Dist. 37, Part 1, 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/37/q/bon-sent-I-d37-p1-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

#### DOUBT I.

In this part there occur doubts concerning the text, and first concerning what the Master says — and it is a word of Augustine — namely, that *the wicked are not with him, as the blind are in the light* etc. For he seems to speak ill, because the wicked are *in God*, since *in him they live and move and are*: therefore, if no greater conformity is imported by *to be with someone* than by *in someone*, it seems that just as the wicked are said to be *in God*, so they ought to be said to be *with God*.

— Likewise, which is more improper: *God is with the wicked*, or *the wicked are with God*? It seems [that the latter is]: *the wicked are with God*. Whence Augustine in the book of *Confessions*: «You were with me, and I was not with you»; he is speaking on behalf of the state of sin. But on the contrary; since he expresses the authority in the oblique [case], therefore it seems that it is better said: *the man with God*, than the converse.

**I respond:** It must be said that this preposition *with* says association. Now in society two things are considered, namely mutual help and conformity of will. Since therefore only the good have a will conformed [to God] and are coadjutors of God, therefore of them alone is it properly said that they are *with God*, and conversely; because then this *with* does not say authoritativeness. But because the wicked do not conform nor help God in their own salvation, but contradict [him], and yet God helps them in many things; therefore Augustine says: *You were with me* etc.

#### DOUBT II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *He dwells with himself* etc. For he seems to speak ill, because prepositions are distinctive, since they are transitive: if therefore God is not distinguished from himself, it is wrongly said that he was *with himself*. If you say that they say transition only as to mode; on the contrary is the Gloss on First John, which says that *with* (apud) notes a distinction of the Father with respect to the Son.

**I respond:** It must be said that God is not only *in* creatures, but also *with himself*. Whence Augustine in the book of *Confessions*: «God is in himself as alpha and omega, in the world as creator and ruler, in the angels as savor and beauty, in the elect as liberator and helper, in the reprobate as terror and horror». — As to what is objected, that the preposition says *transition* and *distinction*; it must be said that, as far as the force of its signification is concerned, it says only *transition* as to *mode*; that it says [transition] as to *thing*, this is by reason of the matter or of the terms to which it is added.

#### DOUBT III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that *God dwells in someone when he is in him in such a way that he is known and loved by him*. He seems not to speak well, because he dwells in little ones, who do not know him: therefore this account does not seem fitting.

**I respond:** There is to know *in act*, and there is to know *by habit*; and although little ones do not know in act, yet they know by habit, since they have grace and the habit of the virtues, as is said in the fourth book.

#### DOUBT IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *How God is everywhere we do not grasp by the intellect*. For he seems to speak falsely, because «what we understand is owed to reason», as Augustine says; but we have reasons by which we know that God is in things potentially, presentially, and essentially. If you say that we do not comprehend [him]; in like manner neither do we comprehend the other things which are said of God: therefore the Master ought not to say of this rather than of the aforesaid that it is ineffable.

**I respond:** It must be said that some things are purely intelligible, and to such Imagination does not contradict, but falls short; some things are sensible, and for such [imagination] suffices; some things are in some way imaginable and in some way intelligible, and in such cases the intellect frequently falls short, and imagination contradicts and falls short: as when we think that God is everywhere, we grasp God by intellect alone, but we imagine the place. And because our imagination does not grasp the example [of the case] that some one [thing] be in many places, and the intellect does not look upon the brightness of the light; hence it is that such things are judged by us [to be] not-intelligible more than other things.

#### DOUBT V.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *A created spirit is not defiled by the filths of a polluted body*.

For it seems to be contrary to what is said in Wisdom 9: *The body which is corrupted weighs down the soul.* And again, the soul contracts the original [sin] from the flesh and is infected by it.

**I respond:** Just as generation is univocal, which is [the production] of like from like, and equivocal, which is of a thing dissimilar, so infection [occurs] according to a univocal account, as a leper makes [another] a leper, and according to an equivocal account, as infection generates infection. The Master speaks in the first mode, because the soul of the leper is not leprous; in the second mode the objector objects.

#### DOUBT VI.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *In God are all the things which he founded, nor yet do they defile him* etc. For he seems to speak ill, because corporeal filths defile corporeal things, therefore spiritual [filths defile] spiritual things. Likewise, if they do not defile God: then it seems that one could say that God is in the devil; which is against all usage.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Master touches in the text, corporeal filths do not defile a body which neither communicates in matter nor depends [on it], as is plain in a ray [of light], which is not infected by dregs, because it neither depends on nor communicates in transmutable matter. And since God has neither, therefore that [argument] is not valid. — As to what is objected, that *God is in sinners*; it must be said that there would be no inconvenience in saying so; yet because this seemed to sound toward an outrage, therefore a determination must be added, by reason of which the wholesome sense of the discourse may appear: as if it be said, *God is in the devil or in the adulterer as regards the conservation of nature*.

---