Bonaventure

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

The numbered notes below are Quaracchi's page footers. Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page, so the labels here are page-qualified: notes 4–8 of page 951, notes 1–9 of page 952, and notes 1–10 of page 953. Notes 1–3 of page 951 anchor in the preceding chunk (a.3 q.3) and are not repeated here.

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit, quod maius erit gaudium Sanctorum in resurrectione. Videtur enim male dicere, quia gaudium Beatorum totum consistit in visione Dei; sed visio Dei tota est animae, non corporum: ergo si animae sunt in statu comprehensionis et completae visionis, ergo ipsarum gaudium nunquam augebitur.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod gaudium augeri est dupliciter: vel numerositate, vel intensione sive qualitative. Augmentum gaudii quantum ad numerositatem non ponit augmentum in praemio essentiali, quia illud est in uno solo, sed in praemio accidentali, quod consistit in gaudio de bono creato; et illud potest augeri, maxime quantum ad obiectum, ut de pluribus gaudeat tunc quam prius. — Si loquamur intensive, sic non augetur nisi per accidens, quia inclinatio animae ad corpus, quae ipsam retardat, « ne tota intentione feratur in summum caelum⁴ », illa, inquam, auferetur. Et sic patet, quomodo istud potest intelligi dupliciter. — Aliqui tamen non habent pro inconvenienti, quod simpliciter tunc augeatur et gaudium, quia magis aperietur Dei Verbum ad illuminandum, et per consequens ad delectandum⁵.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod animas abditis receptaculis tenet; quaeritur, pro quanto dicantur abdita receptacula.

Et dicendum, quod receptacula illa dicuntur abdita, non quia sint alia receptacula animarum nunc et post iudicium, sed quia eadem nunc sunt nobis incognita, sed post iudicium et resurrectionem erunt nobis nota. — Si autem quaeratur ratio; dicendum, quod ratio huius est, ut fides habeat locum, quae est de non visis; unde meremur et in credendo paradisum et in credendo infernum, cum iam non videamus. Beati enim qui non viderunt et crediderunt⁶. — Non tantum est autem ad fidei meritum, sed etiam ad probandum humanum affectum; unde voluit Dominus, quod mors nostra similis esset morti bestiarum, ut probaret corda filiorum hominum⁷.

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod sacrificio salutari non est dubium mortuos adiuvari. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia sacrificium altaris est Sacramentum Ecclesiae; sed Sacramenta Ecclesiae non prosunt nisi in statu viatoris: ergo etc. — Item, quaeritur iuxta hoc: cum alia Sacramenta non prosint post mortem, unde est, quod hoc Sacramentum altaris prodest?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aliter prodest Sacramentum altaris vivis, aliter mortuis. Vivis enim prodest sub ratione Sacramenti et cibi, mortuis autem prodest sub ratione sacrificii. In quantum enim Sacramentum est, cibat et dat gratiam et perfectionem manducanti. In quantum autem sacrificium, Deum placat; hostiae enim placant⁸; et quoniam Deus iratus est, non affectione, sed poenae inflictione:

ideo Deum placando non sedat ipsius affectionem, sed remitti facit poenae acerbitatem.

Quod quaeritur quare alia Sacramenta non prosunt? dicendum, quod aliorum Sacramentorum dispensatio respicit actum in persona vel circa personam, sicut patet in baptismo; et ideo non potest baptizari nisi qui praesto est in aquam mergi; sed sacrificium est actus pro persona. Et quoniam actus in personam requirit personam actu existentem, sed pro persona non; sicut Christus obtulit se Patri pro illis qui fuerunt et qui futuri sunt¹, sic sacrificium prodest his qui finierunt vitam.

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod pauperes Christi sibi fecerunt amicos de mammona iniquitatis. Secundum hoc obiicitur: quia qui diligit alium et orat pro pecunia, dat spirituale pro temporali; et omnis talis est simoniacus: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod mammona hic appellatur possessio terrena; de hac facit homo sibi pauperes amicos, dum eorum subvenit necessitatibus²; pauperes enim Christi grati sunt beneficiis. Et ita patet, quod beneficium temporale non est sicut finis motivus, sed sicut aliquid inducens; et quoniam hoc non principaliter intendunt, ideo propter hoc non orant finaliter; et oratio non venditur, sed impetratur per accidens, scilicet per acquisitionem amoris.

Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur, quod iniuria est pro Martyre orare in Ecclesia. Videtur enim male dicere, quia orationes « pro valde bonis sunt gratiarum actiones³ »; sed qui agit gratiam pro Sanctis non facit eis iniuriam: ergo etc. — Item, quod licet nobis desiderare licet et petere; sed desiderare possumus honorem Sanctorum: ergo orare debemus pro ipsorum honore.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Augustinus hic orare pro aliquo dicit orare pro eius salute; nullus autem orat⁴ pro eo quod iam habet: si ergo constare debet nobis, quod Martyres statim beatificantur, sicut nullus debet de eorum gloria dubitare; ita nullus debet pro eis orare. Si enim orat, videtur praesumere, quod non fuerit in gloria, et ita quod non sit Martyr vere; et non tantum praesumere, sed etiam exterius innuere, ac per hoc iniuriam Martyri facere.

Quod ergo obiicitur, quod sunt gratiarum actiones; dicendum, quod istud est verum, quando Ecclesia de salute alicuius potest probabiliter dubitare.

Quod obiicitur, quod desiderandus est honor Sanctorum; dicendum, quod verum est; sed cum hoc petimus, non ipsis⁵ Sanctis petimus, sed petimus nobis, ut nobis innotescat eorum virtus perfecta, et detur affectio bona ad laudem divinam, sive ipsorum. — Si quis tamen contendat, hoc esse orare pro Martyre; dicendum, quod isto modo non intelligit Augustinus, sed eo, quod orare pro aliquo est petere salutem eius, vel accelerationem salutis⁶.

Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Nec habebat tantae perfectionis merita, quae his suffragiis non egerent. Videtur enim, quod omnes sint tales, quia super illud secundae ad Corinthios octavo⁷: Ut illorum abundantia; Glossa: « Qui vivunt in hoc saeculo non habent merita ad vitam sufficientia, nisi iuventur merito Christi et Angelorum ». — Sed contrarium videtur: quia aut habet veram caritatem, aut non. Si non: ergo nullum habet meritum; si habet: ergo cum habeat Spiritum sanctum, et ita pignus hereditatis aeternae⁸, habet sufficientiam.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod tria sunt genera hominum habentium caritatem in hac vita. Quidam enim habent caritatem perfectam et absolutionem ab omni culpa et poena, et tales sibi sufficiunt; sed hi potius sunt in caelis quam in terris; talium enim conversatio in caelis est⁹. — Quidam habent perfectum amorem, tamen propter mala opera praecedentia sunt obligati ad poenam; et tales indigent suffragiis, non ad salutis obtentionem, sed accelerationem. — Quidam habent caritatem imperfectam, ita quod proni sunt ad casum et obligati sunt multis reatibus peccatorum; et tales vivunt in hoc sae-

culo, licet non omnino se conforment saeculo, et indigent suffragiis, ut in caritate permaneant, et ut exeuntes de terra¹ tormenta non eos detineant.

Dub. VII.

Item de hoc quod dicit: Ut quodam modo eas offerant Deo etc.; quaeritur, per quem modum Angeli offerunt Deo petitiones nostras, utrum scilicet propter se, an propter nos.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut videmus in causis terrenis, quod qui nescit loqui coram praetore conducit advocatum, qui loquatur et alleget pro ipso; sic in spiritualibus intelligendum, quod cum nos nec perorare, immo quasi nec balbutire sciamus coram Deo², quod Angelus tanquam advocatus et allegator magnus in illa superna curia assumit verbum et orationem nostram proponit.

Si autem quaeritur, per quem modum habeat esse; dico, quod loqui nostrum et oratio nostra est desiderium alicuius rei vel petitio formata secundum desiderium; et quando³ desiderium nostrum ex mera et vera et ardenti dilectione est, tunc fortiter clamamus in auribus Dei et tunc optime peroramus. Et quoniam affectiones nostrae sunt tepidae, et affectiones Angelorum ferventissimae et magis elevatae ad ipsum; desiderando pro nobis quod nos desideramus, cum accedant ad Deum familiarius et proximius, dicuntur sibi offerre; et quod Deus vidit nos primo petere et approbare per os nostrum, secundo magis approbat per os et desiderium Angelorum. Et quoniam istud dicitur noscere, quod approbat⁴; hinc est, quod petitiones nostrae dicuntur apud Deum innotescere non solum per nos, verum etiam per Angelos. Angeli enim dicuntur loqui Deo per affectiones voluntatis et per adminiculum rationis, sicut exponit Gregorius super principium Iob⁵.

Dub. VIII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod bonum est de operibus suis eius consulere veritatem. Videtur enim male dicere: quia istud consilium dicit inquisitionem, et ita ratiocinationem; sed Angeli, ut dicit Dionysius⁶, habent intellectum deiformem: ergo in eis non cadit consilium.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod consulere aliquem hoc est dupliciter: aut ut per indagationem et inquisitionis discussionem perveniat ad cognitionem rei dubiae; aut ut per illustrationem eius subito cognoscat, quomodo debeat facere⁷. Primum est humanum, secundum vero non solum humanum, sed etiam angelicum esse perhibetur.

Dub. IX.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Ut ipsi a Deo discant etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia beatus Gregorius⁸ dicit: « Quid est quod non vident qui videntem omnia vident »?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod multa addiscunt Angeli sive per ipsum Verbum et per alios Angelos, sive per experientiam⁹. Quod autem dicit Gregorius non intelligitur, quia omnia videant, sed quia vident istud unum, quod est melius videre quam omnia. Unde sicut ille qui habet Deum, dicitur omnia habere, non quia omnium sit possessor, sed quia habet illud unum, cui non possunt aequiparari omnia; ideo per aequipollentiam vel supervalentiam dicitur habere omnia; sic qui novit Deum dicitur omnia nosse¹⁰.

---

DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is doubted concerning this which he says, that the joy of the Saints will be greater in the resurrection. For it seems to be said badly, because the whole joy of the Blessed consists in the vision of God; but the vision of God belongs wholly to the soul, not to the bodies: therefore if the souls are in the state of comprehension and of complete vision, therefore their joy will never be increased.

I respond: It must be said that joy is increased in two ways: either by numerosity, or by intension, that is, qualitatively. An increase of joy as regards numerosity does not posit an increase in the essential reward, because that is in one thing alone, but in the accidental reward, which consists in joy over a created good; and that can be increased, most of all as regards the object, so that one rejoices then over more things than before. — If we speak intensively, then it is not increased except per accidens, because the inclination of the soul toward the body, which holds it back, « lest it be borne with its whole intention into the highest heaven⁴ » — that inclination, I say, will be taken away. And thus it is clear how this can be understood in two ways. — Some, however, do not hold it inadmissible that the joy also is simply increased then, because the Word of God will be more opened for illuminating, and consequently for delighting⁵.

Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says, that he holds the souls in hidden receptacles; it is asked, in what sense the receptacles are called hidden.

And it must be said that those receptacles are called hidden, not because there are other receptacles of souls now and after the judgment, but because the same ones are now unknown to us, whereas after the judgment and the resurrection they will be known to us. — But if the reason be asked; it must be said that the reason of this is that faith may have place, which is of things not seen; whence we merit both in believing paradise and in believing hell, since we do not yet see. For blessed are they who have not seen and have believed⁶. — But it is not only for the merit of faith, but also for the proving of human affection; whence the Lord willed that our death should be like the death of beasts, that he might prove the hearts of the sons of men⁷.

Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says, that there is no doubt that the dead are helped by the salutary sacrifice. For it seems to be said falsely, because the sacrifice of the altar is a Sacrament of the Church; but the Sacraments of the Church do not profit except in the state of the wayfarer: therefore etc. — Likewise, it is asked in connection with this: since the other Sacraments do not profit after death, how is it that this Sacrament of the altar profits?

I respond: It must be said that the Sacrament of the altar profits the living in one way, the dead in another. For to the living it profits under the account of a Sacrament and of food, but to the dead it profits under the account of a sacrifice. For inasmuch as it is a Sacrament, it feeds and gives grace and perfection to the one eating. But inasmuch as it is a sacrifice, it appeases God; for victims appease⁸; and since God is angered, not by affection, but by the infliction of punishment:

therefore in appeasing God one does not calm his affection, but causes the harshness of the punishment to be remitted.

As to what is asked, why the other Sacraments do not profit: it must be said that the dispensation of the other Sacraments regards an act upon the person or about the person, as is clear in baptism; and therefore no one can be baptized except him who is at hand to be immersed in water; but a sacrifice is an act for a person. And since an act upon a person requires a person actually existing, but an act for a person does not; just as Christ offered himself to the Father for those who have been and who are to be¹, so the sacrifice profits those who have ended their life.

Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says, that the poor of Christ have made themselves friends of the mammon of iniquity. According to this it is objected: because he who loves another and prays for money gives a spiritual thing for a temporal one; and everyone such is a simoniac: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that mammon is here called earthly possession; from this a man makes the poor his friends, while he comes to the aid of their necessities²; for the poor of Christ are grateful for benefits. And thus it is clear that the temporal benefit is not as a motivating end, but as something inducing; and since they do not principally intend this, therefore they do not pray finally on account of it; and the prayer is not sold, but is obtained per accidens, namely through the acquisition of love.

Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which is said, that it is an injury to pray for a Martyr in the Church. For it seems to be said badly, because prayers « for the very good are thanksgivings³ »; but he who gives thanks for the Saints does not do them an injury: therefore etc. — Likewise, that what it is lawful for us to desire it is lawful also to ask; but we can desire the honor of the Saints: therefore we ought to pray for their honor.

I respond: It must be said that Augustine here calls praying for someone praying for his salvation; but no one prays⁴ for that which he already has: if therefore it ought to be settled for us that Martyrs are beatified at once, just as no one ought to doubt about their glory, so no one ought to pray for them. For if he prays, he seems to presume that he was not in glory, and thus that he is not truly a Martyr; and not only to presume, but also outwardly to intimate it, and by this to do an injury to the Martyr.

As to what therefore is objected, that they are thanksgivings; it must be said that this is true when the Church can with probability doubt about someone's salvation.

As to what is objected, that the honor of the Saints is to be desired; it must be said that it is true; but when we ask this, we do not ask it for the Saints themselves⁵, but we ask it for ourselves, that their perfect virtue may become known to us, and that a good affection may be given for the divine praise, or for theirs. — If, however, anyone should contend that this is to pray for a Martyr; it must be said that Augustine does not understand it in this way, but in that way by which to pray for someone is to ask his salvation, or the hastening of his salvation⁶.

Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says: Nor had he the merits of such great perfection as would not need these suffrages. For it seems that all are such, because on that text of the second to the Corinthians, chapter eight⁷: That their abundance; the Gloss: « Those who live in this world do not have merits sufficient for life, unless they be helped by the merit of Christ and of the Angels ». — But the contrary seems to be so: because either he has true charity, or not. If not: then he has no merit; if he has: then since he has the Holy Spirit, and thus the pledge of the eternal inheritance⁸, he has sufficiency.

I respond: It must be said that there are three kinds of men having charity in this life. For some have perfect charity and absolution from all guilt and punishment, and such suffice for themselves; but these are rather in the heavens than on earth; for the conversation of such is in the heavens⁹. — Some have perfect love, yet on account of preceding evil works they are bound to punishment; and such need suffrages, not for the obtaining of salvation, but for its hastening. — Some have imperfect charity, so that they are prone to fall and are bound by many liabilities of sins; and such live in this world,

although they do not altogether conform themselves to the world, and they need suffrages, that they may remain in charity, and that, as they go forth from the earth¹, torments may not detain them.

Doubt VII.

Likewise concerning this which he says: That they may in a certain manner offer them to God etc.; it is asked, in what manner the Angels offer our petitions to God, namely whether on account of themselves, or on account of us.

I respond: It must be said that, just as we see in earthly cases, that he who does not know how to speak before the praetor hires an advocate, who may speak and plead for him; so it is to be understood in spiritual matters, that since we know neither how to plead, nay, scarcely even how to stammer before God², the Angel, as an advocate and a great pleader in that supernal court, takes up our word and sets forth our prayer.

But if it is asked in what manner this comes to be; I say that our speaking and our prayer is the desire of some thing, or a petition formed according to desire; and when³ our desire is from a pure and true and ardent love, then we cry mightily in the ears of God and then we plead best. And since our affections are tepid, and the affections of the Angels most fervent and more elevated toward him; by desiring for us what we desire, since they approach God more familiarly and more closely, they are said to offer to him; and whereas God saw us first ask and approve through our own mouth, secondly he approves more through the mouth and the desire of the Angels. And since that is said to be known which he approves⁴; hence it is that our petitions are said to become known before God not only through us, but also through the Angels. For the Angels are said to speak to God through the affections of the will and through the support of reason, as Gregory expounds upon the beginning of Job⁵.

Doubt VIII.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says, that it is good to consult the truth concerning his own works. For it seems to be said badly: because that counsel implies inquiry, and thus reasoning; but the Angels, as Dionysius says⁶, have a deiform intellect: therefore counsel does not fall in them.

I respond: It must be said that to consult someone is twofold: either that through investigation and the discussion of inquiry one may arrive at the knowledge of a doubtful thing; or that through his illumination one may suddenly know how he ought to act⁷. The first is human, but the second is affirmed to be not only human, but also angelic.

Doubt IX.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says: That they themselves may learn from God etc. For it seems to be said badly, because blessed Gregory⁸ says: « What is there that they do not see, who see him who sees all things »?

I respond: It must be said that the Angels learn many things either through the Word itself and through other Angels, or through experience⁹. But what Gregory says is not understood to mean that they see all things, but that they see that one thing which it is better to see than all things. Whence, just as he who has God is said to have all things, not because he is the possessor of all things, but because he has that one thing to which all things cannot be made equal; therefore by equivalence or by surpassing worth he is said to have all things; so he who knows God is said to know all things¹⁰.

---