Bonaventure

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Latin (`La.`) is verbatim from the Quaracchi apparatus; English (`En.`) is a literal rendering. Variant readings preserve the apparatus's manuscript-sigla style (e.g., Cod. T, Vat., ed. 1).

DUB. I.

In parte ista incidunt dubitationes circa litteram et primo de hoc quod dicit Magister, et est verbum Augustini, scilicet quod mali non sunt cum illo, ut caeci in luce etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia mali sunt in Deo, quia in illo vivunt, moventur et sunt¹: ergo si non importatur maior convenientia per hoc quod est esse cum aliquo quam in aliquo, videtur, quod sicut mali dicuntur esse in Deo, ita debeant dici esse cum Deo.

— Item, quae est magis impropria, Deus est cum malis, vel mali cum Deo? Videtur, quod haec: mali sunt cum Deo. Unde Augustinus in libro Confessionum²: «Mecum eras, et tecum non eram»; loquitur pro statu peccati. Sed contra; cum dicit auctoritatem in casuali³, ergo videtur, quod melius dicitur: homo cum Deo, quam e converso.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod haec praepositio cum dicit associationem. In societate autem considerantur duo, scilicet mutuum auxilium et conformitas voluntatis. Quoniam igitur soli boni habent voluntatem conformem et sunt coadiutores Dei⁴, ideo de eis solis proprie dicitur, quod sint cum Deo, et e converso; quia tunc hoc quod est cum non dicit auctoritatem. Quia vero mali non conformantur nec auxiliantur Deo in sua salute, sed contradicunt, et tamen Deus adiuvat eos in multis; ideo dicit Augustinus: Mecum eras etc.⁵

DUB. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Apud se habitat etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia praepositiones sunt distinctivae, quia transitivae⁶: si ergo Deus a se non distinguitur, male dicitur, quod apud se erat. Si tu dicas, quod transitionem solum dicunt quantum ad modum; contra est Glossa super primum Ioannis⁷, quae dicit, quod apud notat distinctionem Patris ad Filium.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Deus non solum est in creaturis, sed etiam apud se. Unde Augustinus in libro Confessionum⁸: «Deus est in se ut alpha et omega, in mundo ut creator et rector, in Angelis ut sapor et decor, in electis ut liberator et adiutor, in reprobis ut terror et horror». — Quod obiicitur, quod praepositio dicit transitionem et distinctionem; dicendum, quod quantum est de virtute suae significationis, non dicit nisi transitionem quantum ad modum; quod autem dicat quantum ad rem, hoc est ratione materiae sive terminorum, quibus additur⁹.

DUB. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod Deus habitat in aliquo, cum ita est in eo, ut ab eo cognoscatur et diligatur. Videtur non bene dicere, quia habitat in parvulis, qui eum non cognoscunt: ergo non videtur haec ratio conveniens.

Respondeo: Est cognoscere actu, et est cognoscere habitu; et quamvis parvuli non cognoscant actu, cognoscunt tamen habitu, eo quod gratiam habent et habitum virtutum, sicut dicitur in quarto libro¹⁰.

DUB. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Quomodo ubique Deus sit, intellectu non capimus. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia «quod intelligimus debetur rationi», sicut dicit Augustinus¹¹; sed habemus rationes, per quas scimus, Deum esse in rebus potentialiter, praesentialiter et essentialiter. Si tu dicas, quod non comprehendimus¹²; similiter nec alia comprehendimus, quae dicuntur de Deo: ergo magis de hoc quam de supradictis non deberet dicere Magister, quod sit ineffabile.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quaedam sunt pure intelligibilia, et talibus non contradicit Imaginatio, sed deficit; quaedam sunt sensibilia, et in talibus sufficit; quaedam sunt quodam modo imaginabilia, et quodam modo intelligibilia, et in talibus frequenter intellectus deficit, et imaginatio contradicit et deficit: ut cum cogitamus, Deum esse ubique, Deum solo intellectu capimus, locum autem imaginamur. Et quoniam nostra imaginatio exemplum¹³ non capit, quod aliquod unum sit in pluribus locis, et intellectus in claritatem lucis non aspicit; hinc est, quod talia nobis non intelligibilia iudicantur magis quam alia.

DUB. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Spiritus creatus sordibus polluti corporis non inquinatur.

Videtur enim contrarium esse ei quod dicitur Sapientiae nono¹⁴: Corpus, quod corrumpitur, aggravat animam. Et iterum, anima contrahit originale a carne et inficitur ab illa.

Respondeo: Sicut generatio univoca est, quae est similis ex simili, et aequivoca, quae est rei dissimilis, ita est infectio secundum rationem univocam, ut leprosus facit leprosum, et secundum rationem aequivocam, ut infectio generat infectionem¹⁵. Primo modo loquitur Magister, quia anima leprosi non est leprosa; secundo modo obiicit.

DUB. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: In Deo sunt omnia quae condidit, nec tamen inquinant eum etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia sordes corporales inquinant res corporales, ergo spirituales res spirituales. Item, si Deum non inquinant: ergo videtur quod posset dici, quod Deus est in diabolo; quod est contra omnem usum.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut tangit Magister in littera¹⁶, sordes corporales non inquinant corpus, quod nec communicat in materia nec dependet, ut patet in radio, qui non inficitur faecibus, quia nec dependet nec communicat in transmutabili materia. Et quoniam Deus neutrum habet, ideo non valet illud. — Quod obiicitur, quod Deus est in peccatoribus; dicendum, quod nullum inconveniens esset dicere; tamen quia hoc videbatur sonare in contumeliam, ideo ponenda est determinatio, ratione cuius sermonis intellectus sanus appareat: ut si dicatur, Deus est in diabolo vel in adultero quantum ad conservationem naturae.

---

DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

DOUBT I.

In this part there occur doubts concerning the text, and first concerning what the Master says — and it is a word of Augustine — namely, that the wicked are not with him, as the blind are in the light etc. For he seems to speak ill, because the wicked are in God, since in him they live and move and are¹: therefore, if no greater conformity is imported by to be with someone than by in someone, it seems that just as the wicked are said to be in God, so they ought to be said to be with God.

— Likewise, which is more improper: God is with the wicked, or the wicked are with God? It seems [that the latter is]: the wicked are with God. Whence Augustine in the book of Confessions²: «You were with me, and I was not with you»; he is speaking on behalf of the state of sin. But on the contrary; since he expresses the authority in the oblique [case]³, therefore it seems that it is better said: the man with God, than the converse.

I respond: It must be said that this preposition with says association. Now in society two things are considered, namely mutual help and conformity of will. Since therefore only the good have a will conformed [to God] and are coadjutors of God⁴, therefore of them alone is it properly said that they are with God, and conversely; because then this with does not say authoritativeness. But because the wicked do not conform nor help God in their own salvation, but contradict [him], and yet God helps them in many things; therefore Augustine says: You were with me etc.⁵

DOUBT II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: He dwells with himself etc. For he seems to speak ill, because prepositions are distinctive, since they are transitive⁶: if therefore God is not distinguished from himself, it is wrongly said that he was with himself. If you say that they say transition only as to mode; on the contrary is the Gloss on First John⁷, which says that with (apud) notes a distinction of the Father with respect to the Son.

I respond: It must be said that God is not only in creatures, but also with himself. Whence Augustine in the book of Confessions⁸: «God is in himself as alpha and omega, in the world as creator and ruler, in the angels as savor and beauty, in the elect as liberator and helper, in the reprobate as terror and horror». — As to what is objected, that the preposition says transition and distinction; it must be said that, as far as the force of its signification is concerned, it says only transition as to mode; that it says [transition] as to thing, this is by reason of the matter or of the terms to which it is added⁹.

DOUBT III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that God dwells in someone when he is in him in such a way that he is known and loved by him. He seems not to speak well, because he dwells in little ones, who do not know him: therefore this account does not seem fitting.

I respond: There is to know in act, and there is to know by habit; and although little ones do not know in act, yet they know by habit, since they have grace and the habit of the virtues, as is said in the fourth book¹⁰.

DOUBT IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: How God is everywhere we do not grasp by the intellect. For he seems to speak falsely, because «what we understand is owed to reason», as Augustine says¹¹; but we have reasons by which we know that God is in things potentially, presentially, and essentially. If you say that we do not comprehend [him]¹²; in like manner neither do we comprehend the other things which are said of God: therefore the Master ought not to say of this rather than of the aforesaid that it is ineffable.

I respond: It must be said that some things are purely intelligible, and to such Imagination does not contradict, but falls short; some things are sensible, and for such [imagination] suffices; some things are in some way imaginable and in some way intelligible, and in such cases the intellect frequently falls short, and imagination contradicts and falls short: as when we think that God is everywhere, we grasp God by intellect alone, but we imagine the place. And because our imagination does not grasp the example¹³ [of the case] that some one [thing] be in many places, and the intellect does not look upon the brightness of the light; hence it is that such things are judged by us [to be] not-intelligible more than other things.

DOUBT V.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: A created spirit is not defiled by the filths of a polluted body.

For it seems to be contrary to what is said in Wisdom 9¹⁴: The body which is corrupted weighs down the soul. And again, the soul contracts the original [sin] from the flesh and is infected by it.

I respond: Just as generation is univocal, which is [the production] of like from like, and equivocal, which is of a thing dissimilar, so infection [occurs] according to a univocal account, as a leper makes [another] a leper, and according to an equivocal account, as infection generates infection¹⁵. The Master speaks in the first mode, because the soul of the leper is not leprous; in the second mode the objector objects.

DOUBT VI.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: In God are all the things which he founded, nor yet do they defile him etc. For he seems to speak ill, because corporeal filths defile corporeal things, therefore spiritual [filths defile] spiritual things. Likewise, if they do not defile God: then it seems that one could say that God is in the devil; which is against all usage.

I respond: It must be said that, as the Master touches in the text¹⁶, corporeal filths do not defile a body which neither communicates in matter nor depends [on it], as is plain in a ray [of light], which is not infected by dregs, because it neither depends on nor communicates in transmutable matter. And since God has neither, therefore that [argument] is not valid. — As to what is objected, that God is in sinners; it must be said that there would be no inconvenience in saying so; yet because this seemed to sound toward an outrage, therefore a determination must be added, by reason of which the wholesome sense of the discourse may appear: as if it be said, God is in the devil or in the adulterer as regards the conservation of nature.

---