Dist. 13, 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/2/d/13/q/bon-sent-II-d13-dubia
----------------------------------------
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE LETTER OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the letter, and first it is doubted concerning what he says, that *in the mystery it was brought about that the day is reckoned from evening to evening*. For against this it seems that for the observance of a fast it is fitting to fast the preceding day with the following night. — Likewise, it seems that the mystery of redemption is not fittingly signified by reckoning the day from evening to evening; rather [it should be] in the first reckoning of days, because *Christ brought us forth from darkness to light*.

**I respond:** *A twofold mode of reckoning the day according to Scripture.* It must be said that we receive a twofold mode of reckoning the day in Scripture. The first, in which the preceding day is coupled to the following night, and this indeed was [used] in the first enumeration of days, in which, as the Master says, was prefigured the fall of man to come, from the light of grace into the darkness of fault. Another mode of reckoning days is observed in the keeping of solemnities, in which the preceding night is numbered with the following day: and this is what is meant by *from evening to evening*, so that the night precede and the day follow, because *we were once darkness, but now light in the Lord*. — As for the objection about the observance of fasts, it must be said that the time of fasting befits the time of misery; and therefore the reckoning of the day in the observance of a fast ought to be made in conformity to the distinction of the first time, in which was the prefiguration of the human fall. — And as for the objection that [the day] ought not to be terminated from evening to evening, it must be said that the first *vespera* is placed there insofar as it is the *beginning of the night*, and the second insofar as it is the *end of the day*; and so it stands for night and for day.

*Four modes of reckoning the day.* But although these two distinctions are most especially expressed in Scripture, nevertheless the day has been wont to be distinguished in four modes according to the reckonings of various peoples. For the Greeks reckon the day from morning to morning, because then the sun first appears; the Hebrews from evening to evening, because then they begin to solemnize; the astronomers from noon to noon, because then the sun is at greater power; the holy Church from midnight to midnight, because then Christ was born. Hence the verses:

> *The Greek race begins the day at morning; those who follow the stars*
> *[begin it] in the middle of light; the Jews at evening; the holy*
> *Church begins [it] in the middle of the time of night*.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says about that lux: *Either the body of the sun was formed from it, or it is in that part of the heaven in which the sun is*. For the first seems to be false, because there is no order from the perfect to the imperfect; but that lux was most perfect, as Damascene says, that the works of the first day are most perfect. — Likewise, the text seems to be contrary; for it is said there: *God saw the light, that it was good*; and Augustine explains: «*He saw, i.e. it pleased the will of God that what pleased Him to be made should remain according to the mode of its kind*»: therefore that lux still remains in itself. — Likewise, if the sun was made from that lux, whence were the other luminaries made? If you say, from that lux; then it seems that one part of that corporeal lux passed over into the luminous bodies which are above the sun, and into the luminous bodies which are below the sun: therefore, since no body has to be moved by opposite motions, and since likewise there is no celestial body which by nature has to be moved by rectilinear motion, but [only] by circular,

it seems that the first production of luminaries was by violence and against nature. — Likewise, that [the lux] cannot be in that part in which the sun is seems [true] first because two bodies cannot be in the same place at the same time; and secondly because the sun illumines sufficiently: therefore it seems that that lux is there in vain.

**I respond:** *Four solutions.* It must be said that when it is asked what was made of that lux, the response is wont to be made in four modes, two of which the Master touches in the letter.

*First.* The first is that, when the luminaries of the heaven were made, that lux returned into the underlying matter, because it had been made only for the making of a certain half-full distinction of days, which being perfected, it then returned to whence it had been taken. — *Improbatur.* But this position is against reason and against the letter, in that God should destroy the principal works of the six days, or should let them perish.

*Second, improbable.* The second mode of speaking is that that lux simply remains in its form unchanged, nor is it discernible to sense because of its conjunction with the sun, yet is not in vain, because it augments the effect of the sun itself.

*Third, not sufficient.* But because it is difficult to assign what effect it has with the sun, there is the third mode of speaking, that the sun was made from it, and is preserved in it as in a thing of the same genus.

*Fourth.* But since Scripture does not seem to express that God after the first day produced a new lux but only distinguished the luminaries; there is the fourth opinion, that from that lux were made the luminous bodies, among which the sun holds the principal place; nor was there any violence there, because each creature received that place which the Lord by nature allotted to it. — And thus the objections are clear, because there was neither corruption of that lux nor violence, but a certain greater and more perfect distinction. — As for what Damascene says, that the work of the first day was most perfect, this is said by comparison to other bodies which have to receive influence from the lux, not by comparison to the luminaries, which were formed from that lux itself.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *God said: Let it be made, etc. not temporally, nor by the sound of a voice, but in the Word coeternal with Himself*. For this seems to be false; for as soon as God *said*, things were made, as is said in the Psalm: *He spoke, and they were made*: therefore since the production of things is temporal, the saying was not eternal. — Likewise, in an eternal saying God *says* only once, as is said in the Psalm: *Once has God spoken*; but when He produced the works of the six days, in the production of each work He *said*: therefore that *saying* is not eternal, or [is not] the begetting of the Son. If you say that the *saying* was only one, yet it is repeated on account of the many effects; then it seems that if *to make* follows on *to say*, and He *said simultaneously*, then He *made* all things *simultaneously*; but He did *not make simultaneously*, as Scripture says and as has been proved above: therefore He did *not say simultaneously*.

*Questions.* On this account it is asked whether *to say* is here taken *temporally* or *eternally*; and if eternally, how can the *thing said* be *temporal*? and if *temporally*, how could the temporal *saying* precede every creature? — Likewise, there is the question whether it is taken *notionally* or *essentially*. For if it is taken *notionally*, how would it posit an effect? or how would the effect of creation, which God produced by *saying*, befit the whole Trinity? But if [taken] *essentially*, how can it be said that this is referred to the nature of the Word, *through which all things were made*? since the Word is said personally, as was shown in the first book.

**I respond:** *Threefold connotation in the term* dicere. It must be said that *to say* in one mode connotes an effect *in act*, in another mode connotes an effect *in habit*, in a third mode neither in habit nor in act. For it speaks in one mode as it were of an act toward the *exterior*, and thus *to say* is to effect some effect in which the one saying expresses himself; and in this mode God is said *to say* either by producing a creature in which He declares Himself, or by inspiring something to the soul in which He shows His will; and thus it is taken many times in Scripture and connotes effect actually. — In another mode *to say* signifies an act as it were *interior*, but nonetheless *related*; and in this mode it signifies the com-

parison to the Word conceived, through which the one saying speaks himself and all things. In which mode it is taken in the Psalm: *Once has God spoken*, Gloss: that is, He begot the Son, in whom He disposed all things; and thus *to say* connotes an effect *in habit*, because *to say* implies a disposition, and to disposition follows the work. — In a third mode *to say* signifies an act *intrinsic* and *absolute*; and in this mode Anselm says that «*to say is nothing other than to behold by seeing*»; and thus each person says Himself and other [persons]; and to this *saying* no conceived word corresponds, because according to this mode the same can be the *one saying* and the *thing said* and *that by which it is said*. For each person sees Himself and beholds Himself; and thus it does not connote an effect, neither in act nor in habit.

*Resp. 1.* If, then, it is asked how *to say* is taken in the production of things, it must be said that it can be taken in the first mode, namely insofar as it connotes an effect *in act*; and then *to say* is the same as *to produce*, nor is there any otiose [repetition] there when it is said: *God said: Let it be made*, because [the verb] does not import only the action itself, but also as it is unto its manifestation; and Scripture puts the verb of *saying* before the verb of *making*, that in this it may show that God produces individual things with maximum ease — not because some created voice precedes the production of things. And thus *to say* on different days can be pluralized not by reason of the principal signified but of the *connoted*; just as is clear, because of many things produced there are many *passive* productions, and by reason of the connoted the *active* [productions] *to say* can be pluralized.

*Resp. 2.* It can nonetheless be taken in the second mode, and thus the sense is: *He said*, i.e. *He begot the Son*, in whom He disposed all things and through whom He produced all things; and so blessed Augustine expounds when he says that the voice of God is referred to the nature of the Word *through which all things were made*. And to that *saying* follows the becoming of the creature, just as to *disposition* follows the work — not immediately, so that it should be then when one first disposes, but according to place and time, namely as the disposition of the one saying ordered; and so it is in the matter at hand. For God produced not then when He begot the Son, in whom He disposed; but as by begetting the Son from eternity He disposed Himself to produce in time, so He produced in time. For in the eternal disposition of God Himself there was not only that things should be produced, but also *when* they should be produced. And in this mode *to say*, [predicated] on different days, implies the same eternal disposition, in which the things which are successively produced from time are simultaneously disposed eternally.

*On the third mode, of note.* Thus, therefore, *to say* can be taken here in the first and second mode, but more properly in the second. But in the third mode it does not seem to be taken here, because no effect is connoted there, neither in act nor in habit. Nor does the act of *saying* seem to be properly taken in that third mode either. For, as was said in the first book, distinction twenty-seventh, *to say* is properly not without a *word*, just as *speech* is not properly said to be there where there is no *discourse*. *Notandum.* Nevertheless, the third mode of taking *to say* does not seem altogether to be rejected, because it seems sufficiently reasonably able to be conceded that each person speaks to another. For if this act, which is *to say*, befits each created person, it can befit each uncreated person either truly, or in a transumed mode. Yet this mode of taking does not pertain to the matter at hand. And by this what was objected is clear.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *In the beginning, i.e. in the Son, God created heaven and earth*. For if creation is a change, and in the Son nothing is changed: therefore in the Son nothing is created. — Likewise it is asked, why is this received: *The Father is in the Son* and *creates in the Son*, so that this preposition *in* is referred both to the verb *to be* and to the verb *to operate*; but this is not received: *The Father is through the Son*, although this is received: *The Father operates through the Son*. — It is also asked what relation this preposition *per* imports, when it is said: *God the Father creates through the Son*.

**I respond:** It must be said that this preposition *in* can import *causality* and can import *identity*; *causality*, as when it is said:

*All things are in God*; *identity*, as when it is said: *The Father is in the Son*. But this preposition *per*, as of itself, imports *causality*. — I say therefore that God is fittingly said to operate *in the Son*, both by reason of *identity*, because the Father operating is in the Son; and by reason of *causality*, because the Son is the cause of the effect produced by the Father. And therefore this preposition *in* with its [oblique] case is taken in divine matters with absolute verbs and with transitive [verbs] by reason of a twofold relation, namely of *causality* and of *identity*. But this preposition *per*, since it imports the relation of cause and principle, is not received except in those verbs which import some effect with respect to which the Son has causality. And therefore it is received that the Father *operates through the Son*, but yet it is not received that the Father *is through the Son*. But these things are spoken of more plainly in the first book, distinction thirty-second, and therefore for the present let these things suffice.

---