Dist. 21, 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/21/q/bon-sent-III-d21-dubia
----------------------------------------
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part are questions concerning the text, and first there is inquiry concerning what he says: *No one takes away my soul, but I lay it down of myself.* If, then, no one could take away his soul, no one could kill him by violence: therefore he was not put to death by another's violence, but by his own power: therefore he was the slayer of his very self.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Lord in this word does not wish to exclude the violence of the crucifiers with respect to nature, but with respect to the divine will. And in this he wishes to show that no one could kill him, unless he himself willed to undergo death according to the disposition of his own will. Hence *to lay down the soul* there is not by execution, but by voluntary permission. And thus that is made clear.

### Doubt II.

Likewise there is inquiry concerning what he says: *The flesh laid down the soul, when it expired.* For it seems that he ought rather to say the opposite, namely that the soul laid down the flesh, because the soul has more power over the flesh than the flesh over the soul. — Likewise, in the resurrection the soul is rather said to have taken up the flesh again than the flesh the soul: therefore in death it ought rather to be said that the soul laid down the flesh than the converse.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is rather said of the flesh that it laid down the soul than the converse — not because the flesh had power over the soul, but because, the flesh remaining, the soul departed from the flesh; and because by the soul life is understood, which has more the character of a thing of price; and because also the soul presided over the flesh: therefore it is rather said of the flesh that it is laid down than the converse.

And by this the reply to the objections is made clear. For the flesh is not said to have laid down the soul as though it did this by its own proper power; but because the divine power was present, united to the flesh, without whose permission the soul could not be laid down from the flesh.

### Doubt III.

Likewise there is inquiry concerning what he says: *The same one was suffering and not suffering, dying and not dying.* For this seems false: because the first principle in First Philosophy is that «it is impossible that two things contradictorily opposed be said at one and the same time of one and the same thing»: therefore if this is true: *Christ was dying,* this will be simply false: *Christ was not dying.* If you should say that there is no contradiction there, because this is attributed to him according to diverse natures, and that for there to be a contradiction it is required that the opposites be attributed not only to the same thing, but also according to the same respect; this does not resolve it, because if someone should say that Peter is white, because he is white according to the body, and is not white, because he is not white according to the soul; he would say nothing. For the first would be simply true, the second simply false: therefore if this is true according to humanity: *Christ is dead;* that will be simply false: *Christ is not dead.* — Likewise, this is without doubt true: *Christ as man suffered and died;* if, then, there is a communication of idioms, this will be true: *God is dead:* therefore Christ, man and God, is dead. If, then, this is true in every mode: *Christ is dead,* its opposite will be simply false.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt that which belongs to Christ according to the human nature and according to the divine can be attributed to him simply and truly. Hence it is truly said: *Christ is the creator of all things, Christ was born of the Virgin;* it is also truly said: *Christ is mortal, Christ is immortal.* But although something may belong to Christ according to the assumed nature which does not belong to him according to the divine nature; nevertheless it cannot be *simply removed* from him, because negation takes away more than affirmation posits. And therefore the affirmatives are to be conceded as true; but the negatives are to be denied as false, unless they are proposed or understood with an *added determination.* Hence this is true: *Christ is not dead according to the Deity;* but this, simply uttered: *Christ is not dead,* is false. — Now Ambrose and the Master understand the aforesaid locutions with an *adjoined determination,* which is clear from the end of the authority. Moreover, by the very fact that he proposes these together: «*was dying and was not dying*», the affirmative part is restricted to the human nature and the negative to the divine. Therefore there is no contradiction there, because it is not according to the same respect. — And by this the reply to the objections is sufficiently made clear.

---