Bonaventure

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Averti est odio habere vel invidere. Contra: Augustinus¹: «Nullius conscientia potest odisse Deum», cum omnes naturaliter appetant summum bonum: ergo videtur secundum hoc, quod nullus avertatur.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Magister non definit hic quamcumque aversionem, sed aversionem consummatam, in qua est obstinatio et rebellio contra Deum, quae fuit in diabolo, ex quo vidit, se non posse consequi quod ambiebat.

Ad illud ergo quod dicitur, quod nullius conscientia potest Deum odisse; dicendum, quod Augustinus illud retractat². Attamen veritatem habet aliquo modo illud verbum, si intelligatur de Deo, in quantum est summum bonum, ad quod participandum facta est creatura rationalis; unde cum semper appetat beatificari, nunquam beatificantem odit³. Nihilominus contingit, considerari Deum ut iustum, ponentem leges et infligentem poenas; et sic odiunt multi, qui scilicet peccant in Spiritum sanctum.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod data est gratia Angelis cooperans. Contra: gratia cooperans est subsequens respectu operantis; sed non habuerunt operantem, ut praedictum est⁴: ergo nec cooperantem.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod eadem gratia dicitur operans et cooperans ratione diversorum effectuum; et ideo dicuntur non habere gratiam operantem, quia non habuerunt gratiam mundificantem voluntatem; habent tamen ipsam eandem gratiam ut adiuvantem in bona operatione; et isti effectus sunt separabiles.

Ad hoc ergo quod dicitur, quod illa⁵ est praeveniens; dicendum, quod praeveniens non dicitur ratione gratiae subsequentis, sed ratione voluntatis. — Vel dicendum, quod illae sunt differentiae, prout habent esse in libero arbitrio lapso, scilicet hominis; et ideo non habent locum in Angelis. Alia patent⁶.

---

DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about this which he says: To be averted is to hold in hatred or to envy. On the contrary: Augustine¹: «No one's conscience can hate God», since all naturally desire the highest good: therefore it seems, according to this, that no one is averted.

I respond: It must be said that the Master does not here define just any aversion, but a consummated aversion, in which there is obstinacy and rebellion against God, such as was in the devil, from [the moment] he saw that he could not attain what he was seeking.

To that, then, which is said, that no one's conscience can hate God; it must be said that Augustine retracts that². Yet that word has truth in some manner, if it is understood of God insofar as he is the highest good, for the participation of which the rational creature was made; whence, since it always desires to be beatified, it never hates the one beatifying³. Nevertheless it happens that God is considered as just, setting laws and inflicting punishments; and thus many hate [him], namely those who sin against the Holy Spirit.

Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that a cooperating grace was given to the Angels. On the contrary: a cooperating grace is subsequent with respect to an operating one; but they did not have an operating [grace], as has been said before⁴: therefore neither [did they have] a cooperating one.

I respond: It must be said that the same grace is called operating and cooperating by reason of diverse effects; and therefore they are said not to have an operating grace, because they did not have a grace cleansing the will; yet they have that same grace as helping in good operation; and these effects are separable.

To this, then, which is said, that that⁵ is preceding; it must be said that it is not called preceding by reason of a subsequent grace, but by reason of the will. — Or it must be said that those are differences according as they have being in the fallen free choice, namely of man; and therefore they have no place in the Angels. The rest is clear⁶.