Dist. 21, 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/21/q/bon-sent-III-d21-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether on account of the death of the flesh death is to be attributed to the person of the Word.*

Thirdly it is asked whether, on account of the death of the flesh, death is to be attributed to the person of the Word. And that it is so, is shown.

1. For it is said in the Creed: «He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried»; but this is said of the only-begotten Son of God. And Ambrose says this very thing expressly, and it is found above in the eighteenth distinction: «So great was our sin, that we could not be saved unless the only-begotten Son of God should die for us who were debtors of death».

2. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] *by reason.* When the flesh is born and conceived, the Son of God is said to be *born* and *conceived:* therefore by parity of reasoning, when the flesh is dead, the Son of God ought to be said to be dead: therefore truly and fittingly death can be attributed to God the Word, so that the Son of God is said to be *dead* and *buried* for us.

3. Likewise, satisfaction for our sin was made through passion and death; but no one could make satisfaction for our sin unless he were God: therefore if satisfaction was made for our sins through that death, the Son of God was truly dead.

4. Likewise, that union effects a communication of idioms; but on account of the separation of the soul from the flesh it was true and necessary that that man should die.

**On the contrary:**

1. Augustine says, and it is found in the text in the last chapter: «If anyone should say and believe that God suffered, let him be anathema»; but to him to whom passion cannot be attributed, death cannot be attributed: if therefore it is not to be believed that the Son of God suffered, as he says, it is not to be believed nor said that the Son of God was dead.

2. Likewise, the idioms *of a part* are not communicated to the person of the Word — for although the flesh was separated from the soul, yet not on this account was the Son of God separated from that soul which He assumed — therefore if through the passion of Christ only the flesh died, since the soul ever lived; it does not seem that *death* can truly be attributed to the Son of God; or if *death* is attributed to Him, then there is a question: why is separation not likewise attributed to Him?

3. Likewise, on account of the repugnance of idioms it is not commonly admitted [to say]: The Son of God is a creature; but *death* is far more repugnant to life than the intention

*of a creature* [is repugnant] to the intention of the Creator: therefore if the Son of God is life itself, it seems that death is in no way to be attributed to Him.

4. Likewise, whoever should say that the supremely wise is foolish would blaspheme; likewise one who should say that the supremely good is unjust: therefore by parity of reasoning one who says that the supremely powerful is weak; but this is said by one who says that the Son of God is dead: therefore he who says this blasphemes God.

### Conclusion.

> It must be conceded that the Son of God died for us according to His human nature, and indeed through the communion of idioms.

**I respond:** It must be said that beyond doubt it is to be conceded that the Son of God died for us; and this indeed is truly attributed to Him not according to the *divine* nature, but according to the *human,* not by *essence,* nor by *inherence*, but by the communicating of idioms. And this in no way derogates from the divine *dignity* and accords greatly with *piety.* For no word of greater condescension can resound in the ears of our heart than that the only-begotten Son of God died for us who were debtors of death. And therefore this is not only to be believed and asserted as true, but also most frequently to be recalled. — And the reasons which show this are to be conceded.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected from the authority of Augustine, the Master replies fittingly enough in the text. For he does not intend to remove passion from the person of the Word *absolutely,* but according to the divine *nature.*

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that the idioms of a part are not communicated to the person of the Word; it must be said that to die belongs not only to the flesh, but also to the whole assumed man. For in the separation of the soul from the flesh not only does the flesh die, but also the whole man. And therefore that argument proceeds from the supposition of a falsehood.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that idioms are not communicated where there is repugnance; it must be said that this is true where there is such repugnance as is not removed by means of a fittingness; but it is not so in the case at hand. For death gives [us] to understand beforehand the humanity, which can be said of the person of Christ without repugnance; whence the Son of God is said to have been dead, because He was the man in whom there was the passion of death.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that it is blasphemy to say that the Son of God is dead; it must be said that this seems so to the ears of unbelievers, according to what is said in the first [letter] to the Corinthians, the first [chapter]: *We preach Jesus Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, but to the Gentiles foolishness.* And the reason of this is: that they do not believe the most benign condescension of the *becoming-man* of the Son of God, nor do they understand the most lofty ground of that humiliation. For if they understood these things, they would see that *that which is the weakness of God is stronger than men;* and *that which is the foolishness of God is wiser than* all *men.* These two things therefore being weighed, namely the very *incarnation* of the Word and the *reason* for which He was incarnate, it is not blasphemy, nay rather it is praise, to say that the Son of God died for us according to the assumed nature. For through this most becomingly, as has been shown in the preceding [questions], the human race was repaired. Nor is the case similar with regard to foolishness and malice; for these did not avail toward our redemption, as did the endurance of passion and death. — And through this what was sought is made plain.

---