Dist. 31, 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/31/q/bon-sent-III-d31-dubia
----------------------------------------
# Doubts concerning the text of the Master

### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked concerning that which he says: *Charity which can be abandoned was never true*; since according to this it seems that immutability belongs to the truth of charity: therefore if a man on the way is always changeable from evil to good, it seems that he never has true charity. *If you say* that the Master says below that that truth « is not referred to the essence of charity, but to its efficacy »; this does not solve [it]: first, because many wayfarers have charity which leads them to true beatitude; and yet, as long as they are wayfarers, they can abandon charity: therefore these two can stand together, that charity can be abandoned and that it was true. — Likewise, the charity of the way and [the charity] of the fatherland are of one account: therefore if it belongs to the truth of the charity of the fatherland that it be immutable: it seems likewise that it belongs to the truth of the charity of the way. And thus Augustine seems simply to hold that true charity is never lost; but this is simply false, as is manifestly known by experience: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that that statement can soundly be understood, so that the stress be made on a twofold word: first, so that the stress be made on the word on the part of the subject, in this that it is said: « charity which can be abandoned ». For a certain property or quality is abandoned on account of this, that it cannot resist what impels [it]; another is abandoned from the mere will of the one having [it]. When therefore Augustine says that charity is not true which can be abandoned; he understands this of that love which does not have the efficacy of resisting; for such a love, which can by a supervening temptation be expelled by a certain violence, does not deserve to be called the love of charity, whose [property] it is to hold God most dear and to love [Him] for His own sake and above all things and to bear all things easily for the sake of the beloved. — Otherwise it can be understood, so that the stress be made on this that he says: « it was never true »; for a true virtue is so called in two ways: either because it has the operation due to it, or

because it leads to the end on account of which it is. And in the statement set forth charity is said not to be true, which can be abandoned, because, if it is abandoned, the due end is not acquired; therefore it is to be reckoned rather vain than true. Nor does Augustine here speak of any power whatsoever of abandoning charity, but of the power which is joined to the act.

To that which is objected, that the changeable and the immutable are not the same account; it must be said that that is understood of that which is immutable by nature, not of that which is immutable by the beneficence of the divine bounty and the influx of continual goodness, such as is perfect charity in the fatherland.

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *Christ says that the names of certain ones are written in the book of life, who afterwards went back.* For that which is written in the book of life, since that book is immutable, cannot be blotted out: therefore it seems that it is not possible that any who are written should afterwards go back and be blotted out of that book. — There is therefore the question whether anyone can be blotted out of that book. And that it can [be], seems [the case] from that which is said in the Psalm: *Let them be blotted out of the book of the living*; and in Exodus thirty-two: *Either forgive them this fault, or blot me out of the book of life.* But to the contrary is that which is said upon that of Apocalypse three: *I will not blot him out*; the Gloss: « The book of life is the foreknowledge of God, in which all things are constant ».

Alongside this it is asked concerning the book of life, what it is and what is its use.

**I respond:** To this it must be said briefly — as far as pertains to the matter at hand, because this question is determined in the fourth book, in the tractate on the resurrection — that since the book of life is the divine disposition, according to which one is ordered to life and reckoned to be worthy of life, one can be said to be written in that book in two ways: either according to the reckoning of present justice, or according to the foresight of final grace. And in the first way one is said to be written in the book of life, because his merits are written; but in the second way, not only because his merits are written, but also because he himself is ordered to life according to divine predestination. He who is written in the first way is blotted out as regards present justice, because he is now no longer reckoned worthy of life: he who is written in the second way is never blotted out. But that blotting-out does not assert any change made concerning God Himself, but only concerning the merit [that is] changed. — And thus the response to the objections is evident.

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: *Christ loved only the elect and desired their salvation.* But on the contrary: charity was broader in Christ than in us; but we do not love only the elect, but also the foreknown: therefore Christ also [did]. — Likewise, Christ loved those whom He willed to be saved; but according to that which is said in the first [letter] to Timothy, the second [chapter]: *He wills all men to be saved:* therefore it seems that He loved the reprobate as much as the elect. — Likewise, the Angels do not serve only the elect, nay even the evil, and those whom they serve they will to lead to life: therefore they love them out of charity: therefore much more strongly it seems that Christ loved all out of charity; and if this is true, then that which the Master says is not true.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was said in the first book, the will in God is distinguished according to a twofold mode. For there is in God an antecedent will and a consequent will: the antecedent will is solely from Himself, but the consequent will depends on a cause on our part. By this mode the love in Christ is to be distinguished in two ways, namely the love which is according to the antecedent will, and by this indeed He loved all, because He desired all to come to salvation, as far as is from Himself; and the love according to the consequent will, and by this, because it regards final merits, He did not love all nor desire all to come to salvation. And of this last [love] the Master understands [it], but he himself objects concerning the first. — And by this the response to the objections is evident.

---