Dist. 12, 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/4/d/12/q/bon-sent-IV-d12-p1-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that he says that Christ showed himself to two disciples in the appearance of a pilgrim. For it seems that in this an impropriety is multiplied, not resolved: because Christ, who is Truth, could have no falsity in word, therefore by parity of reasoning neither in deed: therefore since he was not a pilgrim, he ought not to have shown himself in that appearance. Moreover, the body of Christ was glorious, therefore it was not visible nor of that color: therefore it seems that he showed himself otherwise than he was: therefore it seems that in the deed he committed a falsehood.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Lord showed himself in the appearance of a pilgrim, not in order to show that he was a pilgrim, but in order to «exhibit himself to the eyes of the body, as Gregory says, such as he was before the eyes of the mind». Hence the Lord sometimes showed himself to his beloved under diverse modes of appearing, not that he should be believed to be such, but rather that he might be manifested to man in that form in which he can perceive him; or even, that he might rather be concealed. It must be said therefore that in this showing there was no deception. For the exterior sense saw the true form, the interior was not deceived, but was closed, as it is said in the Text: *Their eyes were held, that they should not recognize him;* and therefore this was not deception, but a concealment of the truth; and to conceal the truth is not to lie. Hence the case is not similar in the matter proposed: because, since touch apprehends the partition and the number of parts, as a common and per se sensible object, and the common sense necessarily follows upon the complete apprehension of the particular sense, this could not be without deception. And

therefore what they bring forward as similar is not similar, but dissimilar.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that Augustine says: *He remains whole and entire in heaven.* For it seems false: because, as some say, the Lord's foreskin is still on earth; and some say that they have some of the Lord's blood: therefore he is not wholly in heaven.

**I respond:** It must be said that in Christ there rose again all that belonged to the truth of human nature and that pertains to fittingness; and therefore he is said to be wholly in heaven. — As for what he objects about the foreskin, it must be said that either it was not of the flesh according to species, but by divine dispensation a little of the flesh according to matter was there, that it might be given to us for devotion, like relics — and so it must be said of the blood — or something was there of the truth, and that rose again with Christ and is in heaven, and the remainder stayed behind. — Yet some say that the circumcised will rise again without the foreskin, because that token is for adornment. — And if you object that the whole will rise; they say that this is true: the whole that pertains to being, or to beauty; and therefore there is no instance from the foreskin. — But which of these is the truer is hard to know; yet in whatever way it be said, it is true that the whole Christ, that is, the perfect, is in heaven as to being and well-being.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *He remains whole and entire in your heart.* For it seems to be said badly: because the body of Christ does not enter your heart, since it is something corporeal, because God alone glides into the soul: therefore if Christ is constituted of soul and body, he cannot be in the heart nor remain there.

**I respond:** It must be said that Christ dwells in our hearts not corporeally, but spiritually or through faith, as it is said in Ephesians the third. Hence it is that Christ is said to remain whole in the heart, because, however much the species be broken, the faithful heart believes that the body of Christ remains whole and unimpaired, not that the body according to truth enters the soul.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that Hilary says, that *where there is a part, there is the whole.* For it seems, according to this, that since there are there many parts, Christ is there many times; and since they are infinite, infinitely many times; which does not seem to be fitting.

**I respond:** To this some say that the body of Christ is in that species only once, and yet they concede that it is there infinitely many times as to mode; and they put forward an example in the figure of a carving, which is in one wax and at one stroke, because one image can be made from one lump of wax, yet it can be formed in infinite ways. For in any part of the wax there is an eye, and in any there is a hand, and in any there is a head. For they say that in the wax there is whatever the hand of the craftsman can make. And to this there is the authority of the Philosopher in the *Six Principles*, who says, «that in forms of this kind to be is from nature, but to be perceived is from act». And to this also there is the authority of Jerome on the prologue to the Bible: «The wax is soft and easy for forming, even if the hand of the craftsman cease, yet within it is virtually whatever it can be». — But although that example seems on the surface to have some likeness, it has more unlikeness; because the whole image is not in any part of the wax, as it is in the whole wax; but here, however small a part be signified, there is as much as there is in the whole host. Moreover, whatever is said to be there from nature is never in act, unless art make it, yet it is in potency. And therefore Jerome says that «within it is virtually»; but here the whole Christ is in any part of the host. Therefore it must be said otherwise, that since the body of Christ is in the Sacrament not as in a place, but as in a sign — not only a sign signifying, but also one truly containing; and let not the account of containing depart from the account of the Sacrament: just as any part can signify and does signify, like the whole, so any part signifies and contains the whole. And since, however much the parts signify, yet they are one with the whole — one sign, I say, not many, unless they be divided — hence it is that they contain only once, and the whole Christ is contained once. Nor can an example be found among corporeal things — rather the contrary would be found;

but the example must be sought among spiritual things, not because the body of Christ is not truly a body, but because it has there a mode of being above the nature of bodies. Just as therefore in one body there is one soul, and yet existing whole in the individual members, and is there once, because there is one perfectible thing; so also the body of Christ is in one Sacrament only once.

### Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than Christ handed it down.* For it seems to be said badly, because we all celebrate otherwise: for it is established that Christ made neither so many prayers nor so many signs of the cross as we make. If you say that this is understood as to those things which are of the substance of the Sacrament: it is asked, why does the Church add these solemnities and so many signs of the cross?

**I respond:** It must be said that some things pertain to the necessity and integrity of this Sacrament, and such things Christ handed down of himself: some things pertain to solemnity, and these the Church superadds: now these are not diminishing, but preserving those things which are of the integrity of the Sacrament: and therefore he does not celebrate otherwise, but keeps it thus. But if anyone were to change the form of Christ, or were to change those things which have been handed down by the Church; such a one would surely be unworthy; and it is of such a one that he speaks.

To that which is asked, why the Church adds solemnities of this kind; it must be said that the addition of these solemnities is for the arousing of devotion and the narrowing of intention, and it is also, thirdly, for the sake of more express signification. Hence prayers are added for arousing devotion in the priests and for teaching what they ought to ask. Hence, just as the canonical hours have been instituted, lest through negligence the hour pass in which God is not praised, and that the people may be kindled to devotion; so also is it to be understood in the matter proposed. — For the sake of intention the signs of the cross are made, that the priest may by the act of his heart and his hands be turned upon the Sacrament; therefore when he names, he signs. — For the sake of more express signification: for those signs of the cross which are made there, which are twenty-five, and are made in seven sets, signify expressly the passion of Christ, as Innocent hands down: «In the first set they are made three times, to signify the threefold handing-over of Christ, namely by God, by Judas, and by the Jew. — In the second set they are made five times, to signify the five persons who were in the handing-over of Christ, namely the person of the one handed over, of Judas the one handing over, and of the buyers, who were three, namely the chief priests, scribes, and pharisees. — In the third they are made twice, to signify the conversion of the twofold element, namely of bread and wine. — In the fourth they are made five times, to signify the five wounds. — In the fifth they are made twice, to signify the bonds with which the body was bound, and the scourges by which the blood was dashed. — In the sixth they are made three times, on account of the crucifixion made by the tongues of the Jews, when three times they said: *Crucify him*. — In the seventh, five times, three over the body above the chalice and two at the side, that there may be signified the three torments, namely of passion, propassion, and compassion, and on account of the water and blood which flowed from Christ's side. — All these are twenty-five, which is a number squared with respect to five reflected upon itself, so that it may be designated that, however much the sacrifice be multiplied, it is always one». And thus it is clear that nothing is void of mystery.