Dist. 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/2/q/bon-sent-IV-d2-dubia
----------------------------------------
## DOUBTS ON THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this which he says, that *others are in remedy against sin*. For it seems wrong to *divide* these Sacraments from one another, since all the Sacraments are in remedy against sin.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master does not say *without qualification* that some are in remedy; rather he says that some are in remedy *against sin*; and such are those which confer grace and adorn the soul.

But from this division, which the Master here sets down, is suggested the *sufficiency* of the Sacraments. For a certain one is *preservative* medicine, which guards against disease but does not free from it; and such is matrimony. — A certain one is *curative*, and this frees through grace; and it is varied according to the threefold grace, namely the *baptismal*, and thus baptism; the *penitential*, and thus penance; the *final*, and thus extreme unction. — But a certain one is *strengthening* medicine. Now man needs to be strengthened from a twofold cause: either on account of the *difficulty of the struggle*, and thus confirmation; or on account of the *weariness of the journey*, and thus the viaticum of the Eucharist; but order is for administering both and for strengthening in either way. — Or thus: *strengthening* and support is in three ways: either by the *strengthening of power*, and thus confirmation; or by the *furnishing of food*, and thus the Eucharist; or by the *support of some aid*, and thus is order. — And thus it is clear that the division of the Master is correct, and from this the division of the Sacraments is also clear. This manner of assigning sufficiency differs from the one previously assigned, since that is taken with respect to *diseases*, but this with respect to *modes of curing*.

Likewise it is asked: why does the Master *order* them thus? For it seems that his reasoning contradicts the enumeration as regards the *order*. For if matrimony is preservative medicine and is also instituted earlier, it seems that he ought to have treated of it first. Similarly it can be objected against the others.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master orders them well; and the ground of his order is clear thus. For certain Sacraments regard *all in common*, and thus are the five preceding ones; or *some specially*, and thus are the two following ones, namely order and marriage; and just as the common comes before the special, so the first five come before the last two. For the order among the first five is clear of itself. For baptism is for the curing of wounds, confirmation for the conservation of the cure once obtained, the Eucharist for the advancement of the cure obtained and conserved; and because not all who receive always conserve, therefore there is penance for the repairing; the fifth is extreme unction for its consummation. And from this is clear the order and sufficiency of those five which regard all in common. — But those which regard *special states* are two: for they regard either the *perfect*, and thus is order; or the *infirm* according to fittingness, and thus is matrimony; but order is set before on account of the dignity of the Sacrament. — Or, order is of persons generating spiritually, but matrimony of persons generating corporeally; and each is necessary to the Church, but the first is of the principal intention, the second by consequence. And thus the order is clear.

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that these Sacraments ought not to have been instituted before, *because they obtained their power from his death and passion*. For it seems wrong to say this, since the Sacraments of the old law and faith had the whole power of justifying from the death of Christ. — Likewise, it seems rather from the resurrection, because in Romans, chapter four, it is said: *He rose again for our justification*.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Sacraments of the new law have great power, because they have it from

the passion, not merely promised, but also fully paid; and the payment binds the divine mercy to bestow more liberally; and this was not so except after the death.

As to what is objected concerning the resurrection, it must be said that the merit was principally in the passion, but the signification of our justification from sin is signified in the death and resurrection, so that the old man may be destroyed and a new one be made.

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *John foreannounced the baptism of Christ by his own baptism*; what necessity there was for such a foreannouncement. If you say, in order to accustom [men to it]; I ask likewise: why did the other Sacraments not have things to accustom [men to them]? If you say that baptism is more difficult to believe; this does not solve it, because the Eucharist is of great difficulty and of great efficacy.

**I respond:** It must be said that baptism fittingly had a preamble; and the ground of this is that it is the *first* and *necessary* Sacrament: for because necessary, it behooved all to receive it; because first, lest men be unfit and unprepared, it behooved that something similar should precede. But it is not so in the other Sacraments. For baptism, once received, disposes to all the rest; and therefore the others do not need it; indeed, the accustoming of baptism, by consequence, accustoms [men] to the others.

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *it was called [the Gospel] of man, because nothing was there done which man would not do*. For it seems that this reasoning is null: because it is called the Gospel of a man, as of John and Matthew, and yet in the Gospel something is done which man does not do. If you say that the Gospel is called a tidings and tells something outwardly, and this belongs to the one announcing, not only to the one commanding; it is objected concerning doctrine, which is said to be of the one teaching; and yet, as Augustine says, « God alone teaches within ».

**I respond:** It must be said that the doctrine is called Peter's, not because Peter does the whole of what is there done effectively, but because nothing is there done which Peter does not do, either effectively, as the outward word, or dispositively, as is the inner instruction. For a good cleric teaches better than a bad one; not so does a good one baptize better than a bad one.

### Dub. V.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *The baptism of John was handed on in the name of the one to come*. For it seems false, because John knew that Christ had already come, since he baptized him: therefore he baptized, or ought to have baptized, not in the name of the one to come, but rather of the one who had come.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Lord is said to have come as regards the *assumption* of flesh; but the usefulness or the end of his coming is determined as regards the redemption of the human race and his manifestation; and since, although Christ had then assumed flesh, yet, because he had not yet been manifested, [John] baptized in the name of the one to come, as of the future; and therefore, when the Lord began to manifest himself through wonders, his baptism had to cease. Whence also John, being in prison, wishing to show his disciples that his ministry was fulfilled and that his baptism had ceased, sent them to Christ, in Matthew chapter eleven: *Art thou he that is to come*? so that through the words of the Lord the disciples might recognize him, in whose name John had baptized as the one to come, and therefore, since he ought no longer be called the one to come, that his Sacrament had ceased. — And this is the reason why John baptized rather in the name of the one to come than of Christ, to show that his baptism was for a time. For Christ is always Christ, but not always the one to come; and therefore the baptism of Christ, which had to last forever, was in the name of Christ, or of the Trinity, but the baptism of John in the name of the one to come.

---