Dist. 18, 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/18/q/bon-sent-IV-d18-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 he says: *The soul has the stain of the thing and the stench of sin* etc. It is asked how these differ from one another. — It is also asked: why is sin said to have a stench rather than a heat, or some other property of a sensible thing?

**I respond:** It must be said that although sin is one in itself, nevertheless according to its different comparison to *our judgment* it obtains three names. For our judgment is had in three ways, namely in the speculative mode, or as it extends to affect, or as it extends to *effect*. — Likewise also the *divine judgment* is to be considered in a threefold ground with respect to sin: either in the mode of speculation, and thus sin is to it a stain, on account of the ground of foulness which it there considers; or in the affective mode, and thus sin is to it a stench, in that a rightly ordered affect flees from it; or as it issues into the effect of punishing, [and] thus sin is called the debt of eternal death. Therefore it obtains three names according to its comparison to the threefold act of the divine judgment, namely of discerning, of approving or rejecting, and thirdly of sentencing. — Or otherwise: sin is compared to that in which it is, and thus, because it stains him, it is called a *stain*; or to another neighbor, in whose affect it is not, and it is said to be a *stench* in him; or to God, and thus it is called the *bond of eternal death*.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that Ambrose says: *The Word of the Lord forgives sins, [also] the priest and the judge*; what is called *the Word of the Lord*? If the Son of God; but that same one is the judge, namely the Son of God: therefore he does not well divide by opposition. — Likewise, it does not belong to a judge to forgive sins, but rather to punish; therefore it seems to be assigned ill. For it is said in the Psalm: *When I shall take the time, I will judge justices.* — Likewise, the following text seems to contradict: «The priest exhibits his office, but exercises the rights of no power»: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that Ambrose here touches a threefold mode of forgiving sins, namely according to the key of *authority*, and this is [the key] of God judging; according to the key of *excellence*, and this is [the key] of the incarnate Word; according to the key of *ministry*, and this is [the key] of the priest himself. And so it is plain how those are distinguished; and it is plain that there is no contrariety in the text. For Ambrose means to say that sins are said to be forgiven by the priest not in the mode of one effecting, but of one ministering, and this the following text says.

To that which is objected, that the judge punishes; it must be said that judgment is twofold: *in the present*, and this is the judgment in the forum of penitence, and this is more of mercy than of justice, because now is the time of mercy; and another *final* judgment, and that is of justice, which, signally marking [it], he says: *When I shall take the time*; and of that one he objects, but not of this one. And so that is plain.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that Augustine says, that *the charity of the Church forgives sins.* For it seems to be said falsely, because God alone forgives sins; but the charity of the Church is not God, but the unity of the mystical body: therefore etc. If you say that the charity of the Church is taken not *formally*, but *exemplarily* for the charity which is the Holy Spirit; likewise one could say that God of heaven and earth forgives sins, and so it would no more befit the Church than another.

**I respond:** It must be said that charity there stands for created charity; which is plain through the adjoined determination, when he says: «Which is poured forth through the Holy Spirit». But this is said to forgive sins as to *merit*, as he expounds below, because holy men through their charity merit the first grace. — Or it is said to forgive for this reason, because to none are [sins] forgiven except to those who are received within ecclesiastical unity; whence heretics and schismatics, as long as they persevere outside the Church in heresy and schism, are able in no way to obtain grace either for themselves or for others, speaking of adults.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about the exposition of Jerome upon this word: *Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth* etc.; that if this were only through showing, then there is no difference of the priest of the new testament from [that] of the old. — And again, if the priest is an arbiter and can impose penalties according to his own arbitration: therefore it seems that according to his will he can loose and bind. — Likewise, some hypocrite who has the signs of contrition is absolved by the priest; I ask therefore here: does the key *err*, or *not*? If it errs: therefore he ought not to absolve him; but this is false, because a judge ought to judge according to the things which appear. If it does not err: therefore it seems that such a one is loosed in heaven.

**I respond:** It must be said that as to absolution *from fault* the priest is had in the mode of one demonstrating; as to absolution *from penalty* he is had in the mode of one remitting. — But it is to be attended to that the efficacy of the Sacrament depends on the fitness of the one receiving; «for the acts of active things are in the disposed patient». I say therefore that upon such a one, who seems contrite, the key has its effect, as far as concerns itself; but that it does not have [it], this is from the feigning of that man, so that, although the key does not err, nevertheless that man errs and deceives. — But if he who looses and binds proceeds according to his *will* and not according to the rule of knowledge or of right; thus the key does not have efficacy; and against such men, who wished to loose and bind at [their own] pleasure, Jerome speaks, showing that this proceeds from haughtiness and pride. Whence just as the Sacraments are deprived of efficacy, either because they are not rightly administered, or because they are not rightly received; so it must be understood concerning the keys.