Dist. 29, 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/29/q/bon-sent-II-d29-dubia
----------------------------------------
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which he says: *We say that Adam did not have the virtues at the time when he sinned.* For this seems to say something false, because, if he did not have them when he sinned, then he lost them before he sinned; but the virtues cannot be lost without sin: therefore he sinned before he sinned. — Along with this it is asked whether the man, when he sinned, was wise or foolish. If wise, then he was not sinning. If foolish, then folly does not seem to be the punishment of sin.

**I respond:** It must be said that the time of the committing of Adam's sin can be determined in two ways: either according to its *inception*, or according to its *consummation.* In each of these ways the saying of the Master holds true, according to a differing understanding.

For if it be understood of the *beginning*, so that the sense is: he did not have the virtues when he sinned, that is, when he began to sin; it must be said that this saying is understood thus, that he did not have the virtues as to their *use*, although he had the virtues as to their *habit.* Hence at the inception of his sin he in a certain manner had the virtues, and in a certain manner lacked virtue; he had them according to habit, but lacked them according to use. — But if it be understood of the time of the consummation of the sin, then, since the consummation of the sin was in an instant, and the *being consummated* and the *being* of the sin are simultaneous; in this way too the aforesaid saying holds true, not only on account of the fact that Adam then did not have the virtues as to their use, but also as to their *habit.* For if he then had the sin, it is established that he did not have the *habit* of virtue. For just as in sin the *being consummated* and the *having been consummated* are simultaneous, so also in the habit of virtue the *being lost* and the *having been lost* are simultaneous; and if it has been lost, it is not had. It is plain, therefore, that when he sinned, he did not have the virtues; nor yet does it follow from this that he had not lost them. For *to lose*, in those things which are lost suddenly, does not posit *to have in act*, but *to have had in the past* and *not to have at present.* This, however, is better made manifest in the fourth book, in the treatise on the justification of the impious. And by this those two things which were objected become plain.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *Now therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand and take of the tree of life* etc. For if this were true, it would now follow that Adam, from his first sin, would not have fallen into the necessity of dying, which is against the text: *In whatever day thou shalt eat, thou shalt die the death.* — Likewise, the tree of life was a sign of that tree of life which is Christ, which is in the midst of the paradise of the Church; but that tree is rather a hindrance than a help to those who take it unworthily: therefore it seems that, if Adam had eaten of that tree, it would rather have harmed him than profited him: therefore he would not live forever.

**I respond:** It must be said that those words are the words of the Lord speaking to the Angels. Hence the text is to be supplied thus: *Now therefore* — supply *see ye* — *lest he put forth his hand* etc. But the Lord said this, not that Adam would live forever if after sin he ate of that tree, but because he would have lived a longer time. Hence those words can be understood to have been words of mercy, because the Lord did not wish him to live long in the calamity of the present life, into which he had been thrust back by the merit of his fault.

— Or they can be words of the rigor of *justice*, in that, because Adam by tasting the food of the forbidden tree had rendered himself unworthy to receive the effect of the tree of life: therefore the Lord, in the foregoing words, in which He pronounces sentence against him, indicates that He is depriving Adam of a twofold good, namely of the eating of the tree and of the effect of the tree; not because after sin he could attain to that effect, but because by the merit of his sin he deserved to lose both.

And thus those things which were objected become plain. Nevertheless that which he objects concerning the Sacrament of the altar is not similar, because the efficacy of that Sacrament is spiritual, and a singular reverence is due to it by reason of its dignity and excellence; but none of these is found in him who eats and drinks unworthily; whereas it was not so with that tree of life.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says, that *God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure into a place suited to him.* For it seems that God ought not to have done this. For since God is of greater mercy than man is; and since we see that sinners are borne with inside the Church, which is a certain paradise: it does not seem that God ought to have cast him out, but rather to have waited long-sufferingly for his repentance. — Likewise I ask: why does he say that this world was a place suited to him? For either he was *worsened*, or *not.* If he was not worsened, it does not seem that it was a fitting dwelling for him after his fault. If he was worsened, it seems that the place in which he had sinned ought rather to have been worsened than that in which he had not sinned. — Along with this it is asked, of what use that place is to man, since now it does not serve, nor after the day of judgment will it serve: therefore it seems that that place was made in vain.

**I respond:** It must be said that God cast man out of paradise by a just judgment, so that mercy and truth were both there together. For truth was there, because, just as the Angel was cast out of the heavenly paradise, because he had sinned there and had rendered himself unworthy of that place: so also man had to be cast out from the pleasantness of the earthly paradise. Mercy too was there, that man, dwelling in a place of greater calamity and knowing himself to be outside the earthly paradise, might reckon himself as it were an exile in this world, and by despising the present life might rise up to invisible goods and desire them, and so come to them. For if he were to love temporal things, he would be hindered from apprehending spiritual things; and if now, corrupted by concupiscence, he loves them when he is in this valley of misery, how much more would he then love them, if he were in the pleasantness of that paradise, after he had been corrupted by the disease of concupiscence? For so great an adherence to temporal rest would from then on cleave to him, that he would never seek the eternal: and therefore he was dealt with both mercifully and justly. — And by this the foregoing doubts become plain. For it is plain that it is not similar with the paradise of the Church; it is plain also that this place is more suited to the state of misery, even if each had been worsened. — Finally it is plain that that place is not unfruitful; for it does much for our instruction and affords us occasion of seeking salvation, in which consists the highest and perfection of all human utility.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says, that that tree did not confer immortality, unless one took of it often. For this seems to be false, because perfect immortality places man outside the state of animality: but frequent eating places man in the state of animality: therefore by the frequent use of the tree he would not be brought to perfect immortality. — Likewise, the frequenting of a thing does not vary the effect according to species, but only confirms or intensifies it: therefore, if a single eating could not make one immortal, it seems by parity of reasoning that neither could the frequenting.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master here speaks doubtfully, and not without cause; for each side can be upheld with sufficient probability, even that the tree of life by a single eating conferred immortality. Nor does this stand against it, that the Lord had commanded Adam to eat of every tree of paradise; for an affirmative precept does not oblige always, but for a [given] place and time. — It can also be understood that it did not confer that effect by a single eating, but by many, and this, because that tree did not confer immortality as a principal and effective cause, but as a dispositive one. And just as we see in medicine, that what is frequented disposes toward health, toward which what is taken once would not sufficiently dispose, so also it is to be understood in the matter at hand. — And by this those things which were objected become plain; for they proceed as if the tree of life were the principal efficient [cause] of immortality. But concerning the effect of this tree it has been treated more plainly above; let these things, however, suffice.

---