Dist. 3, Part 1, 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/3/q/bon-sent-III-d3-p1-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about what is said in the text: *The Holy Spirit purged Mary from the tinder of sin.* — For if the tinder is left in us for exercise and merit, and the blessed Virgin was of the greatest merit, it does not seem that she ought to have been freed from the tinder. — Likewise, the goad of the flesh was given to the Apostle for the preservation of divine grace: therefore it does not seem that it ought to have been taken away from the blessed Virgin.

**I respond:** It must be said that something is conducive to good in two ways, namely according to every state, and something else according to the state of fallen and sick nature; just as something is conducive to health in two ways, namely *commonly*, like food of good composition, and something else according to the state of *sickness*, like the medicaments of this

nature. It must be said therefore that the tinder is for promotion not *simply*, but according to the *state of fallen nature*, in which man is prone to sloth and to pride: and so such a goad is useful to him, through exercise to expel laziness, and through humiliation to expel pride. Since therefore the blessed Virgin was filled with charity and humility and confirmed in both, she had no need of the goad of the tinder. Therefore it is not the same with others and with her.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about that word: *And the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee*; for it is asked, in what sense it calls him the Most High, since rather he is the messenger of divine humiliation than of height? — Likewise, it is asked about what is added: *Shall overshadow thee*, since, when God the Son is the *brightness of eternal light*, it is not fitting for him to overshadow, but rather to illuminate.

**I respond:** It must be said that by the name of the Most High the Father is understood by appropriation; for power is appropriated to the Father, and in the person of the Father authority is principally found. But by *power* we understand the Son, because we call Christ *the power of God and the wisdom of God*. Since therefore the discourse had preceded concerning the Holy Spirit, there is added [a word] concerning the Father and the Son, that just as those three had fabricated the world, so they may be understood to have repaired the world by an undivided work, and this through the structure constituted of the virginal womb.

But the reason why it rather called the Father the Most High, than that it should name him Father, is that there may be shown in the work of the incarnation the wonderful condescension of God to have been, in this, that he willed to join our humility to his loftiness. — The power of the Most High is said rather to overshadow the Virgin than to illuminate her. For overshadowing aids the sight and refreshes from heat, and at the coming of the Son of God the Virgin Mary was refreshed by the extinction of the tinder; she was also aided toward the contemplation of God through the conjunction of the flesh with the Word, so that she who could not perceive God within herself on account of the immensity of his light, might perceive and know him within herself through the assumed lowliness of the flesh.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what the Damascene says: *He joined to himself an ensouled flesh out of most pure bloods.* From this it seems that Christ was conceived from the blood of the Virgin. But *against* this is that saying of Augustine, which follows, that he assumed to himself flesh from the flesh of the Virgin. — Likewise, flesh is nearer to flesh than blood: therefore he ought first to have assumed flesh from flesh rather than from blood.

**I respond:** It must be said that by *most pure bloods* he understands the humors which are near to the formation of the body, out of which the flesh of Christ was formed. But that humor is sometimes called *flesh*, sometimes *blood*, sometimes *seed*; and this according to a diverse comparison. For it is called *blood* in comparison to that from which it proceeded; *flesh* in comparison to that which is made out of it; but *seed* with respect to the form which it has.

To that which is objected, that flesh is nearer to flesh; it must be said that this is true in the *way of species*, but not in the *way of generation*, because flesh is never converted into flesh unless it be first converted into humor.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what is added: *He joined to himself an ensouled flesh of our ancient mass, not by sowing, but by creating through the Holy Spirit.* For the first seems to be false, because *ancient mass* sounds toward vice, as the Apostle says in the first to the Corinthians, the fifth [chapter]: *Purge out the old leaven*; but the flesh of Christ was never vitiated: therefore etc. — Likewise, objection is made about what is added, *by creating through the Holy Spirit*, because it seems to say something false; for to create is to make

something out of nothing. But the flesh of Christ was not from nothing, but assumed from the flesh of the Virgin.

**I respond:** It must be said that *ancient mass* is called so here on account of the antiquity and roughness of the penalties. But the Apostle calls *leaven* the corruption of evil habit, which is observed in vicious proneness; but Christ assumed penal flesh, but not sinful flesh; and this the Damascene wishes to say.

To that which is objected concerning this word *to create*, it must be said that *to create* is here called an act which properly belongs to God, not because it is wholly from nothing; whence *creation* is there taken for *condition* [making], and *Creator* is worth there as much as *Founder*; and this very thing the Damascene wishes to say, that that flesh was created « not seminally, but by founding ».

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *If all the holy men and holy women could be gathered together, they could not say that we have no sin, except the Virgin alone. Against* this is the case of infants recently baptized, who have no sin, neither actual nor original. — Likewise, objection is made about adults immediately after baptism; for concerning those who are immediately absolved from all sins, it seems that they can be said to have no sin.

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning that word emphasis can be made in three ways, so that a sound understanding may be taken from it: first from this, that it says that *we cannot say [it]*, because no one is certain whether he lacks every sin, as the Apostle says in the first to the Corinthians, the fourth [chapter]: *I am conscious to myself of nothing*; but the Virgin could say this by a special gift of grace. — Otherwise it can be understood, so that emphasis is made on this which is said *sin*. For *sin* is called the *act of sin* and the *stain* and the *cause of sin*. And blessed John takes sin not only for the stain, but also for the cause or consequence. But no one except the Virgin could say, apart from Christ, that he had not the cause, that is, the tinder. For in her alone was concupiscence extinguished. — Thirdly emphasis can be made on this which it says *we have*; because it can say the present *as now*, or the present *simply*. If it says the present *as now*, it does not seem impossible that they can be immune in some hour from all actual [sin]. But if it says the present *simply*, then it belongs to the Virgin alone, who through the whole time of her life committed no actual sin; but this can truly be said of none of the other Saints, who remained in this life for some while.

---