Dist. 15, Part 2, 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/15/q/bon-sent-IV-d15-p2-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that Gregory says: *Because from the fountain of the grace of God this is instilled into his heart, that he may at least thus come gradually to penitence.* For according to this it seems that grace is given gradually, and that sin is gradually expelled. On the contrary: above, in the second book, distinction twenty-six, it is said that prevenient grace is «faith with love»; and this is not compatible with fault.

**I respond:** It must be said that God is said to instill not only the gift of sanctifying grace, but also the gift of freely-given grace [gratia gratis data]. And both are called prevenient grace: either that which prevenes and disposes the will to the reception of grace, and this is freely-given grace; or that which prevenes the work, but nevertheless makes the will good. The Master therefore here speaks of freely-given grace, [and] in the second [place] of sanctifying grace.

### Doubt II

Likewise, upon this: *For there are many kinds of almsgiving*; it is to be noted here that one almsgiving is corporal, another spiritual. Corporal almsgiving is sevenfold, as is contained in this verse:

> *I visit, give drink, feed, ransom, clothe, gather in, bury.*

Now the sufficiency of these can be assigned thus. These differences are ordered against the defects of the body, or of the soul as united to the body. And man is thus defined: man is an animate substance; by this is touched the vegetative [power], which needs a twofold restoration, namely of the hot and the dry, and this is by food; and of the cold and the

humid, and this is by drink; and so there is a twofold work of mercy. *The sensitive* [power]: and for this is necessary a twofold covering against external harms, namely a *remote* one, and this is lodging; and a *near* one, and this is clothing; and so there is a twofold work of mercy. *The rational* [power]: and this is a free substance, and this is born to have liberty, namely from *prison* and from *servitude*; against confinement in prison, then, is visitation; against servitude, redemption. *The mortal* [condition]: and according to this death is present to it, and afterward it needs burial; and so there are seven.

Or otherwise. A defect or misery is either of the *body*, or of the *composite*. If of the body; so there is burial. If of the composite; either from within, or from without. If from within; either on account of disproportion, and so there is sickness; or on account of consumption, and this either of *the hot and the dry*, and so hunger; or of *the humid and the cold*, and so thirst. — If from without; either *voluntary*, and so there is imprisonment; or *natural*, and this either by a higher nature, and for this lodging; or by a lower one, and against this clothing.

Likewise spiritual almsgiving is sevenfold, as is contained in this verse:

> *Teach,*
> *Counsel, chastise, console, remit, bear, pray.*

Now the sufficiency is taken thus. For a spiritual defect either is such that it *cannot* be relieved through man immediately, but [only] through God, and then it is the last, namely prayer; or it *can* [be relieved], and then it is either of the *cognitive* [power], or of the *affective*. If of the cognitive; either it is ignorance of *things to be known*, and then it is teaching; or of *things to be done*, and so it is counsel. If of the affective; either it is *fault*, or *penalty*. If fault; either against *us*, and then it is remission; or against *others*, and then it is correction. If however it is *penalty*; either then he is to be relieved by *word*, and so consolation; or by *deed*, and so support. — And so there are seven: teaching, counsel, remission, correction, consolation, support, and prayer.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *But that [almsgiving] is greater, by which we forgive from the heart*; which almsgiving is greater, whether the *corporal* or the *spiritual*. And that the corporal [is greater], it seems, because, in Matthew twenty-five, the Lord will make mention in the judgment only of the corporal. — But against this is: because, as a spiritual substance is related, as the soul to the body, so is [spiritual] almsgiving to [corporal] almsgiving; but the soul is worth much more than the body: therefore [greater is] spiritual almsgiving than corporal.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as Augustine says, and as is had in the text, spiritual almsgiving is worthier and nobler, but the corporal is more manifest; and because the Lord was speaking to an unlearned people, therefore he makes mention of the corporal, hinting at the spiritual from the lesser, for anyone who has understanding.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *He who wishes to give alms in an ordered way ought to begin first from himself*; because it is greater and more perfect to love enemies than friends: therefore, by likeness, it is more perfect to love another than to love oneself, and to pity another than oneself: therefore the right order is to pity another first. — Likewise, man through penitence ought to be austere with himself and to judge himself, and so mercy ought not to begin from us, but justice.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a twofold portion in us, namely corporal and spiritual, and according to this there is a twofold defect and a twofold mercy. For there is a mercy with respect to disadvantage and evil regarding the soul, and there is a mercy with respect to disadvantage and evil which is of the body. To hate the first disadvantage belongs to the spiritual man, the second disadvantage belongs to the carnal man. I say therefore that with respect to the soul each one ought to be provident, and no one in this ought to be hard with himself, because this is not justice, but wickedness. But in the corporal [matter], provided it does not exceed [measure], it is praiseworthy that one be hard with himself and kind to others. But Augustine understands [this] of the spiritual, not of the corporal.

### Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *For almsgiving is a work of mercy.* For it seems to be said badly, because upon that [text] of Matthew six: *Let not [thy] left hand*

*[know]* etc.; the Gloss [says]: «Almsgiving is a part of justice». — Likewise, satisfaction is a part of justice, and almsgiving is a part of satisfaction: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that to give alms to one in need can be twofold: either only because one considers the *neediness*, and so it is of piety; or because one considers the *neediness and the debt*, because it has been imposed on him, or because he himself owes [it], since he has a surplus; and so it is a part of justice, and so it is in satisfaction; nevertheless piety is reduced to justice.

### Doubt VI

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *that those remaining in mortal sin, even if [they give] large alms* etc.; whether it is more useful to give large alms than small. And it seems that *not*: because either a man is *outside charity*, or *in charity*. If outside, he loses great [alms] just as small, and conversely, as the Master says in the text. If in charity; but God weighs works according to the quantity of charity: therefore whether little or much be done, from the same quantity of charity, one is worth just as much as the other. — Likewise, «God weighs not *how much*, but from *how much*», as is plain. For the Lord, in Luke twenty-one, said of the widow who cast two small coins into the treasury: *Amen I say to you, that this widow cast in more than all.* — But on the contrary: if this were so: then the rich man would be foolish, who should give great money to God; nor ought the priest to impose on him more than a halfpenny, if so much is worth to him as much as one mark.

**I respond:** It must be said that of the quantity of almsgiving one is to speak either by comparison to the *same* [person], or to *diverse* [persons]. If to the same, then it is better and more useful to give more than less; and there is a threefold utility: first, because, if he is *in charity*, he satisfies the more; second, because, if he is *outside* [charity], he disposes himself the more to grace; third, because, whether he be *outside* or *within*, he multiplies intercessors; and this is what the Lord counsels in Luke sixteen: *Make yourselves friends* etc. — But if by comparison to *diverse* [persons], one almsgiving does not surpass another almsgiving in proportion as to merit and satisfaction. For the poor woman merits as much in the donation of a bit of bread as the rich man in the donation of a greater [one]. In this, however, riches excel, because they can multiply spiritual friends, who are bound to pray for them.

### Doubt VII

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says, that *they act in a disordered way, when they do not begin from themselves* etc. For according to this it seems that order is necessary to almsgiving: therefore if anyone gives alms first to one to whom he ought to give later, he does not make satisfaction. — On the contrary, suppose that he gives to the less needy, when he is not bound to give to the other, because he could lawfully refuse both; he does not keep the order, and yet does not sin: therefore he does not seem to lose the fruit of the almsgiving. — Likewise it is asked, whether in the order of giving alms *goodness* is to be attended to, or *neediness*. And that [it is] neediness, it seems: because he who gives to a rich man does not give alms, but he gives alms who gives to a poor evil man, since he is a neighbor and to be sustained. — The contrary of this is had in Ecclesiasticus twelve: *Give to the just, and receive not the sinner.*

It is asked, then, about the order of giving alms. **I respond:** It must be said that certain things make for the ordering of almsgiving as to *being*, certain as to *well-being*. On the part of the *giver*, namely, to [its] being there contributes true mercy and piety, and this is what proceeds from right charity; without this there is no almsgiving, [as in] the first to the Corinthians thirteen: *If I should distribute [my goods] into food for the poor* etc. — Certain [things] on the part of the *receiver*, and this is neediness, either *true* or *apparent*: true, and of this [says] Luke fourteen: *When thou makest a feast, call the poor and the feeble* etc. — Certain [things] on the part of the *gift*, and this is that one can give it, on account of his having dominion over it, [as in] Proverbs three: *Honor the Lord with thy substance*; [and] Ecclesiasticus thirty-four: *The offering of him that sacrificeth from what is unjust is defiled.* — Certain [things] on the part of *intention*, namely that the *intention be right*, because in Matthew six it is said of hypocrites that *they have received their reward*; and therefore it is said there: *But when thou doest almsgiving let not [thy left hand] know* etc.

But certain [things pertain] to *well-being*, namely that there be

in the *receiver* holiness and goodness, and of this [says] Ecclesiasticus twelve: *Give to the good, and receive not the sinner*; he says this not by way of casting off, but of postponing; or he understands [it] of a heretic, to whom alms are not to be given except in extreme necessity. — It is required also that in the *giver* there be cheerfulness, [as in] the second to the Corinthians nine: *God loveth a cheerful giver.* — It is required that in the *gift* there be abundance, either truly or proportionally, [as in] Tobit four: *If thou have much, give abundantly.* — It is required that in the *giving* there be quickness, because he who gives quickly gives twice, [as in] Proverbs three: *Say not to thy friend, Go, and come again*; and [in] Ecclesiasticus four: *Defer not to give to him that is in distress.*

And so it is plain that there are eight conditions: four of *being*, and four of *well-being*; and to give in an ordered way as to the first conditions belongs to being, as to the second by no means.

### Doubt VIII

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says, *that past goods give to eternal life not confidence, but a milder penalty*; he speaks of those [goods] which, done from charity, were afterward mortified. But on the contrary: those works were worthy of eternal life: therefore if they be otherwise rewarded, it seems that they are rewarded below the worthy [measure]: therefore it seems that one can hope for eternal life from them, since God does not reward goods below the worthy [measure]. — Likewise, it seems that they do nothing toward a milder penalty, because evils previously done outside charity do not diminish glory, when man is in heaven: therefore neither [do] goods [diminish] penalty. — Likewise, they seem to increase the penalty, because [in] the second of Peter, chapter two: *It had been better for them not to know the way of truth, than, after they have known it, to turn back.*

**I respond:** It must be said that those goods make for a milder penalty, not because they diminish the *penalty* owed to sin, but because they diminish the *time* of sinning; and then he was not in sins, when he was in grace. But by reason of the sins afterward committed it does not diminish, but occasionally increases the contempt; and therefore he converts goods into evils for himself, just as for the penitent God converts evils into goods. — As to what is objected, then, that they are meritorious of eternal life; it must be said that they are not worthy except on the supposition of perseverance; and therefore, when one falls, they become unworthy and are called mortified, and therefore they are not worthy to be rewarded with eternal life. Nor however do they remain altogether unrewarded, because he who did [them] had joy; and further, of those works they rejoice who remained in the mystical body. It can also be that by their merit God draws a man back from many sins.

### Doubt IX

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *The Lord never healed anyone whom he did not wholly free.* For it seems to be said falsely: because in Mark eight it is said of the blind man whom the Lord enlightened, that he first saw *men as trees walking.* If you say that afterward he gradually healed him wholly; it is asked: since he could heal suddenly, why did he heal successively?

**I respond:** It must be said that he was wholly healed, because in body and in mind; for corporal health is not useful except insofar as it is ordered to the spiritual; and because the Lord acted perfectly and usefully, therefore he restored both. — As to what is asked, then: why gradually? it must be said that there is signified the healing from a sequel, of which kind is blindness. For although fault is healed in an instant, yet not the penalty. Whence the Gloss there: «Whom he could heal with one word he heals gradually, that he may show the greatness of human blindness, which scarcely and as it were by degrees returns to the light».

### Doubt X

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *True penitence strives to lead [one] back to the purity of baptism.* For it seems false, because it is said in Amos five: *He will add no more, that the virgin of Israel may rise again*; likewise, in chapter eight: *They shall fall and not rise again*; the Gloss: «She will not return to her former felicity».

**I respond:** It must be said that it is a different thing to say they will rise again to their former *dignity* and to their former *purity*. For dignity regards the glory of the state, but purity regards the cleansing from every stain. Now it is possible that every fault be deleted through penitence both as to stain and as to guilt, when it [penitence] is complete; and as to this he understands [it], because this was [the case] in baptism; but as to the dignity of innocence the penitent does not rise, just as neither did Adam rise again.

### Doubt XI

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Let him know himself culpably hard, who does not show the sorrow for sin by tears.* For it seems to be said badly: because it is not

in our power to weep: therefore it seems that no one is culpable if he does not weep. — Likewise, tears are something external: therefore since a blind man can be penitent just as well as one having eyes, it seems that weeping does nothing.

**I respond:** It must be said that someone is hard in two ways: one [is hard] from nature or from the dryness of the head, and such a one is hard for external tears; another is prone to external tears for *loss*, but not for *sin*; and this one is said to be culpably hard, either because it is a sequel of past fault, or of present negligence, because he does not examine sin as he ought, nor hate [it]; or because he ought to reckon himself culpable. And perhaps in these ways Augustine wished to call him culpably hard; about the last way, however, there is no doubt.