Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 2
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/22/q/bon-sent-III-d22-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether Christ, insofar as he is man, was in a determinate place or everywhere.*

Secondly it is asked whether Christ, insofar as he is man, was in a determinate place or everywhere. And that he was in a determinate place seems to be the case:

1. Because Christ, insofar as he is man, was not except where his soul or flesh was; but his soul or flesh was only in a determinate place: therefore neither was Christ, insofar as he is man.

2. Likewise, Christ, insofar as he is man, «assumed human nature in an atom»; but human nature in an atom is human nature in an individual, and an individual is necessarily *here and now*, and thus in a determinate place: therefore Christ, insofar as he is man, is in a determinate place.

3. Likewise, to whatever it belongs to be moved with respect to place, it belongs to it to be in a determinate place; but Christ, insofar as he is man, descended to the lower regions and ascended to the heavens: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that Christ is in several places, insofar as he is man, this he does not have except because he is under the Sacrament: if therefore he was not then under the Sacrament, then it was necessary for him to exist in some place.

**On the contrary:** 1. Whatever things are united inseparably, wherever one is, there is also the other; but human nature was united inseparably and was then united to the Word of God, which is everywhere: therefore if the Word is everywhere, the human nature is also in the Word.

2. Likewise, whatever things are the same in supposit, wherever the one is, there is also the other — for if any two accidents are united in one subject, it is impossible for one to be somewhere where the other is not — but human nature and divine nature are united in one hypostasis: if therefore the *divine* nature is everywhere and not in a determinate place, it necessarily follows that the *human* nature in Christ is too.

3. Likewise, this is true: this man is the Son of God everywhere, therefore *by simple conversion*: the Son of God is everywhere man; but wherever man is, there is his humanity: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, let any place whatever be pointed out, Christ is there; either therefore man is there, or non-man — for man and non-man are immediately opposed — but non-man is not there: therefore man is there: therefore Christ is everywhere man: therefore according to his human nature he is not in a determinate place, nor was he in the triduum.

5. Likewise, this follows validly: this is, and is not man, therefore it is non-man: therefore likewise this follows validly: Christ was everywhere, and was not everywhere man, therefore he was everywhere non-man; but this is false: therefore some one of the premises is; but it is none except this one: Christ was not everywhere man: therefore its opposite is true: Christ was everywhere man: therefore the same as before.

6. Likewise, «whatever belongs to the Son of God by nature belongs to that man by grace»: since therefore this is true: the Son of God is everywhere; this likewise will be true: this man is everywhere; but this follows validly: a white man is everywhere, therefore he is everywhere a man, and is everywhere white: therefore likewise this follows validly: this man is everywhere: therefore he is everywhere man: therefore the same returns as before, namely that Christ according to his humanity was in a determinate place neither now nor in the triduum.

### Conclusion

> Christ, insofar as he is man, was not everywhere, but in a determinate place.

**I respond:** It must be said that this question can be about the thing (*de re*) and can be about the expression (*de sermone*). The question is about the thing when it is asked whether the humanity of Christ was wherever the Divinity was; and to this question it must be answered plainly that it was not; because the divine nature is immense and infinite, whence it determines no place for itself; but the human nature, since it is created and finite, determines a place for itself. Hence it was not wherever the Divinity was, but either in the tomb by reason of the body, or in the lower regions by reason of the soul, as the Master says in the text. — And now likewise; by reason of the humanity, insofar as it is *of itself*, it is in only one place; but that it is in several places, this is under the Sacrament, according to what Innocent says,

namely that Christ is said to be somewhere *sacramentally*, somewhere *personally*, somewhere *locally*: locally he is in heaven, sacramentally he is on the altar, personally everywhere. And thus the human nature in Christ has it that it is in a determinate place; and if the question be made about the thing, the response is plain enough.

But if the question be made about the *expression*, that is, if it be asked about the truth of this statement: this man is everywhere, and this one is everywhere man; here it must be answered that this term *man* can be *made the subject* or *predicated*. When it is *made the subject*, then the statement is true. And the reason for this is: that when it is said, this man is everywhere, this pronoun *this* can point to the *person* of Christ, or to the *singular* of man. If the *person* of Christ, then without doubt it is true: this man is everywhere. But if the *singular* of man, it is still true, yet not by its proper nature, but by the communication of idioms, because «what belongs to the Son of God by nature belongs to this man by grace.»

But if it be placed on the side of the *predicate*, then the statement is false, because this term *man* is predicated by reason of the form, and this adverb *everywhere* determines the predicate; and thus it is signified by this that the form of humanity extends itself to every place in Christ; and this indeed is false, since it has a determinate place. Hence just as this is false: Christ was *always* man, because it is signified by this that the humanity of Christ had no beginning in time; so likewise this is false: Christ is *everywhere* man, because by this it is signified that the human nature of Christ is everywhere. — The arguments are therefore to be granted which show that the human nature of Christ is in a determinate place and was so in the triduum.

1. To that which is objected, that whatever things are united inseparably extend themselves to every place equally; it must be said that that holds true when any two unitable things are so united that the one does not exceed the other. But when the one is of greater extent than the other, it does not hold true: and so it is in the case at hand; for the divine nature is immense, but the human nature is limited. And there is a parallel: because *animal* is inseparably predicated of man, and yet *animal* is somewhere where *man* is not.

2. To that which is objected, that those things which are one in supposit accompany one another inseparably in every place; it must be said that there is a certain supposit which does not exceed its form; and of such a supposit the foregoing statement holds true. But there is a certain supposit which exceeds some form of which it is the supposit, as the hypostasis of Christ stands with respect to the human nature, because it does not have its first being from the human nature, but from the divine nature; and of such a supposit it does not hold true.

3. To that which is objected, that this is true: this man is the Son of God everywhere, therefore the converse is true: the Son of God is man everywhere; it must be said that this, if one attends carefully, is not its converse; and this is clear, because in the conversion of any proposition that which determined the predicate must become a determination on the side of the subject, otherwise there will not be a correct conversion, as is clear to one who looks. And therefore, since in this statement: man is the Son of God everywhere, that adverb determines the predicate by reason of that attribute which is to be the Son of God; its converse is not this: the Son of God is man everywhere, insofar as *everywhere* determines this attribute, which is to be man; but rather this: the Son of God, existing everywhere, is man; and this indeed is true, whence although in the aforesaid reasoning it seems to argue *by simple conversion*, nevertheless it does not so argue.

4. To that which is objected, that if Christ is here and is not man, therefore he is here non-man; it must be said that that holds in those things which are of one nature only, by reason of which they are wherever they are. But in Christ it does not hold, because he has not only a human nature, but a divine, through which he can be somewhere where he is not through the human. Hence in that process there is a fallacy *of the consequent*: he is not here man, therefore he is here non-man. For this has three causes of truth: he is not here man: either because he is not here, or because he is not man, or because he is here and is man, but nevertheless his humanity is not in that place; and in that sense the statement has truth. And if one objects that man and non-man are immediately opposed; it must be said that this is true, insofar as it is of itself, but it is not true once a determination is added. For these two are not immediately opposed: a white man and a white non-man, because neither of these is truly predicated of a black man.

5. To that which is objected, that this follows validly: it is, and is not man, therefore it is non-man, therefore likewise this follows validly: it is here, and is not here man, therefore it is here non-man; it must be said that it is not parallel,

because this can be verified of something for several causes: this one is not here man, than this: this one is not man, on account of the determination adjoined. And therefore in the aforesaid process there is a deception *of the consequent*, from several causes of truth to one.

6. To that which is objected, that this is true: this man is everywhere, therefore this one is everywhere man; it must be said that it does not follow, because in the first there is attributed to him to be everywhere by reason of the divine nature, in the second by reason of the human. Nor is it parallel with what he objects about the white man, because the supposit of this term *white*, since it is here and now, does not extend itself to any place to which its property does not extend itself; but it is not so with the person of the Word and the human nature.