Dist. 5, 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/5/q/bon-sent-III-d5-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

#### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first about what he says, that *neither was the divinity foreign to the nature of the Father, nor the humanity to the nature of the Mother.* But in the Father and the Son there is one divinity: therefore in the Mother and the Son there is one humanity: therefore just as the Father and the Son are one God, so the Mother and the Son are one man.

**I respond:** It must be said that no complete likeness is to be noted in the foregoing statement. For the unity of the uncreated nature in respect of the creature, and of person in respect of person, although they have some conformity, on account of the fact that the creature is *like* the Creator in nature, and person is *like* person; nevertheless the difference is great; for the divine nature is not multiplied in persons, but human nature is to be multiplied in diverse persons — whence two men have two humanities — and so that reasoning does not compel [the conclusion], because in the statement proposed no complete likeness is intended.

#### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *He was in the form of God,* etc.; because *form* states a respect to that which is informed, and *that which is informed* states matter; but God has no matter: therefore neither does he have a form.

**I respond:** It must be said that *form* is spoken of in two ways (*Form in two ways*): in one way by the *privation of matter*, and thus God is a form; in another way by *comparison to the matter* which it perfects, and in this way God is not held to be a form. In the first way the statement proposed is understood, in the second way the objection arises. — *Otherwise*: Or otherwise: for there is a way of speaking of form according as it states a relation to that which is informed according to the *thing*, or according as it states a relationship according to the *mode of understanding.* And in the first way it raises the objection, and in the second way it is taken in divine matters, because the deity itself stands in the character of a form in respect of God; yet there is no difference of God to his divinity.

#### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *in the becoming-human of the Word of God we [hold] the whole and perfect nature of the deity to have been incarnate.* **On the contrary:** This sign *whole* distributes for the supposits: therefore if the three persons are hypostases of that nature, it seems that all are incarnate. If you say that this sign *whole* is not taken syncategorematically or as a sign, but rather as an adjective, and *whole* is worth as much as *perfect*; it seems to be a redundancy [to say] *whole* and *perfect.*

**I respond:** It must be said that *whole* is not taken there *distributively*, as has been said, but is only worth
saying *the whole nature of the divinity*, as much as *perfect.* Nor is there a *redundancy* there, because the *and* is not taken there conjunctively, but expositively, and the *and* is taken for *that is.* — *Otherwise*: It can be said otherwise, that *whole* deprives or removes a division of part from part, while *perfect* posits completion, so that the sense is: the divine nature is incarnate in its perfection, in such a way that [it is] not according to part and part; and that this understanding is true can be had from the text following.

#### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what is said: *The divine nature is not said to be man, or made man, in the same way as the Son of God.* For it seems false, because *man* is predicated of everything of which *Son of God* is predicated; and this is true: the divine nature is the Son of God: therefore this is true: the divine nature is man.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a predication (*Twofold predication*) by *identity* and by *denomination.* And the predication by *denomination* preserves the propriety of predication more than that which is by *identity.* Whence this is more proper: the Son of God is generated, than this: the divinity is generation, as was shown in the first book. And since the Son of God is the supposit of the human nature, not so the divine nature; hence it is that this is more proper: the Son of God is man, than this: the divine nature is man. Therefore the Master does not simply deny it, but says that it is not so proper; nor is it so to be brought into use everywhere, for the reason that it approaches too great an expression.

---