Dist. 33, 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/33/q/bon-sent-IV-d33-dubia
----------------------------------------
### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about this which he says: *Cursed was she that was barren, who did not leave* etc. For either this is understood with respect to the curse *of punishment*, or *of fault*. If with respect to the curse *of punishment*, that is still true which [holds] that barrenness does not denote nature, but a defect and an evil, and not [a defect] of fault, therefore of punishment. If [with respect to] the curse *of fault*: then to be barren was a fault; which is manifestly false.

I respond: It must be said that this is understood of the curse *of punishment*, inasmuch as the punishment denotes not only a defect of nature, but even something more, namely the reproach of infamy; for then she was infamous and was reputed vile and ignominious, as though *the Lord had closed up her womb* — the example is that of Anna in the first [book] of Kings, chapter one — whence barren women, when they were not made fruitful, reckoned it an ignominy for themselves. Since therefore at that time all were joined to husbands and sought offspring, and if they did not have [it] they were held in ignominy; therefore all the barren were cursed, because they did not have the fruit of the womb, which that time required. — But now the fruit of good works is sought; therefore, even if a woman lacks children through *virginity*, where the barrenness is voluntary, she is not cursed, but praised; but if she lacks [them] on account of a *natural defect*, she is not cursed, but is borne with, especially if there is not in her a barrenness of good works.

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about this which Ambrose says concerning the daughters of Lot, that *for the sake of a public duty she cloaked a private fault*. For it seems he speaks falsely, because, if someone steals in order to give to the poor, he is not excused from the sin of theft: therefore neither are they [excused] from incest, since they were known by their father. — Likewise it seems that they sinned in many ways: first, because they made their father drunk; second, because both [were] with the same man; third, because they sinned with their own father.

I respond: It must be said that although the daughters of Lot may seem to have been moved out of piety, because they devised that scheme not for the delight of the flesh, but for the preservation of the human race; nevertheless they are not excused from incest: because knowingly, against the first institution of matrimony, in which father and mother are excepted, they lay with their father; and secondly, because they founded their will upon a false estimation; and therefore, even if ignorance and natural piety in some way excuse the fault, yet not from the whole, but from so much [of it]; nor does it excuse so far but that they sinned mortally, although concerning the father it may be presumed that he did not sin mortally. And this is what Ambrose means to say, that that intention, by which they intended the common good, not their own pleasure, «cloaks the private fault». For it was in truth a fault, but nevertheless it had a certain appearance of excuse from that intention, which seemed to be pious. Yet it had more of folly and of rashness than of piety: first, because they ought to have consulted their holy father; and secondly, because, even if it were true that the whole human race had been consumed, they nevertheless ought not to have attempted so horrid a deed, unless a divine command had intervened. — But in this it was made manifest, that no woman is to be trusted, because they deceived him whose chastity is gloriously proclaimed, while among such impious ones he lived so holily and laudably.

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *John had continence in act, Abraham [had it] in habit alone*. For it seems he speaks ill: because either he speaks of *virginal* continence, or *simply*. If of continence *simply*; then he speaks falsely, because Abraham had true continence *in use*. If of *virginal* [continence]; since that is «the meditation of perpetual incorruption», he did not have it, neither in *habit* nor in *act*. — And again, if «more goods are better than fewer», it seems that he would have been continent in a more perfect way.

I respond: It must be said that continence in one way denotes the *universal* privation of that act; and thus Augustine calls it the chastity *of celibates*. In another way it denotes the privation *of immoderation* or of intemperance with respect to that act; in this way it posits the act with moderation, and this he calls the chastity *of the married*. By the first a man wills in no way to have intercourse, but by the second he wills [it] when and how and with whom he ought to have intercourse. The first is nobler than the second. To have both of these *at once in use* is impossible, but to have one *in use*, the other *in habit*, is nothing unfitting. And so it was in Abraham, because he had the continence of the married *in use*, but the other *in habit*, because it would have been most easy for him, as a most temperate man, universally to abstain from woman; and he had this will, as far as was in himself. — And thus it is clear how he had both; it is clear also how he had continence *in habit*, not in act as regards total abstinence; it is clear also that it is not better to have both than the other, because the chastity of celibacy contains in itself whatever of perfection the other has.

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which Jerome says: *That all the Saints of former times were of the same merit, of which Christians now are*. For it seems he speaks ill: because, if they were of the same merit, then the state of the Law is made equal to the state of the Gospel. How therefore is it true, that after the coming of the Savior the grace of the Holy Spirit was fully poured out?

I respond: It must be said that the relative *of identity* and the adverb *of similitude* in the present authority do not denote *equality*, but rather *proportion*, so that it be understood thus: that, just as it befits the law of the Gospel *to be continent*, so [it befitted] *to marry* then. Yet this exceeds that absolutely, and the time exceeds the time, and the state the state, just as if a comparison be made of a boy to a boy, and of a man to a man or to the state of a man; so in the matter proposed it is to be understood. Whence the Saints do not intend to establish equality, but to show that that state was good, although it does not befit us to imitate [it].

### Dub. V.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *Scripture now calls them wives, now concubines*; [and] what they were according to the truth; for since they cannot at the same time be wives and concubines, Scripture seems to speak falsely.

I respond: It must be said that in very truth they were *concubines*, as the text of Genesis intimates concerning Hagar, of whom first it is said that Sarah *gave her to her husband as a wife*; and afterward it is said: *Cast out the handmaid and her son*. And Augustine expressly says, in the City of God, book sixteen, chapters twenty-five and twenty-eight, where he says that «he obeyed his wife, rendering to her the debt». Likewise it is understood of those two handmaids, the wives of Jacob, each of whom was given by her mistress to the man, and the man rendered to them the debt as to wives. Since therefore they were not joined in matrimony, therefore according to truth they were not *wives*, but *concubines*. But since he knew [them] with marital affection, and the seed was reckoned to the wives, and thus legitimate; hence it is that they are called *wives*.

Some from this wish to say that they were *true wives*, yet are called *concubines* for this reason, that they were the handmaids of the wives, and the seed was not born to them, but to the free women. — But if the figure which was there imported be attended to, which Augustine notes in the book on Baptism, and his words in the City of God, book sixteen; the first position is truer.

But if it be asked which was the truer wife between Rachel and Leah; it must be said that both were [wives], because *he served for a wife and kept [her] for a wife*, as it is said in Hosea; but nevertheless according to the affection of Jacob, Rachel [was] truer, and had more dominion or power over Jacob; but according to the divine disposition, Leah, from whose seed Christ the Lord arose, on account of whom the whole generation of Jacob, nay, every generation is blessed.

### Dub. VI.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *The choice of a gift is not sought in the succession of offspring*. For this seems to be false: for since many are joined in matrimony, and for no other reason than principally on account of offspring: therefore it seems that this is sought. — Likewise, do not spouses desire offspring and seek [it] from God? It is agreed that indeed [they do]. — Likewise, what manner of speaking is this: the choice of a gift is not sought? What is that gift?

I respond: It must be said that all goods, whatsoever we have, are gifts of God and bounties of God. It is therefore to be understood that men seek gifts and bounties of this kind, when they desire them and when they pray to God for acquiring them and labor, that they may have them. These bounties therefore can be sought in two ways: either according to *human affection*, and thus the gift of succession and of offspring is still sought and desired and chosen; or according to the *evangelical promise*. And since the evangelical law promises perfection in the present and glory in the future and spiritual gifts and not carnal [ones]; hence it is that it is well said: the choice of a gift is not sought etc., supply: according to the intention of the Gospel.

### Dub. VII.

Likewise it is asked about this which Isidore says: *The body cannot be corrupted, unless first the mind be corrupted*. For it seems that [this is] manifestly false, because to many virgins injury has been done by most wicked men, and they have been violently corrupted. *If you understand* [it] of the corruption of sin, as the Master says; *on the contrary*: every sin is in the free will: therefore it is not in the flesh or in the body.

I respond: It must be said that this is understood of the corruption which redounds to the loss of the beauty of virginity; since it is among the great goods, it can in no way be destroyed or taken away from one wholly unwilling. But he himself objects concerning any corruption whatever.

### Dub. VIII.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *It is holier to die of hunger than to eat things sacrificed to idols*. For it seems he speaks ill, because *an idol is nothing in the world*. And again: *Nothing is to be rejected*, as it is said in the first [letter] to Timothy, chapter four. And likewise it is said in the first [letter] to the Corinthians, chapter ten, that it is lawful to eat of all things.

I respond: It must be said that that is to be understood of him who eats things sacrificed to idols in reverence of the idol, or when he knows that others are scandalized on account of ignorance. Nevertheless, on account of scandal, in the article of necessity the thing sacrificed to idols is not to be given up, but with a protestation that he does not do it in reverence of the idol, it is to be taken; and then he does not scandalize.

---