Dist. 40, 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/40/q/bon-sent-IV-d40-dubia
----------------------------------------
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about this which Gregory says: *That each one should [reckon] his offspring up to the seventh degree* etc. Why did he prohibit rather at this degree, or up to this degree, and did not proceed beyond, nor stop short of it?

**I respond:** It must be said that this has a *literal*, a *moral*, an *allegorical*, and an *anagogical* ground. A *literal* one, because up to that time, in ancient times, blood-relationships could be reckoned well enough, and men accounted themselves consanguineous. — A *moral* one, because in the number seven the totality of the whole of life is comprised, and men are separated from their blood-relations up to seven degrees, so that

it may be signified that at every time the unlawful embrace is to be avoided, and that a wife is to be so had that continence is always kept, so that all may be *having wives as though not having them*; and that they be so joined that they be nonetheless separated. — The *allegorical* one is this: for since the body consists of four humors, and the soul of three powers in respect of its faculties, it is thereby signified that the husband ought to belong to the wife, and the wife is wholly the husband's; hence it is that the offspring proceeding from them, in order that they may rightly be joined in marriage, ought to be distanced by seven degrees. — But the *anagogical* one is this: that since Christ is not joined to the blessed souls in a perfect and confirmed conjunction before the eighth [day] of the resurrection; so bridegroom and bride ought not to be joined before the eighth degree. — And thus it is plain that the seventh degree was prohibited, and why the prohibition extended up to the seventh degree inclusively. And although this constitution was highly fitting, nevertheless it had to be revoked for a cause necessary and useful and fitting.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *Those denying that there is a degree of kinship between father and son, since father and son are one flesh.* For he seems to speak badly: because, if husband and wife are one flesh, whoever is near of kin to the wife in some degree is in the same degree related by affinity to the husband: therefore in whatever degree one is near of kin to the father, [he is in the same degree near] to the son, and conversely. If therefore the father cannot contract [marriage] with any woman who is related to him in the fourth line, ascending or transversal: therefore neither can the son, nor conversely; which is manifestly false. — Likewise, if they are one flesh, and « whatever things are the same as one and the same thing are the same as each other »; therefore if father and son are one flesh; since the son and his own son are one flesh, then these three are one flesh, and so on proceeding further: therefore there would be no degree in consanguinity.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt father and son do make a *degree*, because, as has been shown, otherwise there would be no degree in consanguinity. But as to their saying that they are one flesh, they said this on account of a certain more expressive manner of speaking, because the one immediately draws his flesh from the other, with whom he ought to have, and does have, much conformity, by reason of which also he is called one flesh [with him]. And thus that is plain.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *in six ages of the world the generation of man* etc. It is asked what these six ages are. For since the world is perpetual, it does not seem to have ages after the manner of a man.

**I respond:** It must be said that the world has ages according to its present state. For since the world grows old, it must also be that it was once young; if therefore it had old age, it also had youth, and through this the intermediate ages. But these ages are assigned in that state according to its advance toward glory; whence, since the world has advanced little by little in knowledge, just as in a single man diverse ages are assigned, so also in the world.

Now in man six ages are assigned. The first is infancy, up to the seventh year; the second, boyhood, up to the fourteenth; the third, adolescence, up to the twenty-fifth, according to others up to the twenty-eighth; the fourth, young manhood, up to the fiftieth; the fifth, gravity or old age, up to the seventieth; the sixth, senility or the decrepit age, up to the end. — Likewise in the world the first age is from Adam up to Noah; the second, from Noah up to Abraham; the third, from Abraham up to David; the fourth, from David up to the transmigration of Babylon; the fifth, from the transmigration up to Christ; the sixth, from Christ up to the end. — And they are called *ages*, not because they were of equal span, but because in each of them something new and some renewal took place. In the first was the creation of Adam and his fall; in the second was the flood; in the third, circumcision and the Law; in the fourth, the anointing of kings; in the fifth, the captivity and liberation of the people; in the sixth, our redemption. And thus that is plain.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which Gregory says: *To the English people also, which had lately come to the faith* etc. For he says that he dispensed anew, because they had been newly converted to the faith; but this reason does not seem fitting, because the primitive Church, in which was the beginning of our conversion, was most perfect, since

to those newly coming the grace of the Holy Spirit is given in abundance: therefore they are the more fit to bear the weight of an ecclesiastical statute.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is otherwise with those who were converted at the first, and with those who are converted now. For just as God at the giving of the Law worked a multitude of miracles, such as He did not work afterwards in the time of the Law; so in the new [Law] He gave the Holy Spirit in a greater fullness of abundance: and therefore it is not alike. And the reason for this is quite fitting, because those who then were, needed greater strength; but now it is not so, rather they are tender, however somewhat fervent they may be: and therefore many things must be tolerated in such persons.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *I have not written this in order that, if they be found within their own consanguinity, they should be separated*. It is asked thus — let it be supposed that, the prohibition of the seven degrees standing — whether any who contract [marriage] within those degrees can remain together, when a revocation of the mandate supervenes. And that they can, seems so, because they are prohibited by no law. — But on the opposite side is that they were unlawfully joined and contracted marriage: « for constitutions and laws are not revoked back upon the past »: therefore it does not seem that they can remain together.

**I respond:** It must be said that, since one must always stand for the marriage, so far as is possible and lawful; if such persons, when the new statute supervenes, wish to remain together, they can both consent and cohabit, because they are not prohibited; and from that time it begins to be a marriage. And this constitution is not revoked back upon the past, because it does not confirm the first contract, but grants the power of contracting anew. And thus that is plain.

---