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 dubitatur de hoc quod dicit, quod vox in adventu iudicis audietur ab omnibus. Videtur enim male dicere, quia delatio vocis per medium est in tempore: ergo secundum hoc resurrectio erit in tempore¹⁰. — Et iterum, vox prius pervenit ad loca propinqua: ergo prius resurgent homines in una parte mundi quam in alia.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod illud potest dupliciter intelligi: vel quod vox illa, faciente virtute divina, subito deferatur, vel quod vox illa praecedat, et post subito¹ fiet resurrectio, ut sit quasi quaedam praeparatio. — Et si tu quaeras, quae necessitas est praeparationis, cum divina virtus possit subito operari et absque ulla praeparatione; dicendum, quod hoc est potius propter congruentiam quam propter indigentiam. Congruentia autem haec est: quia, sicut per Verbum carnem factum fit iudicium ad adorandum humanitatem Christi, in qua fuit iudicatus; ita ad vocem ipsius fit resurrectio ad honorem illius humanitatis, in qua fuit mortuus. Et ideo dicit Augustinus², quod per Verbum fit suscitatio animarum, per Verbum carnem factum fit suscitatio corporum. — Vel propter congruentiam a parte nostra, ut, sicut ex duplici constamus principio et duplicem habemus vim cognitivam³; ita duplici modo excitemur et ad iudicium vocemur: et virtute divina et spirituali, et voce Angeli.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod vox Archangeli est vox Filii Dei. Quaeritur hic de ista diversitate istorum vocabulorum, quia nunc iussus, nunc vox Archangeli, nunc tuba vocatur illud, per quod fiet resurrectio⁴, in quibus contrarietas et diversitas videtur includi.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod idem, scilicet vox Christi, secundum diversas proprietates ista tria sortitur nomina. Vox enim Christi erit virtuosa, et ideo dicitur iussus, quasi praeceptum; dicet enim, et fiet⁵; erit authentica, et ideo dicitur vox Archangeli, id est principis; et erit nihilominus sonora, et ideo vox tubae dicitur. Et sic idem multiplici vocabulo exprimitur ad insinuandam illius vocis proprietatem multiplicem et dignitatem⁶.

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod malorum memoria non contristabit. Quaeritur, quomodo illud possit intelligi. Aut enim mala placebunt, aut displicebunt. Si placebunt, erimus iniusti; si displicebunt, erimus tristati. — Item, quomodo potest illud intelligi, cum talis cognitio inferat tristitiam, et «sublato consequente, auferatur antecedens», quia «posito antecedente ponitur et consequens⁷».

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ibi erit memoria malorum sine tristitia. — Qualiter autem hoc possit esse; dicunt aliqui, quod a divina virtute, quae, sicut potens est in igne separare lucem a caliditate, sicut dicit Basilius super illud Psalmi⁸: Vox Domini intercidentis flammam ignis etc.; sic separabit a mali cognitione et recordatione moestitiam. — Aliter dicunt alii, quod hoc est propter dignitatem status. Sicut enim Angeli gloriosi, etsi nos ament, tamen propter mala nostra non tristantur, pro eo quod sunt absorpti a gloria; sic et in proposito est intelligendum. — Melius tamen est dicere, quod hoc fit propter modum considerandi, quia nunquam recogitabunt mala absolute, sed semper in comparatione ad Deum liberantem; quoniam cogitare de malo praeterito sub intentione liberationis in praesenti non generat in nobis affectionem moestitiae, sed gaudii. Ideo bene dicit, quod erit ibi malorum memoria, sed non tristitia.

Ad illud quod obiicitur de displicentia, dicendum quod non venient in memoriam mala praeterita sub ratione absoluta, quia, cum simus tunc omnino divini, omnia referemus ad Deum aliquo modo, ut ibi laudetur et honorificetur Deus⁹. Et sic patet illud.

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Peccata hic per poenitentiam tecta et deleta tunc etiam tegi. Quoniam peccatum Petri et Magdalenae¹⁰ omnibus est notum ad laudem; quare ergo post diem iudicii erit occultum? Et si peccatum Petri non tegatur, quare peccatum Roberti? — Si vero peccata credamus detegenda, quis non incipiat erubescere, si facta sua in conspectu totius mundi sunt propalanda?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quamvis fas sit utramque partem opinari, rationabilior tamen est, quod omnium iustorum¹¹ peccata omnibus iustis tunc

patebunt; et hoc, quia magna erit Dei gloria, dum manifestatur eius ad filios misericordia; et dum ostendetur eius misericordia, nulla erit erubescentia. — Et si quaeras, quomodo hoc possit esse; dicendum est, quod ratio est a parte eius cuius peccata manifestantur, quia «erubescentia est timor in exspectatione convitii¹»; unde cum in Beatis non sit timor, non erit eis erubescentia. Quod non cadat timor, patet, quia perfecta caritas foras mittit timorem². — Ratio autem est ex parte videntium, quia nullus ibi vituperat, nullus et ipsum aspernatur, sed potius Deum collaudat et ipsum laudat, dum attendit virtutem Dei in ipso. — Et est exemplum in Magdalena, cuius peccata publice recitamus; nec tamen facimus ei contumeliam, quia non recitamus ad eius ignominiam, sed ad laudem divinam et suam; unde nec ipsa de hoc habet erubescentiam, nec cogitamus de ipsa tanquam de meretrice, sed tanquam de nobilissima domina, quae de multis malis est erepta. — Exemplum est de bono confessore et poenitente. Bonus enim confessor ferventius poenitentem diligit, quia³ verius et clarius et fidelius suas ignominias et peccata aperit, maxime dum attendit, ipsum conteri, et vincula eius resolvi per virtutem et misericordiam Dei; et hoc ibi multo magis erit, ubi omnes cogitationes erunt ordinatissimae. — Amplius, cum homo omnia secreta sine verecundia communicet amico, et ibi omnes erimus amicissimi, ubi unus ita diliget alium sicut se, quomodo erubescet unus de alio aliter quam de se, nullo modo videtur⁴.

Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hieronymus: Quosdam in fine saeculi, adveniente Christo, non esse morituros. Videtur enim male dicere, quia Christus non fuit immunis a morte, et tamen non fuit subiectus peccato: ergo nec aliquis alius. — Item, gratiam, quam non fecit Matri, scilicet de immunitate mortis, quomodo est credendum, quod alii faciat?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod credendum est, sicut dicit Ambrosius⁵, quod omnes moriantur; sed qualiter, illud habet dubitationem, et experientia tunc magis docebit. — Quod ergo obiicitur de Hieronymo⁶ dicendum, quod Hieronymus hoc non dicit asserendo, sed nec recitando opinionem suam, sed opinionem cuiusdam Graeci⁷.

---

## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is doubted about this which he says, that the voice at the coming of the judge will be heard by all. For it seems to be badly said, because the conveying of a voice through a medium is in time: therefore, according to this, the resurrection will be in time¹⁰. — And again, a voice reaches nearer places first: therefore men will rise first in one part of the world than in another.

I respond: It must be said that this can be understood in two ways: either that that voice, by the working of divine power, is borne down suddenly, or that that voice goes before, and afterward the resurrection will suddenly¹ take place, so that it be as it were a certain preparation. — And if you should ask what necessity there is for a preparation, since divine power can work suddenly and without any preparation; it must be said that this is rather on account of fittingness than on account of need. Now this is the fittingness: because, just as through the Word made flesh the judgment takes place unto the adoring of the humanity of Christ, in which he was judged, so at his voice the resurrection takes place unto the honor of that humanity, in which he died. And therefore Augustine says² that through the Word the raising of souls takes place, and through the Word made flesh the raising of bodies takes place. — Or on account of a fittingness on our side, so that, just as we consist of a twofold principle and have a twofold cognitive power³, so we should be roused in a twofold way and called to judgment: both by divine and spiritual power, and by the voice of the Angel.

Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that the voice of the Archangel is the voice of the Son of God. It is asked here about this diversity of those terms, because now it is called a command, now the voice of the Archangel, now a trumpet — that by which the resurrection will take place⁴ — in which a contrariety and diversity seems to be included.

I respond: It must be said that the same thing, namely the voice of Christ, according to its diverse properties obtains these three names. For the voice of Christ will be powerful, and therefore it is called a command, as it were a precept; for he will speak, and it will be done⁵; it will be authoritative, and therefore it is called the voice of the Archangel, that is, of the prince; and it will be nonetheless sounding, and therefore it is called the voice of the trumpet. And thus the same thing is expressed by a manifold term to indicate the manifold property and dignity of that voice⁶.

Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that the memory of evils will not sadden. It is asked how that can be understood. For either the evils will please or displease. If they please, we shall be unjust; if they displease, we shall be saddened. — Likewise, how can that be understood, since such a knowledge would bring in sadness, and «when the consequent is removed, the antecedent is taken away», because «when the antecedent is posited, the consequent too is posited⁷»?

I respond: It must be said that there will be a memory of evils there without sadness. — But as to how this can be: some say that it is by divine power, which, just as it is able in fire to separate the light from the heat, as Basil says on that verse of the Psalm⁸: The voice of the Lord that cutteth through the flame of fire, etc.; so it will separate the sadness from the knowledge and recollection of evil. — Others say otherwise, that this is on account of the dignity of the state. For just as the glorious Angels, even though they love us, nevertheless are not saddened over our evils, for the reason that they are absorbed in glory; so also it is to be understood in the matter proposed. — Yet it is better to say that this comes about on account of the manner of considering, because they will never think back upon evils absolutely, but always in comparison to God who delivers; for to think of a past evil under the intention of deliverance in the present does not generate in us an affection of sadness, but of joy. Therefore he says well that there will be there a memory of evils, but not sadness.

To that which is objected concerning the displeasure, it must be said that past evils will not come into memory under an absolute account, because, since we shall then be wholly divine, we shall refer all things to God in some way, so that there God may be praised and honored⁹. And thus that is plain.

Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: That sins here covered and blotted out through penance are then also covered. Since the sin of Peter and of Magdalene¹⁰ is known to all unto praise, why then after the day of judgment will it be hidden? And if the sin of Peter be not covered, why the sin of Robert? — But if we believe that sins are to be uncovered, who would not begin to blush, if his deeds are to be made public in the sight of the whole world?

I respond: It must be said that, although it is permissible to hold either side, the more reasonable, nevertheless, is that the sins of all the just¹¹ will then be manifest to all the just; and this, because great will be the glory of God, while his mercy is manifested to his sons; and while his mercy is shown, there will be no shame. — And if you ask how this can be: it must be said that the ground is on the side of the one whose sins are manifested, because «shame is a fear in the expectation of reproach¹»; whence, since in the Blessed there is no fear, there will be no shame for them. That fear does not befall them is plain, because perfect charity casteth out fear². — But the ground is also on the side of those who see, because no one there reproaches, no one despises him either, but rather praises God and praises him, while he attends to the power of God in him. — And there is an example in Magdalene, whose sins we publicly recite; and yet we do her no insult, because we recite them not to her disgrace, but to the divine praise and to her own; whence neither does she have any shame over this, nor do we think of her as of a harlot, but as of a most noble lady, who has been snatched from many evils. — There is an example in the good confessor and penitent. For the good confessor loves the penitent the more fervently, because³ he opens his disgraces and sins more truly and more clearly and more faithfully, especially while he attends to his being contrite, and to his bonds being loosed through the power and mercy of God; and this will be much more so there, where all thoughts will be most well-ordered. — Furthermore, since a man communicates all his secrets to a friend without embarrassment, and there we shall all be the closest of friends, where one will love another as himself, how will one blush over another otherwise than over himself? In no way does it seem so⁴.

Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about this which Jerome says: That certain ones at the end of the age, at the coming of Christ, will not die. For it seems to be badly said, because Christ was not immune from death, and yet was not subject to sin: therefore neither is any other. — Likewise, the grace which he did not grant to his Mother, namely concerning immunity from death, how is it to be believed that he would grant it to others?

I respond: It must be said that it is to be believed, as Ambrose says⁵, that all will die; but in what manner, that has a doubt about it, and experience will then teach it better. — As to what, then, is objected concerning Jerome⁶, it must be said that Jerome says this not by way of asserting, nor even by way of reciting his own opinion, but the opinion of a certain Greek⁷.

---