Dist. 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/2/q/bon-sent-I-d2-dubia
----------------------------------------
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Dub. I.

In this part, concerning the text, there is first a doubt about what the Master says, that *it is discerned by minds most thoroughly purged.* For he seems to speak ill, since no mind, while it is in the way [*in via*], is most thoroughly purged, but only in the fatherland [*in patria*].

**I respond:** It must be said that the mind, in order that it may contemplate God perfectly, needs to be purged with respect to intellect and affect; therefore he says *through the justice of faith*, that is, through faith, which makes one just in deed and of itself purges the intellect, while justice [purges] the affect. Of each purgation there is a threefold degree. For the intellect is *purged* when it is abstracted from sensible species, *more purged* when it is cleansed from phantasmal images, *most purged* when from philosophical reasonings. The degrees of the purgation of the affect are these: the affect is *purged* when it is cleansed from fault, *more purged* when from its consequence, *most purged* from its occasion; and in this state it is fit for contemplation.

### Dub. II.

Likewise objection is raised about what he says: *The weak edge of the human mind is not fixed in so excellent a light* etc. For it seems that even when it is cleansed it is not fixed there, since however much it may be cleansed, that light still exceeds the edge of the mind disproportionately: therefore if on account of its excellence it cannot be seen by one not having faith, neither even by one having [it].

**I respond:** It is one thing to say *to be considered*, *to be fixed [upon]*, and *to be comprehended*. It can be considered by an unclean mind; but cannot be fixed in by any except a pure mind; cannot be comprehended by any except an immense [one]. The reason, however,

why it cannot be fixed [upon] is twofold: one, because it is above the intellect, and therefore the intellect is not fixed in it unless it have the glue of affect, but immediately falls back; the other reason, because the sound eye is proportional to that light qualitatively, even if not quantitatively; but a weak or bleary eye is in both ways disproportional, and therefore is not fixed.

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is objected concerning this saying of Ambrose: *God and Lord is the name of nature and the name of power*, because Damascene says that this name *God* is imposed from operation, whence it is called from *aithein*, which is "to burn," or from *theein*, which is "to cherish," or from *theasthai*, which is "to behold."

**I respond:** It must be said that of this name, and the like, one may speak in two ways: either with respect to that to which it is imposed; and so it is a name of nature, because it is imposed upon what is the highest nature; or with respect to that from which it is imposed; and so it is a name of operation, because it is imposed from operation.

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about this circumlocution: *I am who I am*, whether this name *I am* etc. is a name of essence or of person. And that it is of person, seems so, because a demonstrative pronoun signifies a determinate person. And again, to speak is an act of a person. If perchance you should say that *I*, since it signifies origin, stands for the person of the Father, *am*, since it signifies an outgoing act, for the person of the Son, *who*, joining both as a relative, stands for the person of the Holy Spirit; this is nothing, because the relative and the antecedent stand for the same.

**I respond:** It must be said that that name *who is*, and *I am who I am*, is properly a name of essence: for this is a certain circumlocution, signifying entity in every mode of perfection and absoluteness, and this is the proper name of the divine substance. And as to the objection, that the pronoun signifies a determinate person; it must be said that *person* there is called the determinate supposit of the Word, and this is substance and nature.

### Dub. V.

Likewise it is asked concerning this authority: *Let us make man to our image and likeness*, whether *image* there stands for essence or for person. If for essence, then it is the same to say *our image* as *our essence*; if for person, it ought not to be said *our*, but *mine*; if for created image, it is nothing to the point, because by this the unity of nature is not proved.

**I respond:** It must be said that, according to the way the Saints take it here, *image* and *likeness* signify essence and relation. For *image* implies unity with distinction, and *likeness* likewise on account of intrinsic relation. And therefore in this name *image* and *likeness*, with respect to one part of its signification is noted unity of essence, with respect to another is noted plurality of persons. And therefore Augustine expounds it one way, Hilary another. Augustine considers a part of the signified, namely the unity of essence; but Hilary the whole. Whence he says that by the name of *image* and *likeness* unity and plurality are simultaneously understood. Likewise Augustine, in the words *let us make* and *our*, considers only the consignified; and therefore plurality. But Hilary considers the signified and the consignified, and therefore in both says that plurality and unity are understood.

### Dub. VI.

Likewise Hilary says: *Likeness does not permit diversity to be mingled in two things one to the other.*

**On the contrary:** Likeness is the same quality of differing things: therefore likeness admits of difference along with itself.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a likeness *according to accident*, and a likeness *according to substance*.

And this latter is twofold: *according to whole* and according to part. A likeness according to accident, or according to part of substance, admits diversity; but not a likeness according to whole. And since in the divine essence there is the highest simplicity, therefore there cannot be a likeness according to accident nor according to part: and therefore likeness does not admit of diversity of nature.

### Dub. VII.

Likewise it is objected concerning what the Master says: *He has signified, by the name of consortium, not that something is posited, but [something] removed*, because from this it seems that every numerical word according to him posits nothing, but only privates; but this seems false. For since in divine matters there is true plurality of persons, they seem to be said not only privatively, but also positively.

**I respond:** This was the position of the Master, which is not commonly held, since it does not have truth, as will appear better below. Nevertheless the Master is excused, because he said that the numerical names do not posit something, since they import number, which is not properly in divine matters. For number is caused from the aggregation and distinction of unities; and the distinction of unities happens in three ways: by division of the continuous, by disparation of forms, by degree or order. Since therefore in divine matters there is no aggregation nor such distinction, therefore neither is there number properly.

### Dub. VIII.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *In the beginning God created*, why this name *God* should rather stand or supposit for the person of the Father than for the person of the Son, and how the Trinity is understood from this.

**I respond:** To this it must be said, that in eight modes the plurality of persons is intimated to us in Scripture. *In the first mode* by signification; in the last [chapter] of Matthew: *In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.* *In the second mode* by consignification; in Genesis at the beginning, where we have *Deus*, the Hebrews have *Heloym*, which is the nominative plural of this singular *Hel*. *In the third mode* by supposition, as when it is said: *God begot God*; Proverbs eight: *Before all hills the Lord generated me.* *In the fourth mode* by appropriation, as in this: *In the beginning God created* etc. For *God* there is appropriated to the Father and *Beginning* to the Son. *In the fifth mode* by iteration, as in Isaiah six: *Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God of Sabaoth.* *In the sixth mode* by order of words; in the Psalm: *May God bless us, our God, may God bless us.* *In the seventh mode* by connotation in the act of mission, as when it is said in Galatians four: *God sent* etc. *In the eighth mode* by appearance, as the three men appeared to Abraham; Genesis eighteen.

### Dub. IX.

Likewise it is objected concerning what he says: *That one also greatest of the Prophets*, since on that passage of Matthew seventeen: *There appeared to them Moses and Elias*, the Gloss says: « Elias was the greatest of the Prophets »: therefore not David.

**I respond:** The spirit of prophecy, given in greater abundance, makes the prophet of the Lord more excellent. It can therefore be given in greater abundance in two ways: either because to more things, or because to higher things. To Elias it was given to more things, since to the foreseeing of futures and the working of miracles; but to David to higher things, since, as is clear from his prophecy, he saw more things and more clearly, because by intellectual prophecy.

### Dub. X.

Likewise it is objected concerning what he says: *The Lord possessed me*; since possession is of an inferior thing, order of a posterior thing, conception likewise sounds in the fragility of sex, and birth likewise; which do not befit divine matters.

**I respond:** Wisdom is described by comparison to its effects and by comparison to its principle. And since by comparison to its effects it has in itself an infinite treasure in numerosity, and has order in discretion, therefore it is described by the verb *to possess* and *to order*. By comparison to its principle it emanates by intrinsic emanation in that which is of the substance of the one emanating; therefore it is described by the verb *of conceiving* and *of bringing forth*.

---