Dist. 10, 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/4/d/10/q/bon-sent-IV-d10-p1-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that Augustine says: *That the Sacrament of the Church consists of two things,* etc. For it seems to be said falsely, because out of the body of Christ and a visible sign nothing one comes to be.

**I respond:** It must be said that, although it does not become

one by essence, it nevertheless becomes one Sacrament, because a Sacrament does not express something absolute, but rather something *in relation to something*. Hence they are said to make one Sacrament, not because they become one, but because they are ordered to one.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Just as the person of Christ consists and is constituted of God and man.* For it seems to be spoken improperly, because the person of Christ is most simple: therefore it has no composition. — Likewise, no likeness seems to hold, because there is a union in the person and a union altogether everlasting and inseparable; but this one is for a brief time.

**I respond:** It must be said that the likeness is regarded as to two things: both as to *the things which are said to be composed,* and also as to *the manner of the composite.* As to *the things which are said to be composed,* because, just as there is there something spiritual and invisible, namely the divine nature, and something corporeal and visible; so also in the matter at hand. As to *the manner of the composite*, because, just as the divine nature and the human are said to be composed, not because some *one* is constituted out of them, but because they are united *in one,* namely in the one person of Christ; so in the matter at hand they are said to be composed, because they are ordered to one.

What therefore he objects concerning composition must be answered thus: that it is said *broadly* that the person of Christ consists and is constituted of two things, because it has those two natures in itself. Hence it is called *composite,* because placed-with-another, not made-out-of-others. — What is objected concerning inseparability must be answered thus: that as to this the likeness is not regarded.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked further about this, that he says: *The Sacrament of the Church is constituted of two things,* since that Sacrament is said to consist of flesh and blood and of the species of wine and bread, likewise of species and the true body; it is asked: in what way differently? — Likewise, since it is constituted of *Sacrament and reality*; it is asked how they stand to one another by way of parts: for either they are *subjective* parts, or *integral* ones. Not subjective, because it would not be constituted of them. If *integral*: but an integral part does not receive the denomination of the whole: therefore the Sacrament cannot be constituted of Sacrament and reality.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Sacrament of the new law has two things, namely that it is *figure* and *cause*. Since therefore that Sacrament has the character of *signifying* from the exterior species, but the character of *giving grace* from the true flesh of Christ; therefore Augustine pointedly says that the Sacrament of the Church is constituted of two things, namely of the *Sacrament,* that is, the sign, to which he appropriates the character of Sacrament on account of signification, and of the *reality of the Sacrament,* which effects.

And by this is made clear that which is asked: because in one way the two species are parts, namely bread and wine, than the species with the reality, because only as to the one, namely as to the complete character of signifying, as was touched on above.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *The flesh is the Sacrament of the flesh, and the blood is the Sacrament of the blood.* For it seems to be said falsely, because nothing is the sign of its very self. *If you say to me* that the same thing under diverse states can be sign and signified, as the flesh, insofar as it is under the Sacrament, may be the sign of itself insofar as it is in heaven, which the following text seems to say; *on the contrary:* a sign ought to be better known to the senses than the signified; but the flesh, insofar as it is under the Sacrament, is invisible and impalpable, in heaven visible and palpable: therefore it is not the sign of it. *If you say,* as the Master says, that the flesh is taken for the sign of the flesh, namely the bread; *on the contrary:* the species of bread is visible and palpable; but Augustine says that by the invisible flesh the visible flesh is signified.

**I respond:** It must be said that the discourse is tropological, and not by a single trope only, but a twofold one, because what belongs to the *sign* is attributed to the signified, and what belongs to the *signified* is attributed to the sign. For the species of bread is a sign, since it is visible; but the flesh contained within is the signified, because it is invisible. To say therefore that the invisible flesh signifies, this is to say that the species of bread, which is the sign of the invisible flesh, signifies the body of Christ visible and palpable: and that species of bread is the invisible flesh, not because it is not seen, but

because its content, which is the flesh, is invisible and intelligible to the extent that it is contained there; as if Augustine wished to say: the flesh of Christ, visible and palpable, is signified and contained by the species of bread invisibly and intelligibly.

### Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *The body of Christ is signified, which is visible and palpable in its own* form. For it seems to be said falsely, because Gregory in the Easter homily [says]: «What can be touched must of necessity be corruptible»: therefore if the body of Christ is incorruptible, it is impalpable.

**I respond:** It must be said that Gregory understands it of palpability according to the touch of a body not glorified, and of the palpability by which something is said to be palpable by necessity, not by power — in which way the glorified body of Christ is palpable.