Bonaventure

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Labels are page-qualified because Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page.

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Gregorius: Progeniem suam unumquemque usque ad septimum gradum etc. Quare in hoc gradu sive usque ad hunc gradum potius prohibuit et ultra non processit nec stetit citra?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod hoc habet rationem litteralem, moralem, allegoricam et anagogicam. Litteralem, quia usque ad tempus illud in antiquis temporibus satis bene consanguinitates poterant computari et homines se consanguineos reputabant. — Moralis, quia in septenario universitas totius vitae concluditur⁶, et separantur a consanguineis suis homines usque ad septem gradus, ut

significetur, quod omni tempore vitandus est amplexus illicitus, et sic habenda est uxor, ut semper contineatur, ut omnes sint habentes uxores, tanquam qui non habent¹; et sint coniuncti, ut etiam sint nihilominus separati. — Allegorica est: quoniam enim corpus constat ex quatuor humoribus², et anima ex tribus viribus potestative, ut sic significetur, quod vir debet esse uxoris, et uxor est tota viri; hinc est, quod proles ab eis procedentes ad hoc, quod bene possint copulari, debent per gradus septem elongari. — Anagogica vero est, ut, quia Christus animabus beatis perfecta coniunctione et confirmata non coniungitur ante octavam resurrectionis³; sic sponsus et sponsa ante octavum gradum coniungi non debent. — Et sic patet, quod septimus gradus erat prohibitus, et quare prohibitio se extendit usque ad gradum septimum inclusive. Et quamvis haec constitutio multum esset congrua, tamen revocari debuit ex causa necessaria et utili et congrua⁴.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Negantes, gradum cognationis inter patrem et filium esse, cum una caro sint pater et filius. Videtur enim male dicere: quia, si vir et uxor sunt una caro⁵, qui est propinquus uxori in aliquo gradu in eodem est affinis viro: ergo in quoto gradu est quis propinquus patri, et filio, et e converso. Si ergo pater non potest contrahere cum aliqua, quae sibi attineat in quarta linea ascendente vel transversali: ergo nec filius, nec e converso; quod est manifeste falsum. — Item, si sunt una caro, et « quaecumque uni et eidem sunt eadem, inter se sunt eadem⁶ »; ergo si sunt una caro pater et filius; cum filius et filius suus sint una caro, tunc isti tres sunt una caro, et sic deinceps procedendo: ergo nullus esset gradus in consanguinitate.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio pater et filius faciunt gradum, quia, sicut ostensum est, nullus esset alias⁷ gradus in consanguinitate. Sed quod illi dixerunt, quod sint una caro, hoc dixerunt propter quendam modum magis expressivum, quia unus immediate trahit carnem ab altero, cum quo debet habere et habet multam conformitatem, ratione etiam cuius dicitur una caro⁸. Et sic patet illud.

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod sex aetatibus mundi generatio hominis etc. Quaeritur, quae sint istae sex aetates. Cum enim mundus sit perpetuus, non videtur habere aetates ad modum hominis.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod mundus habet aetates secundum statum praesentem. Quoniam enim senescit mundus, oportet etiam, quod fuerit iuvenis⁹; si ergo habuit senium, et iuventutem, ac per hoc intermedias aetates. Istae autem aetates assignantur in statu illo secundum profectum ad gloriam; unde cum mundus paulative profecerit in cognitione, sicut in uno homine assignantur aetates diversae, ita et in mundo.

In homine autem sex assignantur aetates. Prima est infantia usque ad septimum annum; secunda, pueritia usque ad decimum quartum; tertia, adolescentia usque ad vigesimum quintum, secundum alios usque ad vigesimum octavum; quarta, iuventus usque ad quinquagesimum; quinta, gravitas sive senectus usque ad septuagesimum; sexta, senium sive aetas decrepita usque in finem. — Similiter in mundo prima aetas est ab Adam usque ad Noe; secunda, a Noe usque ad Abraham; tertia, ab Abraham usque ad David; quarta, a David usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis; quinta, a transmigratione usque ad Christum; sexta, a Christo usque in finem. — Et dicuntur aetates, non quia fuerunt aequalis spatii, sed quia in qualibet aliquid novum et aliqua renovatio facta est. In prima fuit creatio Adae et lapsus eius; in secunda fuit diluvium; in tertia, circumcisio et Lex; in quarta, regum unctio; in quinta, populi captivatio et liberatio; in sexta, nostra redemptio¹⁰. Et sic patet illud.

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Gregorius: Ipsi etiam Anglorum genti, quae nuper ad fidem venerat etc. Dicit enim, de novo dispensasse, quia de novo fuerant ad fidem conversi; sed non videtur ista ratio conveniens, quia Ecclesia primitiva, in qua fuit initium nostrae conversionis¹¹, fuit perfectissima, quia

de novo venientibus datur gratia Spiritus sancti in abundantia: ergo magis sunt idonei ad ferendum pondus ecclesiastici statuti.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod secus est de his qui primo conversi sunt, et de his qui nunc convertuntur. Sicut enim Deus in legislatione multitudinem fecit miraculorum¹, qualem tempore Legis non fecit postea; sic in nova dedit Spiritum sanctum in maiori affluentiae plenitudine: et ideo non est simile. Et ratio huius est satis competens, quia illi qui tunc erant, maiori egebant robore; nunc autem non est sic, immo sunt teneri, quamvis sint aliquantulum ferventes: et ideo oportet multa in talibus tolerare.

Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod non ideo scripsi, ut, si infra propriam consanguinitatem inventi fuerint, separentur². Quaeritur sic — ponatur, quod stante prohibitione de septem gradibus — utrum aliqui contrahentes infra gradus illos possint simul stare, superveniente revocatione mandati³. Et quod sic, videtur, quia nulla lege prohibentur. — Ad oppositum autem est, quod illegitime coniuncti sunt et matrimonium contraxerunt: « constitutiones enim et iura non revocantur ad praeterita⁴ »: ergo non videtur, quod simul stare possint.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quia semper pro matrimonio standum est, secundum quod possibile et licitum est⁵; si tales personae, superveniente novo statuto, velint insimul stare, et consentire et cohabitare possunt, quia non prohibentur; et ex tunc incipit⁶ esse matrimonium. Et ista constitutio non revocatur ad praeteritum, quia non confirmat primum contractum, sed potestatem tribuit contrahendi de novo. Et sic patet illud.

---

## 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 Gregory says: That each one should [reckon] his offspring up to the seventh degree etc. Why did he prohibit rather at this degree, or up to this degree, and did not proceed beyond, nor stop short of it?

I respond: It must be said that this has a literal, a moral, an allegorical, and an anagogical ground. A literal one, because up to that time, in ancient times, blood-relationships could be reckoned well enough, and men accounted themselves consanguineous. — A moral one, because in the number seven the totality of the whole of life is comprised⁶, and men are separated from their blood-relations up to seven degrees, so that

it may be signified that at every time the unlawful embrace is to be avoided, and that a wife is to be so had that continence is always kept, so that all may be having wives as though not having them¹; and that they be so joined that they be nonetheless separated. — The allegorical one is this: for since the body consists of four humors², and the soul of three powers in respect of its faculties, it is thereby signified that the husband ought to belong to the wife, and the wife is wholly the husband's; hence it is that the offspring proceeding from them, in order that they may rightly be joined in marriage, ought to be distanced by seven degrees. — But the anagogical one is this: that since Christ is not joined to the blessed souls in a perfect and confirmed conjunction before the eighth [day] of the resurrection³; so bridegroom and bride ought not to be joined before the eighth degree. — And thus it is plain that the seventh degree was prohibited, and why the prohibition extended up to the seventh degree inclusively. And although this constitution was highly fitting, nevertheless it had to be revoked for a cause necessary and useful and fitting⁴.

Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: Those denying that there is a degree of kinship between father and son, since father and son are one flesh. For he seems to speak badly: because, if husband and wife are one flesh⁵, whoever is near of kin to the wife in some degree is in the same degree related by affinity to the husband: therefore in whatever degree one is near of kin to the father, [he is in the same degree near] to the son, and conversely. If therefore the father cannot contract [marriage] with any woman who is related to him in the fourth line, ascending or transversal: therefore neither can the son, nor conversely; which is manifestly false. — Likewise, if they are one flesh, and « whatever things are the same as one and the same thing are the same as each other⁶ »; therefore if father and son are one flesh; since the son and his own son are one flesh, then these three are one flesh, and so on proceeding further: therefore there would be no degree in consanguinity.

I respond: It must be said that without doubt father and son do make a degree, because, as has been shown, otherwise⁷ there would be no degree in consanguinity. But as to their saying that they are one flesh, they said this on account of a certain more expressive manner of speaking, because the one immediately draws his flesh from the other, with whom he ought to have, and does have, much conformity, by reason of which also he is called one flesh [with him]⁸. And thus that is plain.

Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that in six ages of the world the generation of man etc. It is asked what these six ages are. For since the world is perpetual, it does not seem to have ages after the manner of a man.

I respond: It must be said that the world has ages according to its present state. For since the world grows old, it must also be that it was once young⁹; if therefore it had old age, it also had youth, and through this the intermediate ages. But these ages are assigned in that state according to its advance toward glory; whence, since the world has advanced little by little in knowledge, just as in a single man diverse ages are assigned, so also in the world.

Now in man six ages are assigned. The first is infancy, up to the seventh year; the second, boyhood, up to the fourteenth; the third, adolescence, up to the twenty-fifth, according to others up to the twenty-eighth; the fourth, young manhood, up to the fiftieth; the fifth, gravity or old age, up to the seventieth; the sixth, senility or the decrepit age, up to the end. — Likewise in the world the first age is from Adam up to Noah; the second, from Noah up to Abraham; the third, from Abraham up to David; the fourth, from David up to the transmigration of Babylon; the fifth, from the transmigration up to Christ; the sixth, from Christ up to the end. — And they are called ages, not because they were of equal span, but because in each of them something new and some renewal took place. In the first was the creation of Adam and his fall; in the second was the flood; in the third, circumcision and the Law; in the fourth, the anointing of kings; in the fifth, the captivity and liberation of the people; in the sixth, our redemption¹⁰. And thus that is plain.

Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which Gregory says: To the English people also, which had lately come to the faith etc. For he says that he dispensed anew, because they had been newly converted to the faith; but this reason does not seem fitting, because the primitive Church, in which was the beginning of our conversion¹¹, was most perfect, since

to those newly coming the grace of the Holy Spirit is given in abundance: therefore they are the more fit to bear the weight of an ecclesiastical statute.

I respond: It must be said that it is otherwise with those who were converted at the first, and with those who are converted now. For just as God at the giving of the Law worked a multitude of miracles¹, such as He did not work afterwards in the time of the Law; so in the new [Law] He gave the Holy Spirit in a greater fullness of abundance: and therefore it is not alike. And the reason for this is quite fitting, because those who then were, needed greater strength; but now it is not so, rather they are tender, however somewhat fervent they may be: and therefore many things must be tolerated in such persons.

Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that I have not written this in order that, if they be found within their own consanguinity, they should be separated². It is asked thus — let it be supposed that, the prohibition of the seven degrees standing — whether any who contract [marriage] within those degrees can remain together, when a revocation of the mandate supervenes³. And that they can, seems so, because they are prohibited by no law. — But on the opposite side is that they were unlawfully joined and contracted marriage: « for constitutions and laws are not revoked back upon the past⁴ »: therefore it does not seem that they can remain together.

I respond: It must be said that, since one must always stand for the marriage, so far as is possible and lawful⁵; if such persons, when the new statute supervenes, wish to remain together, they can both consent and cohabit, because they are not prohibited; and from that time it begins⁶ to be a marriage. And this constitution is not revoked back upon the past, because it does not confirm the first contract, but grants the power of contracting anew. And thus that is plain.

---