Bonaventure

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit: Anima rei maculam habet et foetorem peccati etc. Quaeritur, quomodo ista differant ab invicem. — Quaeritur etiam: quare peccatum potius dicitur habere foetorem quam calorem, vel aliam proprietatem rei sensibilis?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quamvis peccatum unum sit in se, tamen secundum diversam comparationem ad iudicium nostrum tria sortitur vocabula. Iudicium enim nostrum tripliciter se habet, scilicet per modum speculativum, vel prout se extendit ad affectum, vel prout se extendit ad effectum¹. — Similiter et divinum iudicium in triplici ratione habet considerari respectu peccati: aut per modum speculationis, et sic est ei peccatum macula propter rationem turpitudinis, quam ibi considerat; vel per modum affectivi², et sic est ei peccatum foetor, eo quod ipsum refugit affectus recte ordinatus; vel prout exit in effectum puniendi, sic peccatum aeternae mortis debitum dicitur. Sortitur ergo tria nomina secundum comparationem ad actum triplicem divini iudicii, scilicet discernendi, approbandi vel respuendi, et tertio sententiandi. — Vel aliter: peccatum comparatur ad id, in quo est, et sic, quia eum maculat, dicitur macula; vel ad alium proximum, in cuius affectu non est, et dicitur esse foetor in eo; vel ad Deum, et sic dicitur aeternae mortis vinculum³.

Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Ambrosius: Verbum Domini dimittit peccata, sacerdos et iudex; quid vocatur verbum Domini? Si Filius Dei; sed ille idem est iudex, scilicet Dei Filius: ergo non bene dividit ex opposito⁴. — Item, iudicis non est peccata dimittere, sed potius punire; male igitur videtur hoc assignare. Dicitur enim in Psalmo⁵: Cum accepero tempus, ego iustitias iudicabo. — Item, videtur littera sequens contradicere⁶: «Sacerdos officium suum exhibet, sed nullius potestatis iura exercet»: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Ambrosius tangit hic triplicem modum dimittendi peccata, scilicet secundum clavem auctoritatis, et haec est Dei iudicantis; secundum clavem excellentiae, et haec est Verbi incarnati; secundum clavem ministerii, et haec est ipsius sacerdotis⁷. Et sic patet, quomodo illa distinguuntur; et patet, quod non est contrarietas in littera. Vult enim Ambrosius dicere, quod peccata dicuntur dimitti a sacerdote non per modum efficientis, sed ministrantis, et hoc dicit littera sequens.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod iudex punit; dicendum, quod duplex est iudicium: in praesenti, et hoc est iudicium in poenitentiae foro, et hoc magis est misericordiae quam iustitiae, quia modo est tempus misericordiae; et aliud iudicium postremum, et illud est iustitiae, quod signanter notans dicit: Cum accepero tempus⁸; et de illo opponit, non autem de isto. Et sic patet illud.

Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus, quod Ecclesiae caritas peccata dimittit. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia solus Deus peccata dimittit⁹; sed Ecclesiae caritas non est Deus, sed unitas corporis mystici: ergo etc. Si tu dicas, quod caritas Ecclesiae accipitur non formaliter, sed exemplariter pro caritate, quae est Spiritus sanctus; similiter posset dicere, quod Deus caeli et terrae peccata dimittit, et ita non magis competeret Ecclesiae quam alii.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod caritas ibi stat pro caritate creata; quod patet per determinationem adiunctam, cum dicit¹⁰: «Quae per Spiritum sanctum diffunditur». Haec autem dicitur dimittere peccata quantum ad meritum, sicut exponit infra¹¹, quia viri sancti per caritatem suam merentur gra-

tiam primam. — Vel ideo dicitur dimittere, quia nulli dimittuntur nisi eis qui recipiuntur intra ecclesiasticam unitatem; unde haeretici et schismatici, quamdiu extra Ecclesiam in haeresi et schismate perseverant, nec gratiam sibi nec aliis valent aliqualiter¹² impetrare, de adultis loquendo.

Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de expositione Hieronymi super hoc verbum: Quodcumque ligaveris super terram etc.; quod si istud esset solum per ostensionem, nulla ergo differentia est¹³ sacerdotis novi testamenti ad vetus. — Et iterum, si sacerdos est arbiter et poenas potest secundum arbitrium suum imponere: ergo videtur, quod ad voluntatem suam possit solvere et ligare. — Item, aliquis hypocrita, qui habet signa contritionis, absolvitur a sacerdote; quaero ergo hic: aut clavis errat, aut non¹⁴? Si errat: ergo non deberet eum absolvere; sed hoc falsum est, quia iudex secundum ea quae apparent debet iudicare. Si non errat: ergo videtur, quod talis sit solutus in caelis.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quantum ad absolutionem a culpa sacerdos se habet per modum demonstrantis; quantum ad absolutionem a poena se habet per modum dimittentis. — Sed attendendum est, quod efficacia Sacramenti pendet ex idoneitate suscipientis; «actus enim activorum sunt in patiente disposito»¹⁵. Dico igitur, quod in talem, qui videtur contritus, habet clavis effectum, quantum est de se; sed quod non habet, hoc est ex fictione illius, ita quod, quamvis clavis non erret, tamen ille errat et decipit. — Si autem ille qui solvit et ligat, secundum voluntatem non secundum scientiae vel iuris regulam procedat; sic clavis non habet efficaciam; et contra tales, qui volebant ad votum solvere et ligare, loquitur Hieronymus, ostendens, hoc de supercilio et superbia procedere¹⁶. Unde sicut Sacramenta privantur efficacia, aut quia non recte administrantur, aut quia non recte suscipiuntur; sic de clavibus oportet intelligi.

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: The soul has the stain of the thing and the stench of sin etc. It is asked how these differ from one another. — It is also asked: why is sin said to have a stench rather than a heat, or some other property of a sensible thing?

I respond: It must be said that although sin is one in itself, nevertheless according to its different comparison to our judgment it obtains three names. For our judgment is had in three ways, namely in the speculative mode, or as it extends to affect, or as it extends to effect¹. — Likewise also the divine judgment is to be considered in a threefold ground with respect to sin: either in the mode of speculation, and thus sin is to it a stain, on account of the ground of foulness which it there considers; or in the affective mode², and thus sin is to it a stench, in that a rightly ordered affect flees from it; or as it issues into the effect of punishing, [and] thus sin is called the debt of eternal death. Therefore it obtains three names according to its comparison to the threefold act of the divine judgment, namely of discerning, of approving or rejecting, and thirdly of sentencing. — Or otherwise: sin is compared to that in which it is, and thus, because it stains him, it is called a stain; or to another neighbor, in whose affect it is not, and it is said to be a stench in him; or to God, and thus it is called the bond of eternal death³.

Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that Ambrose says: The Word of the Lord forgives sins, [also] the priest and the judge; what is called the Word of the Lord? If the Son of God; but that same one is the judge, namely the Son of God: therefore he does not well divide by opposition⁴. — Likewise, it does not belong to a judge to forgive sins, but rather to punish; therefore it seems to be assigned ill. For it is said in the Psalm⁵: When I shall take the time, I will judge justices. — Likewise, the following text seems to contradict⁶: «The priest exhibits his office, but exercises the rights of no power»: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that Ambrose here touches a threefold mode of forgiving sins, namely according to the key of authority, and this is [the key] of God judging; according to the key of excellence, and this is [the key] of the incarnate Word; according to the key of ministry, and this is [the key] of the priest himself⁷. And so it is plain how those are distinguished; and it is plain that there is no contrariety in the text. For Ambrose means to say that sins are said to be forgiven by the priest not in the mode of one effecting, but of one ministering, and this the following text says.

To that which is objected, that the judge punishes; it must be said that judgment is twofold: in the present, and this is the judgment in the forum of penitence, and this is more of mercy than of justice, because now is the time of mercy; and another final judgment, and that is of justice, which, signally marking [it], he says: When I shall take the time⁸; and of that one he objects, but not of this one. And so that is plain.

Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that Augustine says, that the charity of the Church forgives sins. For it seems to be said falsely, because God alone forgives sins⁹; but the charity of the Church is not God, but the unity of the mystical body: therefore etc. If you say that the charity of the Church is taken not formally, but exemplarily for the charity which is the Holy Spirit; likewise one could say that God of heaven and earth forgives sins, and so it would no more befit the Church than another.

I respond: It must be said that charity there stands for created charity; which is plain through the adjoined determination, when he says¹⁰: «Which is poured forth through the Holy Spirit». But this is said to forgive sins as to merit, as he expounds below¹¹, because holy men through their charity merit the first grace. — Or it is said to forgive for this reason, because to none are [sins] forgiven except to those who are received within ecclesiastical unity; whence heretics and schismatics, as long as they persevere outside the Church in heresy and schism, are able in no way¹² to obtain grace either for themselves or for others, speaking of adults.

Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about the exposition of Jerome upon this word: Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth etc.; that if this were only through showing, then there is no difference¹³ of the priest of the new testament from [that] of the old. — And again, if the priest is an arbiter and can impose penalties according to his own arbitration: therefore it seems that according to his will he can loose and bind. — Likewise, some hypocrite who has the signs of contrition is absolved by the priest; I ask therefore here: does the key err, or not¹⁴? If it errs: therefore he ought not to absolve him; but this is false, because a judge ought to judge according to the things which appear. If it does not err: therefore it seems that such a one is loosed in heaven.

I respond: It must be said that as to absolution from fault the priest is had in the mode of one demonstrating; as to absolution from penalty he is had in the mode of one remitting. — But it is to be attended to that the efficacy of the Sacrament depends on the fitness of the one receiving; «for the acts of active things are in the disposed patient»¹⁵. I say therefore that upon such a one, who seems contrite, the key has its effect, as far as concerns itself; but that it does not have [it], this is from the feigning of that man, so that, although the key does not err, nevertheless that man errs and deceives. — But if he who looses and binds proceeds according to his will and not according to the rule of knowledge or of right; thus the key does not have efficacy; and against such men, who wished to loose and bind at [their own] pleasure, Jerome speaks, showing that this proceeds from haughtiness and pride¹⁶. Whence just as the Sacraments are deprived of efficacy, either because they are not rightly administered, or because they are not rightly received; so it must be understood concerning the keys.