Dist. 22
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-littera
----------------------------------------
### Chapter I.
### *Whether Christ in death was a man.*

Here it is asked whether in that three-day span of death Christ was a man. — That he was not seems so to certain men, because he was dead, and a dead man is not a man. They add further that, if he was then a man, he was either mortal or immortal. But not mortal, because he was dead; nor immortal, because [he became immortal] only after the resurrection. — To these we respond that, although he was a dead man, yet in death he was God-man, neither mortal indeed nor immortal, and yet truly he was a man. For these and suchlike subtleties have their place among creatures, but the sacrament of faith is free of philosophical arguments. Hence Ambrose: «Take away arguments where faith is sought. In their very schools let dialectic now be silent; one believes the fishermen, not the dialecticians». We say therefore that in

the death of Christ God was truly a man, and yet dead. And a man indeed neither mortal nor immortal, because he was united to the soul and the flesh while these were sundered. For God is said to be a man, or a man God, by another account than that by which Martin or John [is said to be a man]. For God is called man and conversely on account of the assumption of the man, that is, of soul and flesh. Hence Augustine: «Such was that assumption, that it made God a man, and a man God». Since therefore that assumption did not fail through death, but God was truly united to the man and the man to God, as before; then too God was a man and conversely, because he was united to the soul and the flesh; and the man was dead, because the soul had been divided from the flesh. He was dead through the separation of the soul from the flesh, but a man through the union of both with himself. Yet he was not a man in such a way that he subsisted out of soul and flesh joined together at once, by which account some other man is so called. And he himself perhaps before death was a man in this mode also, and after the resurrection was; but in death he was a man only on account of the union of soul and flesh with himself, and dead on account of the division between those two.

### Chapter II.
### *Whether Christ, wherever he is, is a man.*

Here it is asked whether Christ in death was anywhere a man; and whether, wherever he is, he is a man. — To which we say that not wherever he was, was he a man, nor now, wherever he is, is he a man; because he is everywhere according to the Deity, yet not everywhere a man, because he is not everywhere united to a man; but wherever he is according to the man, there he is a man. At the time of death he was everywhere according to God, and in the sepulcher according to the man, and in hell according to the man; but in hell according to the soul, and in the sepulcher according to the flesh only. In the sepulcher therefore he was a man, because he was united to the humanity, though not to the whole, because to the flesh only; and in hell he was a man, because united to the humanity, but not to the whole, because to the soul only. But if in hell he was united to the soul only and in the sepulcher to the flesh only; then neither in hell was he united to soul and flesh nor in the sepulcher. How then is he said to be a man here or there? What is the ground of the saying? Because by one and the same union he was united to the soul in hell and to the flesh in the sepulcher; and thus he was united to those two, then separated, as before the separation, that is, before death. — But against this it is objected: if Christ had assumed soul only, or flesh only, he would not have been a true man; but on account of the assumption of both he was a true man: thus therefore, where he did not have flesh and soul united to himself, there he was not a true man. But at the time of death nowhere did he have those two united, because neither in the sepulcher nor in hell nor elsewhere: nowhere therefore was he a man. — To which we say that Christ would indeed not have been a true man, if he had not assumed flesh and soul; but yet, because from the time he assumed them he laid neither aside, but kept unceasingly with each the same union which he contracted in assuming: therefore not incongruously, wherever he is united to the soul or to the flesh or to both, there he is said to be a man, because there he is made man. Therefore both in the sepulcher he was a man and in hell he was a man, because in both places Christ was made man and had one and the same union with soul and flesh, though separated, and at one and the same time Christ lay in the sepulcher and descended to hell; but in the sepulcher he lay according to the flesh alone and into hell he descended according to the soul alone. Hence Augustine: «Who was not forsaken in hell? Christ, but in the soul alone. Who lay in the sepulcher? Christ, but in the flesh alone; because in these singly Christ is: Christ in all these and in each we confess». — From these it is evidently shown that Christ was united to the flesh lying in the sepulcher, as to the soul in hell; otherwise, if he were not united to the dead flesh, he would not be said to have lain in it in the sepulcher. The soul therefore descended to hell, the flesh lay in the sepulcher, Wisdom remained with both, which «among those set in hell, as Ambrose says, poured forth the light of eternal life. There the true light of Wisdom shone, it illumined hell, but in hell it was not enclosed. For what place is there of Wisdom? of which it is written: Man knows not its ways, nor is it found in the land of those living sweetly; the abyss says: It is not in me; the sea says: It is not with me: therefore Wisdom is neither in time nor in place, to which neither death is to be ascribed». «For on the wood the flesh, not that divine substance which works all things, was hanging». — Yet we confess that Christ hung on the wood and lay in the sepulcher, but in the flesh; and that he was in hell, but in the soul alone.

### Chapter III.
### *That Christ is everywhere whole, but not the whole; as he is wholly man or God, but not the whole.*

And indeed he was at the same time wholly in hell, wholly in heaven, wholly everywhere. For that eternal Person was not greater where he had flesh and soul together united to himself, than where [he had] one only; nor was he greater where he had both together, or one only, united, than where he was having neither united. Wholly therefore and perfectly was Christ everywhere. Hence Augustine: «Christ did not forsake the Father, when he came into the Virgin, everywhere whole, everywhere perfect. At one therefore

and the same time he was wholly in hell, wholly in heaven. Among the dead was the resurrection of the dead, above the heavens was the life of the living; truly dead, truly alive, in whom the assumption of mortality took up death, and the Divinity did not lose life». «The Son of God therefore neither bore death in the soul nor felt it in the majesty; but yet by participation of infirmity the King of glory was crucified». — From these it appears that Christ at the same time was wholly in the sepulcher, wholly in hell, wholly everywhere, as also now he is wholly, wherever he is, but not the whole. Neither in the sepulcher nor in hell was he the whole, though whole; as Christ is wholly God, wholly man, but not the whole, because he is not only God or man, but both God and man. For "the whole" refers to nature, but "wholly" to the hypostasis, as "another thing" (*aliud*) and "something" (*aliquid*) refer to nature, but "another one" (*alius*) and "someone" (*aliquis*) to the person. Hence John Damascene: «Christ is wholly perfect God, but not the whole is God. For he is not only God, but also man; and wholly perfect man, but not the whole is man, for he is not only man, but also God. For "the whole" is representative of nature, but "wholly" of the hypostasis; as "another thing" indeed belongs to nature, "another one" to the hypostasis». And so of suchlike.

### Chapter IV.
### *Whether those things which are said of God or of the Son of God can be said of that man or of the son of man.*

It is also wont to be asked whether the son of man, or that man, can fittingly be said to have descended from heaven, or to be everywhere, as the Son of God or God is said to have come from heaven, or to be everywhere. — To which we say that if the meaning of the saying be referred to the unity of the person, it can soundly be said; but if to the distinction of natures, it is by no means to be conceded. Hence Augustine: «Christ is one person, God and man. Therefore it is said: No one ascends into heaven, except him who descended from heaven, etc. If therefore you attend to the distinction of substances, the Son of God descended, and the son of man was crucified; but if to the unity of the person, both the son of man descended, and the Son of God was crucified. On account of this unity of the person he said not only that the son of man had descended from heaven, but also that he was in heaven, while he was speaking on earth». «On account of this same [unity] the Lord of glory is said to be crucified, who yet from the form of the servant only was crucified, not according to that whereby he is the Lord of glory and according to which he glorifies his own; and yet the Lord of glory is said to be crucified, rightly indeed not by the power of the Divinity, but by the infirmity of the flesh. What therefore is said, on account of what, and according to what, let the prudent and diligent and pious reader understand». — Let these things said of the strap of the Lord's sandal suffice, lest the bones of the king of Idumaea be consumed even to ashes.