Dist. 22, 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/22/q/bon-sent-III-d22-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: *The light of true Wisdom was illumining hell.* For this seems to be false, because, just as darkness is repugnant to the empyrean heaven, so luminosity is repugnant to hell: therefore just as the empyrean heaven can never be darkened, so it seems that hell can never be illumined. — Likewise, the damned ought to be deprived of all consolation, and most of all the consolation which is in the sight of eternal light: therefore if that light was not corporeal — since he descended to hell without a body — but rather spiritual, it seems that it ought not to irradiate in hell.

**I respond:** It must be said that the matter is otherwise with the irradiation of material light and of spiritual light. For the irradiation of material light alters sight *naturally*, but the irradiation of spiritual light alters it *voluntarily*; hence no one sees it, except him to whom it shows itself voluntarily. And therefore that light is said to shine in hell and to have illumined hell, because it irradiated some out of hell, yet not all, because it did not will to illumine all, nor did all have proportioned eyes.

But to that which is objected concerning the empyrean, it must be said that there is no parallel: for although the good be wholly unmixed with evil, it is nevertheless not necessary that the evil be wholly unmixed with good. And therefore it befitted God to illumine those who were in darkness, yet not to darken those who were in light.

### Doubt II.

Likewise there is inquiry concerning what he says: *Assuredly he was wholly in hell at the same time.* For this seems false, because either this which is *whole* (*totum*) is referred to the nature, or to the person. To the nature it is not, because Christ according to his whole nature was not at once in heaven and in hell. If to the person, it still seems false, because above, in distinction six, it was said that the person of Christ is composed of three substances and two natures; and that composition is inexplicable: therefore if the whole Christ was in heaven and in hell, it seems that those two natures would be at once in heaven and in hell; which is false and absurd. — Likewise, a difference can be assigned between this sign *every* (*omne*) and this sign *whole* (*totum*), because *omne* distributes for subjective parts, and *totum* for integral parts: therefore if Christ had integral parts only according to the human na-

ture; when it is said that the whole Christ was in heaven and in hell; this is implied of Christ according to the *human nature*, which is simply false for that time.

**I respond:** It must be said that this noun *whole* (*totus*) is sometimes taken as a *sign*, sometimes as an *adjective.* According as it is taken as a *sign*, thus it distributes into certain parts, as when it is said: the whole Peter is white. According as it is taken as an *adjective* noun, thus *whole* (*totum*) in one way is said to be the same as *perfect*, in another way the same as *having part and part*. When therefore the Master says that Christ was wholly in heaven, *whole* there is said to be *perfect*, because the most perfect person of Christ was at once in heaven and on earth and in hell.

To that which is objected, that that person was composite; it must be said that it was neither *properly* composite, nor is this noun *whole* taken there *collectively* or *distributively*; because it does not signify collection or division, but rather perfection. — And by this the reply to what follows is made clear.

### Doubt III.

Likewise there is inquiry concerning what he says: *He is wholly (totus) wherever he is, but not the whole (totum) of him.* For those two seem to be incompossible, because *totus* and *totum* signify the same thing: therefore if *totus* was in heaven and in hell, it necessarily follows that *totum.* — Likewise, wherever I am, it is necessary that I be whole: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems so of Christ, because, wherever anything is, it is necessary that there be all that which is naturally in it.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Master subjoins, «*totus* is referred to the person, but *totum* to the nature». And the reason for this is the *distinction* of sex carried by the masculine gender, and the *confusion* carried by the neuter; and because the *person* of Christ according to its whole self, wherever it was, was whole, since it is single and most simple; but the *nature*, since it is not only simple in Christ, as being divine, but also composite, as being human, and the latter cannot be everywhere: therefore the Master concedes that *totus* was everywhere, but not *totum*, because *totus* is referred to the Deity, but *totum* to the Deity and the humanity.

To that, then, which is objected, that *totus* and *totum* signify the same thing; it must be said that this is true, so far as concerns the *first imposition*, but by reason of the *distinction* carried by the consignification of gender, in the manner of use the one has been wont to be referred to the person, and the other to the nature.

To that which is objected, that wherever I am, it is necessary that I be whole; it must be said that there is no parallel, because in me the person does not extend itself beyond the nature; but it is not so in Christ, as was said in the foregoing.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise there is inquiry concerning what he says: *No one ascends into heaven, except him who descended from heaven.* For this seems to be false, because, if Christ alone descended from heaven: therefore Christ alone ascends into heaven, and no other; which is heretical to say. — Likewise, this seems false for another reason, when he is said to have descended from heaven: for either this is said according to the *divine* nature, or according to the *human.* According to the *divine* not, because according to it he does not change place; according to the *human* not, because according to it he was not in heaven.

**I respond:** It must be said that *to ascend* in one way is the same as to mount by one's own power without the support of another's power; and in this way it belongs to Christ alone. In another way *to ascend* is the same as to mount upward; and in this way it belongs to the other Saints; but in the aforesaid authority it is taken in the first way. — Or otherwise: there is ascending into the empyrean heaven, and there is ascending into the heaven of the *Trinity*. When therefore it is said: No one ascends, etc.; this is not said with respect to ascent into the empyrean, but with respect to ascent into the heaven of the *Trinity*; and that ascent is not an ascent to a place, but rather to the dignity and equality of the Father. Nor is it according to the acquisition of a new dignity in Christ, but on account of the manifestation of that which he had from eternity. Hence just as he is said to have *descended* not because the Deity was diminished in him, but because in the assumption of the humanity it *appeared* diminished; so also he is said to have *ascended*, because in his ascension his sublimity was manifested. Hence that *descent* and *ascent* befitted the divine person according to the divine nature, yet as related to the human. — And by this the reply to both objections previously made is made clear; for each of them runs concerning *local* ascent and descent.

### Doubt V.

Likewise there is inquiry concerning what he says: *These things concerning the strap of the sandal,* etc.: what is understood by the *strap*? and what by the *sandal*? and what by the *king of Idumaea*? and what by his *bones*?

**I respond:** It must be said that the *sandal* is the humanity of Christ, covering the foot of the Deity. But the *strap* of the sandal is the union of the Deity and the humanity. The *king of Idumaea* is Christ by reason of the assumed mortal nature, according to that which is said in the Psalm: *Into Idumaea I will extend my sandal.* The *bones of the king of Idumaea* are the sacraments of Christ, hidden and rather difficult to investigate. These are *consumed unto ashes* when, through the fire of curiosity, someone wishes so to penetrate them down to the least things that devotion is extinguished. — And this indeed the Master says is not to be done, because, when we speak of Christ as regards his incarnation and passion, or even think of it, we ought to be filled with devotion, lest, while we think of such great and immense benefits with a dry heart, we be puffed up through elation and dried up through ingratitude. — But who is so fit for these things? Therefore I reckon it sound counsel to say with John: *I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandals*. For I believe that the binding of this sandal, the more curiously and boldly someone shall wish to loose it, the more tightly it is bound. Therefore, following the Master, let an end be imposed upon the discourse concerning Christ as regards the mystery of the incarnation and the passion, which *surpasses all understanding*.

---