Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 1
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/9/q/bon-sent-III-d9-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article I. *On adoration itself by comparison to the one to whom it is to be shown.*
### Question I. *Whether the cult of latria is to be shown to the humanity or flesh of Christ.*

On the first point one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether the cult of latria is to be shown to the humanity or flesh of Christ. And that it is, it seems:

1. *(Foundations.)* First, on the authority of Damascene: «Christ is perfect God and perfect man, whom we adore with one adoration together with the Father and the Spirit and his uncontaminated flesh»: therefore if the person of Christ is to be adored with latria, it seems that likewise his flesh is.

2. Likewise, on that text of the Psalm: *Adore the footstool of his feet, for it is holy*; the Gloss of Augustine: «In Christ the earth, that is, the flesh, is adored by us without impiety, for no one eats his flesh spiritually unless he first adores it».

3. Likewise, with the same fear is feared fire and iron made glowing by fire: therefore if the divinity is more united to the flesh than fire to iron, it seems that the same reverence is to be shown to his humanity which is shown to the divinity.

4. Likewise, with the same adoration is adored flesh united to a soul with which the soul itself is adored: therefore if the Word is united to the flesh no less intimately than the soul, by the same reason by which the Word is adored, the assumed flesh is adored. But the Word is adored with latria: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** *(To the opposite.)*
1. Luke four: *The Lord thy God thou shalt adore, and him only shalt thou serve*; the Gloss expounds this of the servitude of the cult of latria: therefore it is to be shown to God alone, and therefore not to the flesh of Christ.

2. Likewise, Augustine in the tenth book *On the City of God*, speaking of Christ: «Since in the form of God he receives sacrifice together with the Father, with whom he is also one God; yet in the form of a servant he preferred to be the sacrifice rather than to receive it». And in the same place: «Who has judged that sacrifice should be made except to him whom one has known, or supposed, or imagined to be God»? Therefore to that humanity, that is, to the flesh of Christ, sacrifice is not to be made: therefore neither is that cult to be offered to it which is offered to God.

3. Likewise, the Gloss on that text of the Psalm: *Adore the footstool of his feet*: «The flesh of Christ is not to be adored with that adoration of latria which is owed to God alone, but with that dulia which is more worthy»: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, however much the human nature in Christ may be exalted, it does not go beyond the bounds of a creature: therefore neither ought the reverence shown to it to go beyond the bounds of a creature: if therefore latria is a cult which exceeds all the limits of a creature, it seems that whoever shows latria to the flesh of Christ commits idolatry.

5. Likewise, to the lesser a lesser reverence is to be shown, and to the greater a greater, according to right order; but Christ, according as he is man, is less than the Father, and the humanity is less than the deity, however much it is united: therefore a lesser reverence is to be shown to it. If therefore latria is the highest reverence, it seems that it is not to be shown to the humanity of Christ.

6. Likewise, it belongs to none to be adored with the adoration of latria whose part it is to adore; but it is the humanity's part to adore the most high Trinity itself: therefore it ought not to be adored with the adoration of latria. The major is proved by this, that latria is owed to none whose part it is to serve another. The minor is proved by this, that it is his part to adore whose part it is to pray; but Christ prayed, as is read in the various Gospels: therefore etc.

> ### Conclusion.
> The human nature of Christ, inasmuch as it is always united to the Word, is always to be adored with latria.

**I respond:** It must be said that the flesh of Christ *(The flesh of Christ is considered in three ways.)* is considered in many ways. In one way the flesh of Christ is called that whole man, according to that which is said in John one: *The Word was made flesh*; and in this way, because that man is God by reason of one person, he is to be adored with the adoration of latria *(Conclusion 1).* — In another way the flesh is considered as it names the part of the humanity itself in itself, not as united; and in this way to the flesh so considered is owed not the adoration of latria, but of dulia *(Conclusion 2).* — In a third way the flesh is considered as it were in a middle way, as it names the created nature itself, as united to the divinity; and in this way certain men said that it is to be adored with a more worthy dulia, which indeed is hyperdulia *(Opinion 1).* And the reason for this is that it belongs to God alone to be adored with latria, and a nature does not communicate to another nature its own idioms. Hence, just as it is not to be said that the human nature in Christ is eternal because it is united to the eternal, so in this way they said that the human nature is not to be adored with *latria*, although it is united to the most high majesty.

But others said otherwise, that if the flesh and soul be considered as united to that person, it is to be adored with the adoration of *latria*, since it is otherwise concerning the *showing of honor* and the *other properties* *(Opinion 2).* For honor does not regard this *part* or that, but regards the *person* itself. Hence, although the purple and the garment do not share the absolute properties of the king, nevertheless it shares in honor and reverence, as Augustine says and the Master recounts in the letter. And therefore, because there is one person in Christ, to whom the highest reverence is owed, it is to be adored with one adoration, namely *latria*, as regards each nature, namely the Deity and the humanity, just as with the same adoration in one man the head and the foot are adored *(Conclusion 3).*

It must therefore be conceded that not only is *Christ as man* to be adored with latria, but also *his humanity*, inasmuch as it is united to the Word, although, as it is considered in itself, nothing but dulia is ever owed to it *(Conclusion 4).* And since the flesh of Christ is never separated from the Word, therefore it is always to be considered as conjoined and is always to be adored with *latria*, although to the humanity as considered in itself nothing but dulia is owed. And therefore the second opinion is better than the first, and is more consonant with the authorities of the Saints. — And therefore the reasons which are for this side are to be conceded.

*(Solution of the opposing arguments.)*
1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that latria is a cult owed to God alone; it must be said that on this account the humanity of Christ is not excluded. For just as, when it is said: only Peter is in here, his hand or foot is not excluded; so, when it is said: God alone is to be adored with latria, the humanity is not excluded, because the human nature and the divine concur in one person. Hence this adoration too does not count as a number alongside the other.

2. To that which is objected, that to the flesh of Christ sacrifice is not to be made; it must be said that this is true *of itself*, but not as it is conjoined to the divinity, because to the whole Christ sacrifice is to be made. And as to what Augustine says, that «Christ willed not to receive sacrifice, but to offer it»; it must be said that he does not say this to mean that he ought not to be adored and have sacrifice made to him in the flesh, but because he willed to avoid the occasion of error, lest to any creature should be shown *of itself* the honor of the divine majesty.

3. To that which is objected concerning the Gloss, that the flesh is not to be adored with latria; it must be said that that statement is understood of the flesh of the Word as it is considered in itself in a bare consideration. And this is what Augustine says: «If you separate the man from God, I never believe in him nor serve him»; but this does not stand against the fact that, according as it is united, it is to be adored with latria. Hence Damascene: «We adore it not as bare flesh, but as united to the Deity in one hypostasis of God the Word».

4. To that which is objected, that a creature does not go beyond the bounds of a creature; it must be said that this is true by reason of *itself*; and therefore honor by reason of itself does not go beyond the bounds of a creature; but because it is united in one hypostasis of God the Word, to whom a unique honor is owed, in whatever nature it be; hence it is that *latria* is owed to it.

5. To that which is objected, that to the lesser a lesser reverence is owed; it must be said that this is true when the lesser and the greater are so related that they are susceptible of diverse honors; but this is so *(Note.)* when they are diverse persons standing apart in grade of dignity; but this is not to be found in the matter at hand, since in Christ there is one personality, and since that is regarded according to the supreme nature, a unique and supreme reverence is owed to it, of whatever nature it be; just as one honor is owed to a king, in whatever garment he be. For honor regards the more worthy nature, and *consequently* that which is attached to it; just as the flesh of a holy man ought to be honored according to the dignity of the soul, not according to the ignobility of its own nature.

6. To that, however, which is objected, that it is Christ's part to adore; it must be said that according as «prayer is the ascent of the intellect into God», so properly *(Note.)* it does not pertain to Christ, since *whatsoever he willed, he did*; and the Word always has present, accomplishing through all things whatsoever his soul wills; yet he gives an example of praying and adoring according to the lower nature in his prayer; and therefore it does not follow that he ought not to be adored. For just as he himself baptizes inwardly, and yet was baptized, to instruct others; so he prayed and adored, to teach others; because, as Damascene holds, in Christ the human nature does not hold the nature of a handmaid.

For he speaks thus: «The flesh is a servant if it is not united to God the Word; but once united according to hypostasis, how will it be a handmaid? For Christ, being one being, cannot be the servant and lord of his very self; whose servant then will he be? Not the Father's, because whatever the Father has belongs to the Son. And so those who say that he is a servant make of one Christ a division into two in the manner of Nestorius». And so it does not pertain to Christ to adore, but to be adored, because the character of lordship befits him more than that of servitude. — *(Another solution.)* It might also be said otherwise that, although it were his part to adore, nevertheless it would not follow that he ought not still to be adored with the adoration of latria; because we who ought to adore ought not to look to his humanity, but to the dignity of the person. — And in this last point consists the summit of the aforesaid question.