Dist. 8, 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/8/q/bon-sent-III-d8-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 this which is said: *A thing which is not begotten of the Father does not seem to be born of the Mother.* But, on the contrary: The human nature is not begotten of the Father; therefore it is not born of the Mother. — Likewise, Christ according to his human nature "was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary," in such a way that the Holy Spirit is not his father, although the Virgin is his mother: therefore the aforesaid statement does not seem to hold the truth.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master is speaking of that nativity by which a thing is said to be born in such a way that it claims for itself the property or denomination of filiation. But the human nature in Christ does not have this; and therefore there is no valid objection against what the Master says in the text.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *We venerate one nativity from the Father, which is above cause, reason, time, and nature.* But, on the contrary: The generation of the Son of God from the Father is a natural generation; but a natural generation is according to nature, not above nature: therefore etc.; therefore he says falsely that it is above nature.

*(Incidental question.)* Alongside this it is asked: by what are those four things distinguished which are set forth in the authority? For it seems that it is nothing but a piling-up of words.

**I respond:** It must be said that *nature* is not taken so generally, but for created nature; whence he does not mean to say that the generation of the Son is above *eternal* nature, which is nature *naturing*, but above *created* nature, which is wont to be called nature *natured*.

*(To the incidental question.)* And note that those four things are distinguished thus, so that *cause* refers to the angelic nature, *reason* to the human nature, *time* to the heavenly power, and *nature* to the power of the lower creature, so that the sense is: that generation is above *cause*, that is, above the angelic power; and above *reason*, that is, the human power; and above *time*, that is, the heavenly operation; and above *nature*, that is, the lower power. — *(Otherwise.)* Or otherwise, so that *cause* refers to the acting power, and *reason* to the knowing potency, and *time* to the limiting measure, and *nature* to the customary mode of operating.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *Christ was born a man of a woman at the time of conception.* For it seems false to say so, because that conception was not in time, but in an instant. — Likewise, if his conception was like ours as regards time, then it does not seem true what he adds, namely that it was above the law of our conception.

**I respond:** It must be said that conception is taken in two ways. *(Twofold conception.)* In one way *conception* is called the very operation of nature in the formation of the body up to the reception of the soul. In another way *conception* is called broadly the nutrition and perfecting of the body up to the birth and its egress from the womb. If therefore conception is taken in the first way, then Christ's conception was not *according to* us, but *above* us, nor was it in time, but in an instant. But if conception is taken in the second way, *broadly*, then it was *according to* us, because for nine months he was nourished and grew in the womb of the Mother, like other men, before he was born. And this has been treated more sufficiently above.

---