Dist. 28, 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/28/q/bon-sent-III-d28-dubia
----------------------------------------
# Doubts concerning the text of the Master

### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about what he says: *There was no need for it to be handed down by a special precept, that each one should love himself or his own body* etc. For this does not seem true, because, if precepts are given to direct our affections, since it most of all happens that everyone errs concerning love of himself, it seems that about this a precept ought most of all to have been given. — Likewise, in the precepts of charity carnal love is not commanded, but spiritual; but it is most difficult to love oneself spiritually: if therefore this is necessary for salvation, it seems that this ought to have been specially commanded. If you say that it was not necessary to command [it], because it is included in the other two precepts; then it is asked: why is the love of neighbor not included, but expressed?

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a threefold reason why it is not necessary that a special commandment be given concerning love of oneself or of the body: one is that which Augustine gives, and is had in the text, because it is sufficiently understood by what is said: *As thyself.* Another reason is that nature inclines to this very thing. The third reason is that to love God from the whole heart and from the whole soul and from the whole mind, this is to love oneself spiritually. For he loves himself spiritually who totally devotes his heart and body to the honor of God: and thus love of oneself is implied in those two commandments, and he who well fulfills the first commandment has facility and rectitude for loving himself; and on that account it was not necessary that a third commandment be added, according as Augustine says.

And by this the determination of the objections is clear. For that which it objects, that concerning love of oneself there is deviation and difficulty; this is now clear: because man is sufficiently instructed by those two commandments for the removal of that deviation and difficulty.

To that which is asked last: why is the commandment concerning love of neighbor not given so implicitly, as the one concerning love of oneself? it must be said that the reason for this is that it is not so [natural] in the inclination and appetite of nature to be turned toward another, as to be turned toward oneself; and besides, it is most difficult to love one's neighbor, especially when he is hostile to him: therefore it was fitting that a special commandment be given concerning this.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *It is manifest that every man is to be reckoned a neighbor.* For it is objected concerning the blessed Virgin: for if a neighbor is he who is beside us, and the blessed Virgin is not only above us, but «exalted above the Angels»; it does not seem that she is to be loved only as a neighbor, but rather as a lady. — Likewise, the blessed

Virgin is to be honored with a special honor, which is called *hyperdulia*: therefore she is to be loved with a special love: therefore it does not seem that she is understood under the name of neighbor, by which we understand that which is beside [us].

**I respond:** It must be said that under the name of neighbor is understood every man of whatever sex, of whatever dignity, of whatever virtue. Whence also the love of the glorious Virgin is included under the love of neighbor.

But to that which is objected, that she is not beside us, but rather above; it must be said that although she is above us by reason of the dignity of grace and of her most noble conception, she is nevertheless beside us according to the conformity of nature; and since love regards likeness, but honor regards dignity, hence it is that the love of her is generally contained under the love of neighbor, although the veneration of her is set above the others. — It is nevertheless true that she ought to be loved with a special affection by all; but from this it does not follow that the love of her ought not to be contained under the love of neighbor, because, however much some creature is to be loved with great affection, charity itself first orders the soul to love its own salvation, as will be better shown below. — By this the response to the objections is clear, since he argues from the sublimity of dignity, when he objects that the blessed Virgin is above us, according to which she is *to be venerated*; but under the name of *neighbor* she is contained as to the conformity of nature, according to which she is *to be loved.*

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *It is manifest that even the holy Angels are contained under the precept of love of neighbor.* But on the contrary: the holy Angels, as to the dignity of nature and as to the eminence of grace and as to the excellence of glory, are above us: therefore it seems that they ought not to be reckoned our neighbors, but lords. — Likewise, Christ is our Lord, who was *made a little less than the Angels*, according as it is said in the Psalm: therefore it seems that the Angels themselves are to be reckoned as our lords, not as neighbors.

**I respond:** It must be said that although the Angels are above us either as to the *dignity of nature*, or as to the *sublimity of grace*; nevertheless as to the *act of love* they are not to be loved above us, for the reason that our charity *principally* regards the supreme Good, toward which it makes [us] tend and to which it inclines; but *secondly* it regards the subject which it informs; but *thirdly* it regards another like subject, with which it binds; whence however much a creature is excellent in itself, nevertheless according to the law of charity it is beside [us], and therefore ought to be contained under the name of neighbor.

To that, therefore, which it objects, that they are above us under the aspect of nature, grace and glory; the response is now clear: because, although they are above us according to the order of the universe, they are nevertheless not above us according to the order of charity. — It can also be said otherwise, that although they are above us by reason of simplicity, spirituality and incorruptibility, they are nevertheless beside us by reason of the image, according to which both we and they have to be ordered immediately to God; and by reason of this they can be called our neighbors.

And by this the response is clear to that which is objected concerning Christ, that that is said by reason of the assumed passibility.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *We ought to love Christ, inasmuch as he is man, as ourselves.* On the contrary: Christ is our head according to the conformity of the assumed nature; but the head is more to be loved than another member: therefore we ought to love Christ, according as he is man, more than ourselves. — Likewise, we ought to love the Redeemer as much as the Creator; but the Creator is to be loved more than ourselves: therefore also the Redeemer. But Christ, inasmuch as he is man, is the Redeemer: therefore we ought to love Christ, inasmuch as he is man, more than ourselves.

**I respond:** It must be said that when it is said: *Christ, inasmuch as he is man, is to be loved as much as ourselves, or more than ourselves*, this determination *inasmuch as* can import *unity of person*, or *condition of nature*, according to what was said a-

bove in the eleventh distinction. And if it imports *unity of person*; thus he is to be loved *above us*, because thus he is our creator, redeemer and savior. But if it imports the *condition* of the assumed *nature*, thus he is to be loved *beside us*, and thus he is our neighbor. Whence if we consider Christ only by reason of his humanity, that is, *purely* by reason of the created nature, the primacy of love is not owed to him, just as neither the adoration of latria; nor in this way is he called our redeemer, or head, because both the character of redeemer and that of head regard the person according to each nature. — And by this the response to the objections is clear.