Dist. 15, Part 2, Dubia
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/1/d/15/q/bon-sent-I-d15-p2-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS ON THE LETTER OF THE MASTER.

#### DOUBT I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the letter, and first it is doubted concerning the placement of the first chapter of this part. For it seems that the Master ought not to put here a treatise on the mission of the Son, since the mission of the Son is the Incarnation; but his Incarnation will be treated in [Book] III: therefore he ought to treat of his mission there, not here.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master here introduces incidentally a treatise on the mission of the Son for the sake of explaining the mission of the Holy Spirit. It can also be said that the Master here treats principally of the mission of the Son *into the mind*, but only incidentally of the mission of the Son *into the flesh* — in order to distinguish [the latter] from the mission of the Son into the mind. But of that mission which is *into the flesh*, he treats specially and principally in [Book] III, and therefore differently there than here.

#### DOUBT II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *Not by that very thing by which he was born of the Father is the Son said to be sent*. For he seems to speak falsely and contrary to Gregory, who says: «In that mode by which the Son is generated, [in that] he is sent».

**I respond:** It must be said that Augustine speaks with precision, so that it is understood: *not only by that very thing*; but Gregory speaks with the manifestation [in the creature] presupposed. Or otherwise: Augustine speaks of *eternal* generation, Gregory of *temporal*; whence there is no contradiction at all there.

#### DOUBT III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says — that *before the Incarnation [the Son] was sent to all the Saints who were before*. It is asked, therefore, whether after the Incarnation the Son and the Holy Spirit have been more fully given. And that they have, seems [clear], since the state of the Law was a state of imperfection, [whereas] the state of the Gospel is a state of perfection. For *the Law led no one to perfection*; but the Gospel says: *Be ye perfect*, Matthew 5: therefore etc.

Likewise, this seems specially [clear] of the Holy Spirit, since it is written in John 7: *The Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified*; this is not said because he was in no way given before, but because not so abundantly: therefore etc.

Likewise, the cognition and love [of God] is greater in the time of the Law of grace than in the time of the Law as written: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that *to be more fully given* can be understood in two ways: either *intensively* or *extensively*. If extensively, then the Holy Spirit was given to more in the time of the Law of grace, since *into all the earth their sound went out*, etc., not only to one nation. If intensively, this is either as to the *general state*, or as to *special persons*; as to the general state, in the New Testament,

[but] as to special persons, in the Old Testament; and so they stand related as exceeding and exceeded — for in the Old Testament there were certain Evangelical men; and so the arguments proceed to either side. For in the Old Testament there were some abounding in *wisdom*, like Solomon; some in *patience*, like Job; some in *meekness*, like Moses; some in *faith*, like Abraham; some in *devotion*, like David; some in the *working of miracles*, like Elijah.

#### DOUBT IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says — that *[the Son] was sent to the Angels*. For it seems false, since *angel* is so called as *messenger* or *one sent*: but to the one sent there is no mission: therefore etc. If you say that he is sent in another mode; *on the contrary*: he who is always present has no need of mission; but the angel always contemplates God as present: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that the mission of *Wisdom* or of the Son is for *illuminating* the creature, just as the mission of the Holy Spirit is for *sanctifying* the creature. And since the angels were neither of themselves wise nor of themselves holy, therefore it was necessary that from the beginning Wisdom — who is the Son — should be sent to them, and also the Holy Spirit. Whence Augustine is speaking with regard to the state of glorification; but properly [he] is not now said to be sent — unless he is said in a wide sense to be sent for the manifestation of something hidden.

#### DOUBT V.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *Insofar as we grasp anything eternal in the mind, we are not in this world*. For he seems to speak falsely, since either he says this of the soul, or of the flesh. Not of the flesh — this is plain: therefore of the soul: therefore it seems that the soul, when it knows God, is in heaven or outside the world. Likewise this seems [clear] by reason, since *to grasp* the eternal is rather *to be grasped*: therefore if what is grasped by the grasper is located [in him], then the soul is located in eternity, [and] therefore outside time. Furthermore, what is known and loved is either drawn to the knower and lover, or conversely; but while we love and know God, we do not draw God to ourselves, but ourselves to God, as is said in the fourth [book] *On the Divine Names*: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that *place* has the nature of *that which contains* and *that which brings to rest*. Therefore *to be in this world* is twofold: either as to truth and containment, or as to rest. Augustine, however, speaks not in the first mode (so that the soul and body truly go forth from this world while the mind grasps God), but he understands [it] as to *rest* — because the affection of the soul does not rest in temporal [things], over which it is carried, but in eternal; and Dionysius understands it accordingly. — And the second argument is to be understood [thus]: that what is loved draws [the lover], not by changing [his] location, but by conforming [him] to itself, since the lover is transformed into the loved, and the knower is conformed to the known.

#### DOUBT VI.

Likewise it is asked concerning what Augustine says: *The Father is the principle of the whole Divinity — or if better said, of the Deity*. For he seems to speak badly, since either this is by generation or by spiration. But if so: then the Father generates or spirates the Deity — which is against the Master, above in distinction 5, where he says that the essence neither generates nor is generated. — Furthermore it is asked: why does he say «Or if better said, of the Deity»?

**I respond:** It must be said that Augustine does not

simply say that [the Father] is *the principle of the Divinity*, but with this qualification: *of the whole*. And since in what is most simple there does not fall any *totality* — except by extending the name of totality to the plurality of persons — therefore *Deity* or *Divinity* stands as in the persons; yet because it cannot be drawn over to the persons (since it is an abstract name), the foregoing speech must be expounded just as the Master above expounds similar locutions.

As for what is asked — why is *Deity* said to be better? — it must be said that *divine* (*divinum*) can be said of creatures, insofar as a man is called *divine*; but *God* (*Deus*) is proper to God alone; therefore *Deitas* more properly asserts the form of God than *Divinitas*: and therefore it is better said *of the Deity* than *of the Divinity*.

---