But as to that which is objected, that the Son of God was made passible; it must be said that this is true on account of the communication of idioms, not because he suffers according to the divine nature, but according to the assumed nature. — And likewise it can be conceded that he is carnal, insofar as *carnal* names the *nature,* but not insofar as it names *vice,* because he took on the passibility of the flesh, not its viciousness. When therefore he objects that the spirit is infected when it becomes carnal; it must be said that it does not hold, because he objects of the *carnal* as it sounds toward vice.

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that the flesh was not first conceived and afterward assumed. For it seems false, because what is not cannot be assumed; but the flesh which is not yet conceived is not yet: therefore it is not assumable: therefore it is necessary that the flesh be first conceived before it is assumed. — Likewise, there is no assumption except of flesh already organized;

for before organization there precedes formation, formation is preceded by consolidation, consolidation by conception: therefore from the first, before the assumption there is conception.

**I respond:** It must be said that conception may be spoken of with respect to the order of *time* and with respect to the order of *nature*. If we speak with respect to the order of nature, then conception is prior to assumption, as those arguments show. But if with respect to the order of *time,* then it neither *befits* nor is it *required* that it be so; not, I say, required, because each came about through an infinite power, which could do it instantaneously; it did not befit, because it was not a fragment of flesh, but a man, that the woman ought to encompass in the angelic annunciation. But this will better appear in the following distinction, where the Master inquires into this question.

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says toward the end: *With the angel announcing and the Spirit coming, at once in the womb the Word [was made] flesh.* For the incarnation is a more excellent work than the infusion of grace; but the infusion of grace does not come about through angelic annunciation: therefore neither the incarnation. — Likewise, God was nearer to the heart of the blessed Virgin through grace than to the angelic mind — whence Bernard: « The Virgin is believed to be exalted above all the orders of Angels » — therefore rather ought the illumination to pass through the blessed Virgin to the Angel than the reverse.

There is, therefore, the question: why did the angelic annunciation precede the conception of the Son of God? — It is also asked, of what order that Angel was. For he does not seem to have been of the higher Angels, because Dionysius says that « those who are preeminent never have the use of an exterior office ». Nor of the lower, since those were ignorant of the mystery of the incarnation and learned it through the Church. Whence Isaiah asks in the sixty-third chapter: *Who is this who comes from Edom?* as Gregory expounds.

**I respond:** It must be said that the angelic annunciation ought to precede the incarnation, just as the diabolical temptation preceded man's transgression, so that thus the order of reparation might correspond to the order of transgression. Whence, just as the devil tempted the woman, that he might draw her to doubt, and through doubt draw her to consent, and through consent to the fall; so the Angel announced to the Virgin, that by announcing he might rouse her to faith, and through faith to consent, and through consent to conceiving the Son of God through the Holy Spirit.

There was also another reason of the order there: because the blessed Virgin was in the state of a wayfarer, but the Angel in the state of a comprehensor; and therefore he recognized the will of the Lord more clearly for that time, because the Angel saw God face to face, the blessed Virgin through a glass in a riddle. — Again, the Angel was God's servant and minister; and the blessed Virgin was elect and pre-elect, that she should be the mother of God. Since therefore it is fitting that one who does not know be instructed by a messenger who understands and knows the will of God; it is fitting also that a minister serve his lady: hence it is that it was decent and fitting that the mystery of the incarnation be announced to the Virgin through an Angel.

A third reason of congruity can also be assigned: because the incarnation and the redemption of the human race made not only for the reparation of the human fall, but also for the reparation of the angelic ruin; and therefore the blessed Angels ought not to be excluded. Whence, just as the female sex is not excluded from knowledge of the mystery of the incarnation and also of the resurrection, so neither is the angelic messenger; nay, both does God announce to the woman through the Angel — namely, the incarnation to the blessed

Virgin, and the resurrection to Magdalene.

And thus it is plain that it was decent that the angelic announcement precede the incarnation on account of a threefold order, namely, of the reparation of the human race, of the angelic ministry, and of the angelic fall to be restored.

As to what is said about grace, that it does not come about through angelic ministry; it must be said that grace is infused through human ministry and through a human word; but the incarnation, which is the principle of all glorification, ought not to be announced through a man, but rather through an Angel. — As to that which is objected, that the Virgin Mary was nearer to God than the Angel; it must be said that this is true with respect to the grace of election, but not with respect to the grace of comprehension.

As to that which is objected, of what order he was: it must be said that it is probably believed that he was of the order of Archangels, as the Church sings. Whence, if Gabriel be called the highest among the Angels, this is not understood of an Angel insofar as it is the name of a *nature,* but insofar as it is the name of a *messenger,* and of a messenger insofar as he goes forth to announce exterior things; and this in no way prevents Gabriel from having been able to know the mystery of the incarnation, while the other Angels could be ignorant of it. — Or it could be said that the lower Angels knew the mystery of the incarnation, but were seeking out the depths of the divine counsel; and they knew this better after the exaltation of the Son and the preaching of the truth, by which the manifold wisdom of God is made explicit and manifest.

---