Dist. 26, 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/26/q/bon-sent-IV-d26-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about the placement of this section. For it seems that the Sacrament of matrimony ought to be placed first, or to be treated of first. First indeed, because *that which is animal is prior, then that which is spiritual*; but matrimony regards the animal state,
another [Sacrament regards] the spiritual: therefore etc. — Likewise, matrimony was instituted first among all things: therefore it ought first to have been determined concerning it.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as has been touched upon, the Sacraments are not ordered according to a *state of perfection,* or *of imperfection,* nor according to the *time of institution;* but they are ordered according to *comparison* to the state of the man needing these Sacraments. And since the first five Sacraments regard need *in itself* principally, but the last two are *for another,* namely order and matrimony; matrimony among the rest has less of the property of the Sacraments of the new law and less of perfection, since at the present time it is an indulgence: therefore rightly it is determined concerning it after the others. And thus the response to the objections is clear.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Under a precept it was said to men: Increase and multiply,* etc. Since the same thing was said also to the beasts, which are not capable of reason, how could such a precept be given?

**I respond:** It must be said that to man there was both a *blessing,* and a *precept* both *moral* and *sacramental: the blessing* by reason of the power in generating, but the *precept* by reason of the capacity in reasoning, but the *sacramental precept* by reason of the indivisible conjunction in signifying. From this it is clear that to the beasts that word was only a *blessing,* because they are not capable of reason; it is also clear that it was not *sacramental* except by reason of the institution of matrimony in the conjunction of Adam and Eve, which followed afterward.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Of the lesser goods is matrimony, which does not merit the palm.* For it seems false, because everything that is done out of charity merits the palm; but someone can out of charity contract [marriage] and know his wife: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that that word is either understood only when someone uses matrimony to *avoid fornication,* or it is understood of the *palm,* according as it denotes a certain *super-excellence* with respect to merit as regards the *aureole,* or as regards the *sixtyfold fruit*.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Of the lesser evils, that is, the venial ones, is the coitus which is done for the cause of incontinence.* For it seems false to say: because incontinence is a mortal sin: therefore also the intercourse which is done on account of incontinence is a mortal sin.

**I respond:** It must be said that intercourse being done *for the cause of incontinence* can be understood in two ways: either so that incontinence be understood as [something] *to be spurned,* or so that it be understood as [something] *to be attained* or *to be pursued;* and in the first way the Master understands it, in the second way he opposes [it]. — But whether there is sin in one who intends to have intercourse thus, will be shown better below.

---