Dist. 19, 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/3/d/19/q/bon-sent-III-d19-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first there is asked about that which he says: *We are released from sins through his death, because through his death the charity of God is commended to us.* For that reasoning seems to be void, because, since the charity of God is commended to us through the benefits of God, just as through the passion of Christ; it seems that we are justified from sins through the benefits of God, just as through the passion of Christ. — Likewise, the martyrs by suffering stir us up to believe and to love God: therefore if the passion of Christ is said to justify us because it kindles us to charity, then by like reasoning also the passion of the other martyrs. — Likewise, if this is true, then it seems that justification does not belong to the passion of Christ except only accidentally, namely by reason of our charity.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master in the aforesaid reasoning does not touch the *whole* cause of justification, but a part of the cause. For he presupposes in the passion itself the account of *merit,* by which the passion of Christ is the fount of our salvation; for through it the fullness of Christ's grace overflows into us. And that being presupposed, he adds another reason, namely the reason of the *example that provokes* and stirs up; and this indeed is a good and sufficient reason, the prior one being presupposed; but of itself it does not suffice. And therefore all those reasonings proceed from what is insufficient. — And by this the response to those three objections is plain.

…of the passion, without faith in which we cannot be justified: therefore just as the *passion* of Christ is said to justify us, inasmuch as it is believed, by like reasoning also the *ascension* and the *coming to judgment.* — Likewise, just as faith and charity are required for justification, so also are the other virtues: therefore just as we are said to be justified through the faith and charity of the passion, so also through humility and the other virtues, by which we are made like to Christ in his suffering.

Alongside this it is asked, since the Master assigns yet a third reason why we are said to be justified through the *passion,* namely that the passion justifies after the manner of a *sacrifice offered;* on what basis is the sufficiency and distinction of those three reasons taken?

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master does not assign this reason either as the principal one, but to this he presupposes that by which the passion is said *to justify* after the manner of *merit;* and he assigns it, when he says that «Christ by his death, as by one most true sacrifice, destroyed whatever of faults was in us»; and thus he intimates three reasons, according to which the passion of Christ is said *to justify.* For it justifies as a *victim offered,* as *believed,* as *loved.* — And these three reasons are reduced to those three which were said above, namely that the passion of Christ justifies after the manner of *disposing merit,* and after the manner of *stirring example,* and after the manner of *directing exemplar,* so that in it there is *merit* inasmuch as it is a victim offered, *direction* inasmuch as it is believed, and *stirring up* inasmuch as it is loved, according to the threefold kind of cause. And thus the passion is said *to justify* us through faith and charity, because by the mediation of these two virtues we are united to the passion itself as to the fount of salvation.

And thus the response to those three objections is plain. For the first objection proceeds from what is insufficient; the second indeed is dissolved through a defect of likeness;

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about that which he adds: *We are said to be justified through the death of Christ, because through faith in his death we are cleansed from sins.* For this seems false, because there are many articles besides the ar-

…for it is not alike concerning faith and charity and the other virtues; but that which was asked in the third place is manifest.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *We had fallen into the prince of this world, who seduced Adam and began to possess us as his bondservants.* For this seems false, because «fraud and deceit ought to protect no one»: therefore if the devil deceived man, it seems that he ought not to have lordship over him. — Likewise, the devil had no right in us: therefore it does not seem that he possessed us by any right. — Likewise, we were the servants of God: therefore it was not in our power to make ourselves servants of the devil. If therefore neither does God make us servants of the devil, nor could *we* make ourselves so, nor could the *devil* subjugate us; the word of the aforesaid authority does not seem to be true.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt man was justly held; but the devil held and possessed him by no just title, since he was a possessor in bad faith; but God, who is a just judge, by his just judgment permitted this. For it was just that he who had voluntarily subjected himself to the suggestion *through fault,* should be involuntarily subjected to the same *through punishment*.

As for what he objects, that the devil could not possess, because he had no right; it must be said that this does not hold, because many possess by an unjust title, of whom the devil is the prince and leader, who is the head of fraud and malice. Nor did fraud and deceit protect him, because he held him for his own evil, just as thieves and robbers for a time possess the things which they steal.

To that which is objected, that man could not make himself a servant, since he was constituted under another's jurisdiction; it must be said that God had left man *in the hand of his own counsel*, and just as he permitted him to be able to bring himself into the servitude of sin, so also he permitted him to be able to lead himself into the servitude of the devil.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *Whence he is truly called the redeemer of the world.* For this seems false, since no one buys what is his own; if therefore God had not lost dominion over men, it seems that the redemption of man did not pertain to him. — Likewise I ask: from whom and through whom did he redeem? If you say that he redeemed from the devil; but on the contrary: he pays a price to him from whom he redeems; but he redeemed us by the price of his blood: therefore it seems that he paid the price of his blood to the devil. If you say that he redeemed from God; on the contrary: no one redeems or buys anything from himself.

**I respond:** It must be said that man *had been sold, that he might do evil in the sight of the Lord*, and had made himself a servant of sin and of punishment; and in all these he was held by the authority of the divine sentence and justice. And therefore the price of redemption had to be offered to him who had suffered the loss and the injury; and since this is God, therefore Christ, in offering his blood to God, redeemed us from the servitude of the devil, of sin, and of punishment, so that the hand of mercy redeemed man from the hand of severity and of justice. For man had passed through his own fault from one hand to the other. — And by this the response to the objections is plain.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *The Father and the Holy Spirit are called redeemer on account of the use of power.* For if God had power from eternity, it seems that from eternity he was our redeemer. — Likewise, Augustine says that in our redemption

power was not to be used, but rather justice: therefore that reasoning does not seem to be rightly assigned.

**I respond:** It must be said that in the redemption there was both a use of *power* and a use of *humility;* but the use of *humility* appeared in the beginning, the use of *power* appeared at the end. For he conquered death and the author of death by suffering and by rising again; and although the passion of *infirmity* is attributed to Christ alone, nevertheless the operation of power is owed to the whole Trinity. And therefore the Master says that the whole Trinity is redeemer by the use of power.

To that which is objected, that power was in God from eternity; it must be said that the Master does not say that he was redeemer from *power,* but from the *use of power;* and this indeed he did not have from eternity, but from time.

### Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *He is called redeemer according to his humanity; because in it he took up those Sacraments which are the cause of our redemption.* But *on the contrary:* penance and confirmation and extreme unction make for our redemption; and yet Christ did not take them up in himself.

**I respond:** It must be said that *sacraments* are here called not those which are signs and vessels in which grace is conferred, as are the seven Sacraments of the Church, but *sacraments* are here called *sacred mysteries* or *sacred* *secrets,* which are ordained to our redemption, such as Christ's incarnation, nativity, passion, and resurrection.

---