title: Dist. 17

title_alt: Quod Spiritus sanctus est caritas, qua diligimus Deum et proximum

title_alt: That the Holy Spirit is the charity by which we love God and neighbor

source_text:
<!-- page 287 -->

### DISTINCTIO XVII.

### Pars 1.

#### CAP. I. *Quod Spiritus sanctus est caritas, qua diligimus Deum et proximum.*

Iam nunc accedamus ad assignandam missionem Spiritus sancti, qua invisibiliter mittitur in corda fidelium. Nam ipse Spiritus sanctus, qui Deus est ac tertia in Trinitate persona, ut supra ostensum est[^1], a Patre et Filio ac se ipso temporaliter procedit, id est, mittitur ac donatur fidelibus. Sed quae sit ista missio sive donatio, vel quomodo fiat, considerandum est.

Hoc autem ut intelligibilius doceri ac plenius perspici valeat, praemittendum est quiddam ad hoc valde necessarium. Dictum quidem est supra et sacris auctoritatibus ostensum[^2], quod Spiritus sanctus amor est Patris et Filii, quo se invicem amant et nos. His autem addendum est, quod ipse idem Spiritus sanctus est amor sive caritas, qua nos diligimus Deum et proximum. Quae caritas, cum ita est in nobis, ut nos faciat diligere Deum et proximum, tunc Spiritus sanctus dicitur mitti vel dari[^3] nobis; et qui diligit ipsam dilectionem, qua diligit proximum, in eo ipso Deum diligit, quia ipsa dilectio Deus est[^4], id est Spiritus sanctus.

Ne autem in re tanta aliquid de nostro influere[^5] videamur, sacris auctoritatibus quod dictum est corroboremus. De hoc Augustinus in octavo libro de Trinitate[^6] ait: «Qui proximum diligit, consequens est, ut ipsam praecipue dilectionem diligat. Deus autem dilectio est. Consequens ergo est, ut praecipue Deum diligat». Item in eodem[^7]: «*Deus dilectio est*, ut ait Ioannes Apostolus. Ut quid ergo imus et currimus in sublimia caelorum et ima terrarum, quaerentes eum qui est apud nos, si nos velimus esse apud eum»? «Nemo dicat: non novi, quid diligam. Diligat fratrem et diligat eandem dilectionem. Magis enim novit dilectionem, qua diligit, quam fratrem, quem diligit. Ecce iam potes notiorem Deum habere quam fratrem, plane notiorem, quia praesentiorem, quia interiorem, quia certiorem.

<!-- page 288 -->

Amplectere dilectione Deum[^8] et dilectione amplectere Deum. Ipsa est dilectio, quae omnes bonos Angelos et omnes Dei servos consociat vinculo sanctitatis. Quanto igitur saniores[^9] sumus a tumore superbiae, tanto sumus dilectione pleniores: et quo nisi Deo plenus est qui plenus est dilectione». His verbis satis ostendit Augustinus, quod dilectio ipsa, qua diligimus Deum vel proximum, Deus est. Sed adhuc apertius in eodem libro[^10] subdit dicens: «Dilectionem fraternam quantum commendet Ioannes Apostolus, attendamus. *Qui diligit*, inquit[^11], *fratrem in lumine manet, et scandalum in eo non est*. Manifestum est, quod iustitiae perfectionem in fratris dilectione posuerit. Nam in quo scandalum non est utique perfectus est. Et tamen videtur, dilectionem Dei tacuisse, quod nunquam faceret, nisi quia in ipsa fraterna dilectione vult intelligi Deum. Apertissime enim in eadem Epistola[^12] paulo post dicit ita: *Dilectissimi, diligamus invicem, quia dilectio ex Deo est: et omnis qui diligit, ex Deo natus est et cognovit Deum. Qui non diligit non cognovit Deum, quia Deus dilectio est*. Ista contextio satis aperte declarat, eandem ipsam fraternam dilectionem — nam fraterna dilectio est qua diligimus invicem — non solum ex Deo, sed etiam Deum esse tanta auctoritate praedicari, scilicet Ioannis. Cum ergo de[^13] dilectione diligimus fratrem, de Deo diligimus fratrem; nec fieri potest, ut eandem dilectionem non praecipue diligamus, qua fratrem diligimus, quoniam Deus dilectio est». Item[^14]: «*Qui non diligit fratrem non est in dilectione; et qui non est in dilectione non est in Deo, quia Deus dilectio est*». Ecce apertissime[^15] dicit, fraternam dilectionem Deum esse.

#### CAP. II. *Quod fraterna dilectio est Deus, nec Pater vel Filius, sed tantum Spiritus sanctus.*

Cum autem fraterna dilectio sit Deus, nec Pater est nec Filius, sed tantum Spiritus sanctus, qui proprie in Trinitate dilectio vel caritas dicitur. Unde Augustinus in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate[^16]: «Si in donis Dei nihil maius est caritate, et nullum est maius donum Dei quam Spiritus sanctus, quid consequentius est, quam ut ipse sit caritas, quae dicitur et Deus et ex Deo»? «Ita enim ait Ioannes[^17]: *Dilectio ex Deo est*; et paulo post: *Deus dilectio est*. Ubi manifestat, eam se dixisse dilectionem Deum, quam dixit ex Deo. Deus ergo ex Deo est dilectio». Item in eodem[^18]: «*Ioannes volens de hac re apertius loqui: In hoc, inquit, cognoscimus, quia in ipso manemus et ipse in nobis, quia de Spiritu suo dedit nobis*. Spiritus itaque sanctus, de quo dedit nobis, facit nos in Deo manere et ipsum in nobis; hoc autem facit dilectio. Ipse est igitur Deus dilectio. Ipse ergo[^19] significatur, ubi legitur: *Deus dilectio est*». Ex his apparet, quod Spiritus sanctus caritas est.

#### CAP. III. *Quod non est dictum per causam illud: Deus caritas est, sicut illud: Tu es patientia mea et spes mea.*

Sed ne forte aliquis dicat, illud esse dictum per expressionem causae: *Deus caritas est*, eo scilicet quod caritas sit ex Deo et[^20] non sit ipse Deus, sicut dicitur: *Deus nostra patientia est et spes*, non quod ipse sit ista, sed quia ista ex Deo sunt; occurrit Augustinus ostendens, non hoc esse dictum per causam, sicut illa, in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate[^21] ita dicens: «Non dicturi sumus, caritatem non propterea esse dictam Deum, quod ipsa caritas sit una substantia, quae Dei digna sit nomine, sed quod donum sit Dei, sicut dictum est[^22] Deo: *Tu es patientia mea*. Non utique ideo dictum est, quod Dei substantia est nostra patientia, sed quia ab ipso nobis est. Unde alibi[^23]: *Ab ipso est patientia mea*. Hunc enim sensum facile refellit Scripturarum ipsa locutio. Tale est enim: *Tu es patientia mea*, quale est: *Domine spes mea*[^24], et: *Deus meus misericordia mea*, et multa similia. Non est autem dictum: Domine caritas mea, aut: tu es caritas mea, aut: Deus caritas mea; sed ita dictum est[^25]: *Deus caritas est*, sicut dictum est: *Deus spiritus est*. Hoc qui non discernit intellectum a Domino, non expositionem quaerat a nobis; non enim apertius quidquam possumus dicere. *Deus ergo caritas est*». Ex praedictis clarescit, quod Spiritus sanctus caritas est, qua diligimus Deum et proximum; unde facilius est nobis ostendere, quomodo Spiritus sanctus mittatur sive detur nobis.

<!-- page 289 -->

#### CAP. IV. *Quomodo Spiritus sanctus mittatur vel detur nobis.*

Tunc enim mitti vel dari[^26] dicitur, cum ita in nobis est, ut faciat nos diligere Deum et proximum, per quod manemus in Deo et Deus in nobis. Unde Augustinus hunc missionis modum insinuans in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate[^27] ait: «Deus Spiritus sanctus, qui procedit ex Deo, cum datus fuerit homini, accendit eum ad diligendum Deum et proximum, et ipse dilectio est. Non enim habet homo, unde Deum diligat, nisi ex Deo». Ecce quomodo datur vel mittitur nobis Spiritus sanctus, secundum quod dicitur datum sive donum. Quod donum Augustinus commendat explanans apertius, quomodo detur, in eodem libro[^28]: «*Dilectio*, inquit, *Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris*, ut ait Apostolus, *per Spiritum sanctum, qui datus est nobis*. Nullum est isto Dei dono excellentius. Solum[^29] est, quod dividit inter filios regni et filios perditionis. Dantur et alia per Spiritum munera, sed sine caritate nihil prosunt. Nisi ergo tantum impertiatur cuiquam Spiritus sanctus, ut eum Dei et proximi faciat amatorem, *a sinistra*[^30] non transfertur ad dexteram. Nec Spiritus sanctus proprie dicitur donum nisi propter dilectionem, quam qui non habuerit, *etsi loquatur omnibus linguis, et habuerit prophetiam et omnem scientiam et omnem fidem, et distribuerit omnem substantiam suam, et tradiderit corpus suum, ita ut ardeat, nihil ei prodest*[^31]. Quantum ergo bonum est, sine quo ad aeternam vitam neminem tanta bona perducunt? Ipsa vero dilectio vel caritas — nam unius rei nomen est utrumque — perducit ad regnum. Dilectio igitur, quae *ex Deo est et Deus*[^32], proprie Spiritus sanctus est, per quem diffunditur in cordibus nostris Deus caritas, per quam nos tota inhabitat Trinitas. Quocirca rectissime Spiritus sanctus, cum sit Deus, vocatur etiam donum Dei. Quod donum proprie quid nisi caritas intelligendum est, quae perducit ad Deum, et sine qua quodlibet aliud Dei donum non perducit ad Deum»? Ecce hic aperitur, quod supra dictum erat[^33], scilicet quod caritas sit Spiritus sanctus et donum excellentius, et quomodo hoc donum, id est Spiritus sanctus, detur nobis, scilicet cum ita impertitur alicui, id est, ita habet esse in aliquo, ut eum faciat Dei et proximi amatorem. Quod cum facit, tunc dari dicitur sive mitti alicui, et tunc ille dicitur proprie habere Spiritum sanctum.

#### CAP. V. *Utrum Spiritus sanctus augeatur in homine vel minus ei magis habeatur vel detur, et an detur habenti et non habenti.*

Hic quaeritur, si caritas Spiritus sanctus est, cum ipsa augeatur et minuatur in homine et magis et minus per diversa tempora habeatur, utrum concedendum sit, quod Spiritus sanctus augeatur vel minuatur in homine et magis vel[^34] minus habeatur. Si enim in homine augetur et magis vel minus datur et habetur, mutabilis esse videtur; Deus autem omnino immutabilis est. Videtur ergo, quod vel Spiritus sanctus non sit caritas, vel caritas non augeatur vel minuatur in homine. Item, caritas et non habenti datur, ut habeat, et habenti, ut plenius habeat[^35]. Si ergo Spiritus sanctus caritas est, et non habenti datur, ut habeat, et habenti, ut plenius habeat. Sed quomodo datur non habenti, cum ipse ut Deus sit ubique et in omnibus creaturis totus? et quomodo plenius datur vel habetur sine sui mutatione?

His ita[^36] respondemus dicentes, quod Spiritus sanctus sive caritas penitus immutabilis est nec in se augetur vel minuitur nec in se recipit magis vel minus, sed in homine vel potius homini augetur et minuitur et magis vel minus datur vel habetur; sicut Deus dicitur magnificari et exaltari in nobis, qui tamen in se nec magnificatur nec exaltatur. Unde Propheta[^37]: *Accedet homo ad cor altum, et exaltabitur Deus*. Super quem locum ait auctoritas[^38]: «Deus non in se, sed in corde hominis grandescit». Sic ergo Spiritus sanctus homini datur et datus amplius datur, id est augetur, et magis ac minus habetur, et tamen immutabilis existit.

Cumque ubique sit et in omni creatura totus, sunt tamen multi, qui eum non habent. Non enim omnes Spiritum sanctum habent, in quibus est; alioquin et irrationales creaturae haberent Spiritum sanctum, quod fidei pietas non admittit.

<!-- page 290 -->

Ut autem certius fiat quod diximus, auctoritate confirmamus[^39]. Quod Spiritus sanctus magis ac minus percipiatur et homini augeatur et non habenti detur, et habenti, ut plus habeatur, Augustinus ostendit super Ioannem[^40] dicens: «Sine Spiritu sancto constat Christum nos non diligere et eius mandata servare non posse, et id nos posse atque agere tanto minus, quanto illum percipimus minus, tanto vero amplius, quanto illum percipimus amplius. Ideoque non solum non habenti, verum etiam habenti non incassum promittitur: non habenti quidem, ut habeatur, habenti autem, ut amplius habeatur. Nam si ab alio minus et ab alio amplius non haberetur, sanctus Eliseus sancto Eliae non diceret[^41]: *Spiritus, qui est in te, duplo sit in me*. *Christo autem*, qui est *Dei Filius*, *non ad mensuram datus est Spiritus*[^42]. Neque enim sine gratia Spiritus sancti est *Mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus*[^43]; quod enim est unigenitus Filius aequalis Patri, non est gratiae, sed naturae; quod autem in unitatem personae Unigeniti assumtus est homo, gratiae est, non naturae. Ceteris autem ad mensuram datur et datus additur, donec unicuique pro modo suae perfectionis propria mensura compleatur». Ecce expressum[^44] habes, quod Spiritus sanctus magis et minus datur vel accipitur, et homini datus augetur, et habenti et non habenti datur, quia Spiritus sanctus est caritas, quae non habenti datur et in habente augetur et proficit. Immo, ut verius et magis proprie loquar, homo in ea proficit et deficit aliquando; et tunc ipsa dicitur proficere vel deficere, quae tamen nec proficit nec deficit in se, quia Deus est. Unde Augustinus in homilia nona super Epistolam Ioannis[^45] ait: «Probet se quisque, quantum in illo profecerit caritas, vel potius quantum ipse in caritate profecerit. Nam si caritas Deus est, nec proficit nec deficit. Sic ergo dicitur proficere in te caritas, quia tu in ea proficis». Ecce quomodo intelligendum sit, cum dicitur Spiritus sanctus augeri in nobis, quia nos in eo scilicet proficimus; sic et alia huiusmodi.

#### CAP. VI. *Quod aliqui dicunt, caritatem Dei et proximi non esse Spiritum sanctum.*

Supra dictum est, quod Spiritus sanctus est caritas Patris et Filii, qua se invicem diligunt et nos, et ipse idem est caritas, quae diffunditur in cordibus nostris ad diligendum Deum et proximum. Horum alterum omnes catholici concedunt, scilicet quod Spiritus sanctus sit caritas Patris et Filii; quod autem ipse idem sit caritas, qua diligimus Deum et proximum, a plerisque negatur. Dicunt enim: si Spiritus sanctus caritas est Patris et Filii et nostra, eadem ergo caritas est, qua Deus diligit nos, et qua nos diligimus eum. Hoc autem Sanctorum auctoritates negare videntur. Dicit enim Augustinus in libro de Spiritu et littera[^46]: «Unde est dilectio, nisi unde et ipsa fides, id est a Spiritu sancto? Non enim esset in nobis, nisi diffunderetur in cordibus nostris per Spiritum. *Caritas autem Dei dicta est diffundi in cordibus nostris*, non qua nos ipse diligit, sed qua nos facit dilectores suos. Sicut iustitia Dei dicitur, qua nos iusti eius munere efficimur, et Domini salus, qua nos salvat, et fides Christi, qua nos fideles facit». His verbis videtur monstrari distinctio inter caritatem, qua Deus nos diligit, et qua nos diligimus. Et sicut iustitia nostra dicitur Dei, non quod ipse sit ea iustus, sed quia ea nos iustos facit, similiter et fides et salus; sic videtur dicta caritas Dei, quae est in nobis, non quod ipse ea diligat, sed quia ea nos diligere facit. De hoc etiam idem Augustinus in libro decimo quinto de Trinitate[^47] ait: «Cum Ioannes commemorasset Dei dilectionem, non qua nos eum, sed qua ipse dilexit nos, et misit Filium suum liberatorem pro peccatis nostris». Ecce et hic videtur manifeste dividere dilectionem, qua nos diligimus Deum, ab ea, qua ipse diligit nos. Si ergo, inquiunt, Spiritus sanctus dilectio est, qua Deus diligit, et qua nos diligimus, duplex dilectio est, immo duo diversa est, quod absurdum et a veritate longe est. Non est ergo dilectio, qua diligimus, sed qua Deus tantum diligit nos.

His respondemus praedictarum auctoritatum verba determinantes hoc modo: *caritas Dei dicta est diffundi in cordibus nostris*, non qua ipse nos diligit, sed qua nos diligere facit etc. His verbis non dividitur nec diversa[^48] ostenditur caritas, qua Deus nos diligit, ab ea, qua nos diligimus, sed potius, cum sit una et eadem caritas et dicatur ipsa Dei caritas, diversis de causis et rationibus Dei caritas appellari in Scriptura ostenditur. Dicitur enim Dei caritas, vel quia Deus ea diligit nos, vel quia nos ea sui dilectores facit.

Cum ergo ab Apostolo dicitur *caritas Dei diffundi in cordibus nostris*, non est dicta caritas Dei, qua diligit nos, sed qua facit nos diligere, id est, non ibi appellatur caritas Dei, eo quod Deus ea nos diligit, sed eo quod nos ea sui dilectores facit. Et quod ea ratione possit dici caritas Dei, quia nos ea diligere facit, ex simili genere locutionis ostendit[^49]: sicut dicitur iustitia Dei, qua nos iustificat, et Domini salus, qua nos salvat, et fides Christi, qua nos fideles facit.

Similiter et aliam exponimus auctoritatem, ubi ait, dilectionem Dei commemorari, non qua nos eum, sed qua ipse dilexit nos, ac si diceret, commemorat dilectionem Dei, non secundum quod ea nos diligimus Deum, sed secundum quod ipse ea diligit nos.

Sed aliud est, inquiunt, quod magis urget. Dixit enim supra[^50] Augustinus, quod dilectio est a Spiritu sancto, a quo et fides. Sicut ergo fides non est Spiritus sanctus, a quo est, ita nec caritas. Quomodo enim caritas[^51] Spiritus sanctus est, si ab ipso est? Nam si ab ipso est et ipse est, ergo Spiritus sanctus a se ipso est. Ad quod dicimus: Spiritus sanctus quidem a se ipso non est, sed tamen a se ipso datur nobis, ut supra dictum est[^52]. Dat enim se ipsum nobis Spiritus sanctus. Et ex hoc sensu dictum est, quod caritas ab ipso est in nobis, et tamen ipsa Spiritus sanctus est. Fides autem est a Spiritu sancto, et non est Spiritus sanctus, quia donum vel datum solummodo est, non Deus dans.

Alias quoque inducunt rationes ad idem ostendendum, scilicet quod caritas non sit Spiritus sanctus, quia caritas affectio mentis est et motus animi; Spiritus sanctus vero non est affectio animi vel motus mentis, quia Spiritus sanctus immutabilis est et[^53] increatus: non est ergo caritas.

Quod autem caritas sit affectio animi et motus mentis, auctoritatibus confirmant. Dicit enim Augustinus in tertio libro de Doctrina christiana[^54]: «Caritatem voco motum animi ad fruendum Deo propter ipsum et se ac proximo propter Deum». Idem in libro de Moribus Ecclesiae catholicae[^55], tractans illud verbum Apostoli: *Nec mors nec vita poterit nos separare a caritate Dei*: «Caritas Dei, inquit, hic dicta est virtus, quae animi nostri rectissima affectio est, quae coniungit nos Deo, qua eum diligimus». Ecce his verbis exprimitur, quod caritas est affectio et motus animi, ac per hoc non videtur esse Spiritus sanctus.

<!-- page 291 -->

Ad quod dicimus, hoc ita dictum esse, sicut dicitur: Deus est spes nostra, et patientia nostra, quia facit nos sperare et pati; ita caritas dicitur esse motus sive affectio animi, quia per eam movetur et afficitur animus ad diligendum Deum. Non autem mireris, si caritas, cum sit Spiritus sanctus, dicatur motus mentis, cum etiam in libro Sapientiae[^56] dicatur de Spiritu Sapientiae, *quae attingit a fine usque ad finem*, quod est *actus mobilis, certus, incoinquinatus*. Quod non ideo dicitur, quod Sapientia sit mobile aliquid vel actus aliquis, sed quia sui immobilitate omnia attingit non locali motu, sed ut ubique semper sit et[^57] nusquam inclusa teneatur. Sic ergo caritas dicitur motus animi, non quod ipsa sit motus vel affectio vel virtus animi, sed quia per eam, quasi esset virtus, afficitur mens et movetur. Sed si caritas Spiritus sanctus est, qui *operatur in singulis, prout vult*[^58], cum per eum mens hominis afficiatur et moveatur ad credendum vel sperandum et huiusmodi, sicut ad diligendum; quare non sic dicitur caritas motus vel affectio mentis ad credendum vel sperandum, sicut ad diligendum? Ad quod sane dici potest, quia alios actus atque motus virtutum operatur caritas, id est Spiritus sanctus, mediantibus virtutibus, quarum actus sunt, utpote actum fidei, id est credere fide media, et actum spei, id est sperare media spe. Per fidem enim et spem praedictos operatur actus. Diligendi vero actum per se tantum sine alicuius virtutis medio operatur, id est diligere. Aliter ergo hunc actum operatur quam alios virtutum actus. Ideoque differenter de hoc et de aliis loquitur Scriptura, quae istum specialiter caritati tribuit. Est ergo caritas vere Spiritus sanctus. Unde Augustinus, praemissum verbum Apostoli tractans, in eodem libro[^59] caritatem dicit esse bonum, quo nil melius est, et per hoc ipsam esse Deum significat dicens: «Si nulla res ab eius caritate nos separat, quid esse non solum melius, sed etiam certius hoc bono potest»? Ecce dicit, quia caritate nihil est melius. Caritas ergo Spiritus sanctus est, qui Deus est et donum Dei sive datum, qui dividit singulis fidelibus dona nec ipse dividitur, sed indivisus singulis datur. Unde Augustinus[^60], ubi Ioannis dicit, *non ad mensuram Christo dari Spiritum*, ait: «Ceteris vero dividitur, non quidem ipse Spiritus, sed dona eius[^61]».

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XVII.

### Part 1.

#### CHAPTER I. *That the Holy Spirit is the charity by which we love God and neighbor.*

Now at last let us approach the assignment of the mission of the Holy Spirit, by which he is invisibly sent into the hearts of the faithful. For the Holy Spirit himself, who is God and the third person in the Trinity, as was shown above[^1], temporally proceeds from the Father and the Son and from himself, that is, is sent and given to the faithful. But what this mission or giving is, and how it comes about, must be considered.

So that this may be more intelligibly taught and more fully grasped, something must be premised that is highly necessary for the matter. It was indeed said above and shown by sacred authorities[^2] that the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and of the Son, by which they love each other and us. To this it must be added that the same Holy Spirit is the love or charity by which we love God and neighbor. When this charity is so present in us that it makes us love God and neighbor, then the Holy Spirit is said to be sent or given[^3] to us; and one who loves the very love by which he loves his neighbor, in that very act loves God, since that love itself is God[^4], that is, the Holy Spirit.

Lest, however, in so great a matter we should seem to introduce anything of our own[^5], let us corroborate what has been said by sacred authorities. On this Augustine, in the eighth book *On the Trinity*[^6], says: «Whoever loves his neighbor, the consequence is that he should especially love love itself. But God is love. The consequence therefore is that he should especially love God». Likewise in the same book[^7]: «*God is love*, as the Apostle John says. Why then do we go and run into the heights of the heavens and the depths of the earth, seeking him who is with us, if we are willing to be with him»? «Let no one say: I do not know what to love. Let him love his brother and let him love that same love. For he knows the love by which he loves better than the brother whom he loves. Behold, you can already have God better known to you than your brother — clearly better known, because more present, because more inward, because more certain.

Embrace love as God[^8] and by love embrace God. This is the love that joins all the good Angels and all God's servants together in the bond of holiness. Therefore the more sound[^9] we are from the swelling of pride, the fuller we are with love: and of what but God is he full who is full of love»? With these words Augustine sufficiently shows that love itself, by which we love God or neighbor, is God. But still more clearly in the same book[^10] he adds, saying: «Let us attend to how greatly the Apostle John commends fraternal love. *Whoever loves*, he says[^11], *his brother abides in the light, and there is no scandal in him*. It is plain that he places the perfection of righteousness in love of one's brother. For in whomever there is no scandal, he is altogether perfect. And yet he seems to have been silent about love of God — which he would never do, except because in fraternal love itself he wishes God to be understood. For most plainly in the same Epistle[^12] he says, a little later: *Beloved, let us love one another, since love is from God: and everyone who loves is born of God and has known God. He who does not love has not known God, since God is love*. This linkage declares plainly enough that this same fraternal love — for fraternal love is that by which we love one another — is preached on so great an authority, namely John's, to be not only from God but also itself God. When therefore by[^13] love we love a brother, by God we love a brother; nor can it be otherwise than that we should love that very love most of all by which we love a brother, since God is love». Likewise[^14]: «*He who does not love his brother is not in love; and he who is not in love is not in God, since God is love*». Behold, most plainly[^15] he says that fraternal love is God.

#### CHAPTER II. *That fraternal love is God — neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Holy Spirit.*

But although fraternal love is God, it is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Holy Spirit, who in the Trinity is properly called love or charity. Whence Augustine in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*[^16]: «If among God's gifts there is nothing greater than charity, and there is no gift of God greater than the Holy Spirit, what is more consequent than that he himself should be the charity which is called both God and from God»? «For so John says[^17]: *Love is from God*; and a little later: *God is love*. Where he makes plain that the love which he said was from God is what he called God. God therefore from God is love». Likewise in the same book[^18]: «*John, wishing to speak more openly about this matter, says: In this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit*. The Holy Spirit therefore, of whom he gave to us, makes us abide in God and him in us; and this love does. He himself therefore is God love. He himself, then[^19], is signified where it is read: *God is love*». From these things it is clear that the Holy Spirit is charity.

#### CHAPTER III. *That the saying* God is charity *is not said by way of cause, in the way that* Thou art my patience and my hope *is.*

But lest perhaps someone say that *God is charity* is said by way of expressing a cause, namely that charity is from God and[^20] is not himself God — as it is said: *God is our patience and our hope*, not because he himself is these things, but because they are from God — Augustine meets this, showing that this is not said by way of cause, as those expressions are, in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*[^21], saying thus: «We are not going to say that charity is on this account called God — namely, that this charity is one substance worthy of God's name — but only that it is a gift of God, in the way that it is said[^22] to God: *Thou art my patience*. For this was certainly not said because the substance of God is our patience, but because it is from him to us. Whence elsewhere[^23]: *From him is my patience*. The very turn of Scripture's speech easily refutes this sense. For *Thou art my patience* is of the same kind as *O Lord, my hope*[^24], and *My God, my mercy*, and many similar expressions. But it is not said: O Lord, my charity, or: thou art my charity, or: my God, my charity; but it is said in this way[^25]: *God is charity*, just as it is said: *God is spirit*. Whoever does not discern this, let him not seek the explanation from us, but understanding from the Lord; for we cannot say anything more plainly. *God therefore is charity*». From what has been said it is clear that the Holy Spirit is the charity by which we love God and neighbor; whence it is easier for us to show in what way the Holy Spirit is sent or given to us.

#### CHAPTER IV. *In what way the Holy Spirit is sent or given to us.*

He is then said to be sent or given[^26] to us when he is so in us that he makes us love God and neighbor — through which we abide in God and God in us. Whence Augustine, suggesting this manner of mission, in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*[^27], says: «God the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from God, when he is given to a man, kindles him to love God and neighbor — and he himself is love. For man has nothing from which he might love God, except from God». Behold how the Holy Spirit is given or sent to us, according as he is called gift or thing-given. This gift Augustine commends, explaining more openly how it is given, in the same book[^28]: «*The love of God*, he says, *is poured forth in our hearts*, as the Apostle says, *through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us*. There is nothing more excellent than this gift of God. It alone[^29] is what divides the children of the kingdom from the children of perdition. Other gifts also are given through the Spirit, but without charity they profit nothing. Therefore unless the Holy Spirit be imparted to someone in such a way as to make him a lover of God and of neighbor, he is not transferred *from the left*[^30] to the right. Nor is the Holy Spirit properly called gift except on account of love — the man who lacks which, *though he speak with all tongues, and have prophecy and all knowledge and all faith, and distribute all his substance, and deliver up his body so that it burns, profits him nothing*[^31]. How great a good then is that without which such great goods lead no one to eternal life? Love itself, however, or charity — for both are the name of one thing — leads to the kingdom. Therefore the love which *is from God and is God*[^32] is properly the Holy Spirit, through whom God-charity is poured forth in our hearts, by which the whole Trinity dwells in us. And so most rightly the Holy Spirit, since he is God, is also called the gift of God. And what is this gift properly to be understood as, except charity, which leads to God, and without which any other gift of God does not lead to God»? Behold, here it is opened up — what was said above[^33] — namely that charity is the Holy Spirit and the more excellent gift, and how this gift, that is, the Holy Spirit, is given to us: namely, when he is so imparted to someone, that is, when he so has being in someone, that he makes him a lover of God and of neighbor. When he does this, then he is said to be given or sent to someone, and then that person is properly said to have the Holy Spirit.

#### CHAPTER V. *Whether the Holy Spirit is increased in a person, or is more or less had or given, and whether he is given to one who has and to one who does not have.*

Here the question is asked: if charity is the Holy Spirit, since charity itself is increased and diminished in a person and is held more and less at different times, whether it must be granted that the Holy Spirit is increased or diminished in a person and is held more or[^34] less. For if in a person he is increased and is given and held more or less, he seems to be mutable; but God is altogether immutable. Therefore it seems that either the Holy Spirit is not charity, or charity is not increased or diminished in a person. Likewise: charity is given to one who does not have it, that he may have, and to one who has, that he may have more fully[^35]. If, then, the Holy Spirit is charity, he is given both to one who does not have, that he may have, and to one who has, that he may have more fully. But how is he given to one who does not have, since he, as God, is everywhere and whole in all creatures? And how is he more fully given or had without change in himself?

Thus[^36] we reply, saying that the Holy Spirit, that is, charity, is utterly immutable and is neither increased nor diminished in himself, nor does he in himself receive more or less, but rather is increased and diminished in a person, or rather *to* a person, and is more or less given or had — just as God is said to be magnified and exalted in us who in himself is neither magnified nor exalted. Whence the Prophet[^37]: *Man shall come to a deep heart, and God shall be exalted*. Upon which place an authority says[^38]: «God grows great not in himself, but in the heart of man». So therefore the Holy Spirit is given to a person, and once given is given still further — that is, increased — and is held more and less, and yet remains immutable.

And although he is everywhere and whole in every creature, there are nonetheless many who do not have him. For not all those in whom he is have the Holy Spirit; otherwise even irrational creatures would have the Holy Spirit, which the piety of the faith does not admit.

In order, however, that what we have said may become more certain, let us confirm it[^39] by authority. That the Holy Spirit is more and less perceived, and is increased in a person, and is given to one who does not have, and to one who has so that he may be had more, Augustine shows on John[^40], saying: «Without the Holy Spirit it is settled that we cannot love Christ and keep his commandments — and that we can do and accomplish this so much the less, by how much we perceive him less, and so much the more, by how much we perceive him more. Therefore not only to one who does not have him, but also to one who has him, is he not promised in vain: to one who does not have, that he may be had; to one who has, that he may be had more. For if he were not held less by one and more by another, the holy Elisha would not have said to the holy Elijah[^41]: *Let the spirit which is in thee be doubled in me*. *To Christ*, however, who is *the Son of God*, *the Spirit was not given by measure*[^42]. Nor indeed is the *Mediator of God and men, the man Christ*[^43], without the grace of the Holy Spirit; for the fact that he is the only-begotten Son equal to the Father is not of grace but of nature, while the fact that man was assumed into the unity of the person of the Only-begotten is of grace, not of nature. To others, however, he is given by measure, and once given is added to, until for each one a measure proper to his perfection is made full». Behold, you have it expressed[^44] that the Holy Spirit is given or received more and less, and once given to a person is increased, and is given both to one who has and to one who does not have, since the Holy Spirit is charity, which is given to one who does not have and is increased and grows in one who has. Indeed, to speak more truly and more properly, it is the man who advances in it and at times falls back; and then *it* is said to advance or fall back, although it neither advances nor falls back in itself, since it is God. Whence Augustine in the ninth homily on the Epistle of John[^45] says: «Let each one prove how much charity has advanced in him, or rather, how much he has advanced in charity. For if charity is God, it neither advances nor falls back. So therefore charity is said to advance in you because you advance in it». Behold, this is how it is to be understood when the Holy Spirit is said to be increased in us — namely, because we advance in him; and so for other expressions of this kind.

#### CHAPTER VI. *That some say that the charity of God and of neighbor is not the Holy Spirit.*

It was said above that the Holy Spirit is the charity of the Father and of the Son, by which they love each other and us, and that he himself is the same charity which is poured forth in our hearts unto loving God and neighbor. The first of these all Catholics concede — namely, that the Holy Spirit is the charity of the Father and of the Son; but that he is the same charity by which we love God and neighbor is denied by very many. For they say: if the Holy Spirit is the charity of the Father and of the Son and ours, then it is the same charity by which God loves us and by which we love him. But the authorities of the Saints seem to deny this. For Augustine, in the book *On the Spirit and the Letter*[^46], says: «Whence is love, except from the same source whence faith itself comes — that is, from the Holy Spirit? For it would not be in us unless it were poured forth in our hearts through the Spirit. *But the love of God is said to be poured forth in our hearts*, not by which he loves us, but by which he makes us his lovers. Just as God's righteousness is so called by which we are made righteous by his gift, and the Lord's salvation by which he saves us, and the faith of Christ by which he makes us faithful». By these words there seems to be shown a distinction between the charity by which God loves us and that by which we love. And just as our righteousness is called God's, not because he himself is righteous by it, but because by it he makes us righteous — and likewise faith and salvation — so the charity of God which is in us seems to be so called not because he loves by it but because he makes us love by it. On this also the same Augustine in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*[^47] says: «When John had recalled the love of God, not by which we love him, but by which he himself loved us, and sent his Son as our liberator on behalf of our sins». Behold, here also he seems plainly to divide the love by which we love God from that by which he himself loves us. If therefore — they say — the Holy Spirit is the love both by which God loves and by which we love, there are two loves, indeed two diverse things, which is absurd and far from the truth. Therefore he is not the love by which we love, but only that by which God loves us.

To these we reply, determining the words of the cited authorities in this way: *the love of God is said to be poured forth in our hearts*, not by which he himself loves us, but by which he makes us love, and so on. By these words there is no division shown nor diverse[^48] charity shown — that by which God loves us, distinct from that by which we love — but rather, since it is one and the same charity and is called God's charity, it is shown to be called God's charity in Scripture for diverse causes and reasons. For it is called God's charity either because God loves us by it, or because by it he makes us his lovers.

When therefore the Apostle says that *the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts*, it is not called the charity of God by which he loves us, but the charity by which he makes us love — that is, it is not there called God's charity because God loves us by it, but because by it he makes us his lovers. And that on that ground it can be called the charity of God, namely because by it he makes us love, he shows[^49] from a similar genre of speech: just as it is said God's righteousness, by which he makes us righteous, and the Lord's salvation, by which he saves us, and the faith of Christ, by which he makes us faithful.

Likewise we explain the other authority, where he says that the love of God is recalled, not by which we loved him, but by which he himself loved us — as if he were saying: he recalls God's love, not according as we love God by it, but according as he himself loves us by it.

But there is something else, they say, that presses more heavily. For Augustine said above[^50] that love is from the Holy Spirit, from whom faith also is. As therefore faith is not the Holy Spirit from whom it is, so neither is charity. For how is charity[^51] the Holy Spirit if it is from him? For if it is from him and is himself, then the Holy Spirit is from himself. To which we say: the Holy Spirit indeed is not from himself, but he is given to us by himself, as has been said above[^52]. For the Holy Spirit gives himself to us. And in this sense it is said that charity is from him in us — and yet that charity is the Holy Spirit. Faith, however, is from the Holy Spirit and is not the Holy Spirit, since it is only a gift or thing-given, not the God who gives.

They also bring forward other arguments to show the same — namely, that charity is not the Holy Spirit, since charity is an affection of the mind and a movement of the soul, but the Holy Spirit is not an affection of the soul or a movement of the mind, since the Holy Spirit is immutable and[^53] uncreated: therefore he is not charity.

That charity is an affection of the soul and a movement of the mind they confirm by authorities. For Augustine in the third book *On Christian Doctrine*[^54] says: «I call charity the movement of the soul toward enjoying God for his own sake, and oneself and one's neighbor on account of God». The same in the book *On the Customs of the Catholic Church*[^55], treating that word of the Apostle: *Neither death nor life shall be able to separate us from the charity of God*: «The charity of God, he says, is here called a virtue, which is the most upright affection of our soul that joins us to God, by which we love him». Behold, by these words it is expressed that charity is an affection and movement of the soul, and accordingly does not seem to be the Holy Spirit.

To this we say that this is so said in the way that it is said: God is our hope and our patience, because he makes us hope and endure. Just so, charity is said to be a movement or affection of the soul, because by it the soul is moved and affected toward loving God. Nor should you marvel if charity, since it is the Holy Spirit, is said to be a movement of the mind — since even in the book of Wisdom[^56] it is said of the Spirit of Wisdom, *which reaches from end to end*, that he is *a movable, certain, undefiled act*. This is not said because Wisdom is something movable or some sort of act, but because by his own immobility he reaches all things — not by local motion, but in such a way that he is everywhere always and[^57] is nowhere held in confinement. So therefore charity is said to be a movement of the soul — not because it is itself a movement or affection or virtue of the soul, but because by it, as if it were a virtue, the mind is affected and moved. But if charity is the Holy Spirit, who *works in each one as he wills*[^58] — since by him a man's mind is affected and moved to believing or to hoping and the like, just as to loving — why is charity not also called a movement or affection of the mind toward believing or hoping, just as toward loving? To which it can be said with reason: because charity, that is, the Holy Spirit, works the other acts and movements of the virtues through the mediation of the virtues whose acts they are — namely the act of faith (that is, to believe by the mediation of faith) and the act of hope (that is, to hope by the mediation of hope). For through faith and hope he works the said acts. But the act of loving he works by himself alone, without the mediation of any virtue — that is, to love. Therefore he works this act otherwise than the other acts of the virtues. And for this reason Scripture speaks differently about this and the others, attributing this one specially to charity. Charity, then, is truly the Holy Spirit. Whence Augustine, treating the aforementioned word of the Apostle, in the same book[^59] says that charity is a good than which nothing is better, and by this he signifies that charity itself is God, saying: «If no thing separates us from his charity, what can be not only better but also more certain than this good»? Behold, he says that nothing is better than charity. Therefore charity is the Holy Spirit, who is God and the gift of God or the thing-given, who divides his gifts to the individual faithful, while he himself is not divided but is given undivided to each. Whence Augustine[^60], where John says that *the Spirit is not given to Christ by measure*, says: «But to others he is divided — not the Spirit himself, but his gifts[^61]».

---

la: Dist. XV.

en: Dist. XV.

la: Dist. X. — Paulo ante codd. E et Vat. *semet ipso* pro *se ipso*.

en: Dist. X. — A little before, codd. E and Vat. read *semet ipso* for *se ipso*.

la: Codd. AC *donari*.

en: Codd. AC read *donari*.

la: I. Ioan. iv, 8. 16. Vulgata: *Deus caritas est*. Magister sequitur lectionem Augustini. — Hic incipit Magister exponere suam sententiam, ut falsam communiter reprobatam, quae caritatem ut habitum creatum negat; de quo vide S. Bonaventuram, hic p. I. q. 1.

en: 1 John 4:8, 16. Vulgate: *Deus caritas est* ("God is charity"). The Master follows Augustine's reading. — Here the Master begins to expound his own opinion — commonly rejected as false — which denies charity as a created habit; on which see St. Bonaventure here, Pars I, q. 1.

la: Sola Vat. *astruere*.

en: Vat. alone reads *astruere* ("introduce / construct").

la: Cap. 7. n. 10. — Immediate ante *Augustinus* edd. 1, 8 addunt *autem*.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.*] cap. 7, n. 10. — Immediately before *Augustinus*, edd. 1 and 8 add *autem*.

la: Ibid. n. 11; textus Scripturae est I. Ioan. iv, 16. — Proximus locus Augustini est loc. cit. et c. 8. n. 12.

en: Ibid., n. 11; the scriptural text is 1 John 4:16. — The next Augustine passage is the same place and chapter 8, n. 12.

la: Ed. 5 *Dei*. — Deinde ed. 1 post *amplectere* legit *proximum* pro *Deum*.

en: Ed. 5 reads *Dei*. — Subsequently ed. 1, after *amplectere*, reads *proximum* for *Deum*.

la: Edd. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 falso *sanctiores*, et cod. C *fortiores*; ut corrigatur hic error, edd. 1, 8 cum codd. BCDE prosequuntur sic: *sanctiores sumus, quanto a tumore superbiae inaniores* (cod. C *saniores*); sed nostra lectio est secundum textum Augustini, cod. A et Vat. cum edd. 3, 6, 7.

en: Edd. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 wrongly read *sanctiores* ("more holy"), and cod. C *fortiores* ("stronger"); to correct this error edd. 1 and 8, with codd. BCDE, continue thus: *sanctiores sumus, quanto a tumore superbiae inaniores* — cod. C *saniores* ("more sound"). But our reading follows Augustine's text, cod. A and Vat., together with edd. 3, 6, 7.

la: Loc. cit. paulo infra. — Sola Vat. omittit *dicens*.

en: Same place, a little further on. — Vat. alone omits *dicens*.

la: I. Ioan. ii, 10. — Paulo ante post *dilectionem* edd. 3, 7, 9, omisso *fraternam*, ponunt *quam* pro *quantum*, et cum codd. ACD et ed. 6 *commendat* pro *commendet*.

en: 1 John 2:10. — A little before, after *dilectionem*, edd. 3, 7, 9 omit *fraternam* and write *quam* for *quantum*, and with codd. ACD and ed. 6 read *commendat* ("commends," indicative) for *commendet* (subjunctive).

la: Cap. 4, 7. 8. Vulgata: *Carissimi, diligamus nos invicem: quia caritas ex Deo est. Et omnis, qui diligit, ex Deo natus est et cognoscit Deum. Qui non diligit, non novit Deum: quoniam Deus caritas est*. — Mox Vat. cum plurimis edd. *ait* pro *dicit*; insuper post *dicit* edd. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, variata interpunctione, male trahunt particulam *ita* ad verba sequentia. Denique ed. 1 *dulcissimi* pro *dilectissimi*.

en: [1 John] cap. 4, 7–8. Vulgate: *Carissimi, diligamus nos invicem: quia caritas ex Deo est. Et omnis, qui diligit, ex Deo natus est et cognoscit Deum. Qui non diligit, non novit Deum: quoniam Deus caritas est*. — Then Vat. with most editions reads *ait* for *dicit*; further, after *dicit*, edd. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, with altered punctuation, wrongly carry the particle *ita* over to the words that follow. Finally ed. 1 reads *dulcissimi* for *dilectissimi*.

la: Solummodo edd. 1, 3 *Dei*.

en: Only edd. 1 and 3 read *Dei*.

la: Loc. cit., sed paulo infra.

en: Same place, but a little further on.

la: Vat. cum aliis edd., contradicentibus codd. et edd. 1, 8, *aperte*; immediate post edd. 3, 7 *dixit* pro *dicit*.

en: Vat. with other editions — against the codd. and edd. 1, 8 — reads *aperte*; immediately after, edd. 3, 7 read *dixit* for *dicit*.

la: Cap. 19. n. 37. — Proximus locus Augustini est loc. cit. c. 17. n. 31; sed initium eius a Magistro est contractum, insuper plura verba mutata sunt.

en: [De Trin. XV] cap. 19, n. 37. — The next Augustine passage is the same place, c. 17, n. 31; but the Master has shortened its opening, and besides has changed several words.

la: I. Ioan. iv, 7-8. — Vat. sola legit: *Et in eodem* pro *paulo post*; e contra eadem infra habet *paulo post* loco *in eodem*.

en: 1 John 4:7–8. — Vat. alone reads *Et in eodem* for *paulo post*; conversely the same Vat., a little below, has *paulo post* in place of *in eodem*.

la: Cap. 17. n. 31. — Ibidem codd. ABC post *eodem* addunt *Augustinus*. — Locus Scripturae est loc. cit. v. 13. Vulgata: *In hoc cognoscimus, quoniam in eo manemus et ipse in nobis: quoniam de Spiritu suo dedit nobis*. Codd. ABCE et ed. 5 *cognoscimus*.

en: [De Trin. XV] cap. 17, n. 31. — In the same place, codd. ABC after *eodem* add *Augustinus*. — The scriptural place is loc. cit., v. 13. Vulgate: *In hoc cognoscimus, quoniam in eo manemus et ipse in nobis: quoniam de Spiritu suo dedit nobis*. Codd. ABCE and ed. 5 read *cognoscimus*.

la: Supple cum ed. 1: *Spiritus*. — Paulo ante Vat. cum nonnullis edd.: *Ipse est ergo* pro *igitur*. Deinde post *ex his* Vat. et edd. 4, 5, 8, 9 addunt *ergo*.

en: Supply, with ed. 1: *Spiritus*. — A little before, Vat. with several editions reads *Ipse est ergo* for *igitur*. Then after *ex his* Vat. and edd. 4, 5, 8, 9 add *ergo*.

la: Sola Vat. omittit *et*. Paulo post edd. 5, 8 *ex eo loco* pro *ex Deo*.

en: Vat. alone omits *et*. A little after, edd. 5 and 8 read *ex eo loco* for *ex Deo*.

la: Cap. 17. n. 27. Mox solummodo Vat. et ed. 6 cum cod. C omittunt *ita*. — Deinde in ipso textu Augustini post *dicturi sumus* edd. 1, 8 adiiciunt *(ut quidam dicunt)*.

en: [De Trin. XV] cap. 17, n. 27. — Then only Vat. and ed. 6 with cod. C omit *ita*. — Further, within Augustine's own text, after *dicturi sumus* edd. 1 and 8 add *(ut quidam dicunt)* ("as some say").

la: Psalm. 70, 5. — Hic Vat. et edd. 5, 8, 9 cum cod. E addunt *de* ante *Deo*. — Paulo infra post *dictum est*, Vat. cum aliis edd. repetit: *Tu es patientia mea*, refragantibus codd., ed. 1 et originali.

en: Ps. 70:5. — Here Vat. and edd. 5, 8, 9, with cod. E, add *de* before *Deo*. — A little below, after *dictum est*, Vat. with other editions repeats *Tu es patientia mea* — against the codd., ed. 1, and the original.

la: Psalm. 61, 6. — Mox solummodo edd. 1, 8 legunt: *statim refellit* pro *facile refellit*.

en: Ps. 61:6. — Then only edd. 1 and 8 read *statim refellit* ("at once refutes") for *facile refellit* ("easily refutes").

la: Psalm. 90, 9; et sequens textus est Psalm. 58, 18.

en: Ps. 90:9; and the following text is Ps. 58:18.

la: I. Ioan. 4, 16, et mox: Ioan. 4, 24.

en: 1 John 4:16; and shortly after, John 4:24.

la: Codd. ACDE addunt *nobis*.

en: Codd. ACDE add *nobis*.

en: [De Trin. XV] cap. 17, n. 31.

la: Loc. cit. et cap. 18. n. 32. — Locus Scripturae est Rom. 5, 5.

en: Same place, and cap. 18, n. 32. — The scriptural place is Rom. 5:5.

la: Edd. 1, 8 ante *solum* addunt *Hoc*; ed. 2 legit: *Solum enim est*.

en: Edd. 1 and 8 before *solum* add *Hoc*; ed. 2 reads *Solum enim est*.

la: Codd. ABCE bene praemittunt *ille*, sed contra originale et edd.

en: Codd. ABCE rightly prefix *ille*, but against the original and the editions.

la: I. Cor. 13, 1, in cuius textus fine Vat. et aliae edd. contra codd. et Vulgatam legunt *non* pro *nihil*.

en: 1 Cor. 13:1, where at the end of the text Vat. and other editions, against the codd. and the Vulgate, read *non* for *nihil*.

la: Vat. et aliae edd. contra codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 7 addunt *est*.

en: Vat. and other editions, against the codd. and edd. 1, 2, 3, 7, add *est*.

la: Hic, cap. 1. et 2.

en: Here, capp. 1 and 2.

la: Vat. et ed. 4 *vel magis et minus*; edd. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 cum cod. D *et magis et minus*; ed. 8 *id est magis vel*. Secuti sumus codd. ABCE et edd. 1, 6.

en: Vat. and ed. 4 read *vel magis et minus*; edd. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 with cod. D *et magis et minus*; ed. 8 *id est magis vel*. We have followed codd. ABCE and edd. 1 and 6.

la: Respicitur ad Luc. 19, 26.

en: Reference to Luke 19:26.

la: Vat. et aliae edd. contra ed. 1 et omnes codd. *itaque*.

en: Vat. and other editions, against ed. 1 and all the codd., read *itaque*.

la: Psalm. 63, 7. 8. — Vat. et nonnullae edd. *accedit*, contradicente etiam Vulgata.

en: Ps. 63:7–8. — Vat. and several editions read *accedit* — against the Vulgate as well.

la: Scilicet Cassiodorus supra Psalm. 63, 6. — Paulo post Vat. cum aliis edd. *magis et minus*, sed codd. *magis ac minus*.

en: Namely, Cassiodorus on Ps. 63:6. — A little after, Vat. with other editions reads *magis et minus*, but the codd. read *magis ac minus*.

la: Vat. et edd. 4, 6 *confirmemus*; edd. 1, 8 *firmemus*. Mox solummodo Vat. et ed. 4 post *detur* adiiciunt *ut habeatur*. Denique edd. 1, 8 post *ut plus* addunt *vel plenius*.

en: Vat. and edd. 4, 6 read *confirmemus*; edd. 1, 8 *firmemus*. Then only Vat. and ed. 4, after *detur*, add *ut habeatur*. Finally edd. 1, 8 after *ut plus* add *vel plenius*.

la: Tract. 74. in Evang. Ioan. n. 2. et 3.

en: [Augustine] *Tractatus* 74 on the Gospel of John, nn. 2 and 3.

la: IV. Reg. 2, 9. Vulgata: *Obsecro, ut fiat in me duplex spiritus tuus*. Magister refert haec verba, sicut habentur apud Augustinum. Post hunc locum omnes codd. et edd. 1, 8 addunt vel in margine vel in textu sequentem notulam, quae etiam a S. Thoma in suo Comment. (hic, expositio textus) citatur: *In libro Regum legitur sic: Elias dixit ad Eliseum: Postula quod vis, et faciam tibi, antequam tollar a te: dixitque Eliseus: Obsecro, ut spiritus tuus fiat duplex in me. Quod ibidem sic exponitur: Elias spiritu prophetali et operatione miraculorum excellenter pollebat. Geminam ergo gratiam, quam Eliseus in Magistro vigere cognoscebat, sibi tribui rogavit. Unde patet, quod non esse discipulus super Magistrum postulavit*.

en: 2 (= IV) Kings 2:9. Vulgate: *Obsecro, ut fiat in me duplex spiritus tuus* ("I pray, let thy double spirit be in me"). The Master gives the words as they stand in Augustine. After this place, all the codd. and edd. 1 and 8 add — either in the margin or in the text — the following little note (also cited by St. Thomas in his Commentary, *expositio textus*): "*In the book of Kings it is read thus: Elijah said to Elisha: Ask what you wish, and I will do it for you before I am taken from you; and Elisha said: I pray that thy spirit be made double in me. Which is there expounded thus: Elijah excelled in prophetic spirit and in the working of miracles. Elisha therefore asked that the twofold grace which he knew was strong in his master be granted to himself. Whence it is plain that he did not ask to be a disciple greater than his master.*"

la: Ioan. 3, 34. Vulgata: *non enim ad mensuram dat Deus spiritum*.

en: John 3:34. Vulgate: *non enim ad mensuram dat Deus spiritum* ("for God does not give the Spirit by measure").

la: I. Tim. 2, 5. — Mox Vat. et plures edd. post *unigenitus* addunt *Dei*, contradicentibus omnibus codd., edd. 1, 8 et Augustino, qui etiam vocem *Filius* omittit.

en: 1 Tim. 2:5. — Then Vat. and several editions, after *unigenitus*, add *Dei* — against all the codd., edd. 1 and 8, and Augustine (who also omits the word *Filius*).

la: Vat. et plures edd. *expresse* contra codd. et edd. 1, 8.

en: Vat. and several editions read *expresse* (adverb), against the codd. and edd. 1 and 8.

la: Sive Tract. 9. in Epist. Ioan. n. 2.

en: Or rather *Tractatus* 9 on the Epistle of John, n. 2.

la: Cap. 32. n. 56; in principio textus Magister verba mutavit. Sic enim legitur apud Augustinum: *Unde ergo ista dilectio, id est caritas, per quam fides operatur, nisi unde illam fides ipsa impetravit? Neque enim* etc. — Locus Scripturae, ad quem alluditur, est Rom. 5, 5.

en: [*De spiritu et littera*] cap. 32, n. 56; at the opening of the text the Master altered the wording. For thus it stands in Augustine: *Whence then is this love — that is, charity, through which faith works — except whence faith itself obtained it? Nor indeed*, etc. — The scriptural place alluded to is Rom. 5:5.

la: Cap. 17. n. 31. Alluditur ad I. Ioan. 4, 10, ubi Magister male habet *liberatorem*. Vulgata: *propitiationem*; edd. 1, 8 cum textu Augustini *salvatorem* (Graece: ἱλασμόν).

en: [De Trin. XV] cap. 17, n. 31. The reference is to 1 John 4:10, where the Master wrongly has *liberatorem*. Vulgate: *propitiationem*; edd. 1 and 8, with Augustine's text, read *salvatorem* (Greek: ἱλασμόν).

la: Edd. 2, 3, 5, 7 *divisa*. Paulo post Vat. cum aliis edd., exceptis 1, 8, contra codd. particulam *et* praemittit verbo *diversis*, sed minus bene. Denique Vat. et edd. 1, 8 legunt *suos dilectores* loco *sui dilectores*.

en: Edd. 2, 3, 5, 7 read *divisa* ("divided") [for *diversa*]. A little after, Vat. with other editions (except 1, 8), against the codd., prefixes the particle *et* to the word *diversis* — but less well. Finally Vat. and edd. 1, 8 read *suos dilectores* in place of *sui dilectores*.

la: Vat. et edd. 1, 4, 6, 8 cum cod. D *ostenditur*.

en: Vat. and edd. 1, 4, 6, 8 with cod. D read *ostenditur* ("it is shown").

la: In principio huius cap.

en: At the start of this chapter.

la: Vat. et aliae edd., exceptis 1, 8, omittunt *caritas* contra codd.; immediate ante Vat. cum cod. D et plerisque edd. legit *ergo* pro *enim*.

en: Vat. and other editions (except 1, 8), against the codd., omit *caritas*; immediately before, Vat. with cod. D and most editions reads *ergo* for *enim*.

la: Sola Vat. omittit *et*.

en: Vat. alone omits *et*.

en: [*De doctrina christiana* III] cap. 10, n. 16.

la: Libr. I. c. 11. n. 19. — Locus Apostoli est Rom. 8, 38. 39. — In principio textus Augustini post *inquit* Vat. sola addit *in sensu*; etiam vocabulum sequens hic omittitur ab edd. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9.

en: [*De moribus Ecclesiae catholicae*] Lib. I, cap. 11, n. 19. — The Pauline place is Rom. 8:38–39. — At the opening of Augustine's text, after *inquit*, Vat. alone adds *in sensu*; the following word is also here omitted by edd. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9.

la: Cap. 8. 1; et verba, quae sequuntur, c. 7, 22, ubi Vulgata, inverso ordine verborum: *mobilis, incoinquinatus, certus*. Vat. cum aliis edd., exceptis 1, 8 et cod. D, ante *attingit* legit *qui* loco *quae*; et deinde codd. ACD et edd. 1, 8 male iterum legunt *qui* pro *quod*.

en: [Wisdom] cap. 8, v. 1; and the words that follow are from cap. 7, v. 22, where the Vulgate, with the order of the words inverted, reads *mobilis, incoinquinatus, certus*. Vat. with other editions, except edd. 1, 8 and cod. D, before *attingit* reads *qui* in place of *quae*; and then codd. ACD and edd. 1, 8 again wrongly read *qui* for *quod*.

la: *De Moribus Eccl.* I. cap. 11. n. 18. — Mox codd. ABCE et edd. 1, 5 omittunt *est* post *nil melius*.

en: *De moribus Ecclesiae* I, cap. 11, n. 18. — Then codd. ABCE and edd. 1 and 5 omit *est* after *nil melius*.

la: Tract. 74. in Evang. Ioan. n. 3. Ad Ioan. 3, 34. Augustini verba sunt: *Neque enim ipse dividitur Spiritus, sed dona per Spiritum: nam divisiones donationum sunt, idem autem Spiritus*.

en: *Tractatus* 74 on the Gospel of John, n. 3. On John 3:34. Augustine's words are: *For the Spirit himself is not divided, but the gifts through the Spirit; for there are distributions of gifts, but it is the same Spirit*.

la: Huic distinctioni Vat. et edd. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 cum cod. E coniungunt sequentis dist. primum capitulum, scil. verba: *Hic quaeritur* usque ad *donum domi domari* inclusive. Sed codd. ABCD et edd. 1, 2 recte hic incipiunt dist. XVIII, sicut etiam antiqui Commentatores, praesertim S. Bonaventura, S. Thomas, B. Albertus, Richardus a Mediavilla — quod apparet ex divisione textus, quam faciunt.

en: [Editor's note on the distinction boundary.] To this distinction, Vat. and edd. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 with cod. E join the first chapter of the next distinction — namely the words *Hic quaeritur* through *donum domi domari* inclusive. But codd. ABCD and edd. 1, 2 rightly begin Dist. XVIII here, as do the early Commentators — especially St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, Bl. Albert, and Richard of Mediavilla — which is plain from the division of the text that they make.

translators_notes:
- This is **Lombard's *Littera Magistri***, capp. I–VI of d.17 pars 1, not Bonaventure's commentary. Bonaventure's *Divisio textus*, *Tractatio quaestionum*, and the four articulus questions follow in the sibling chunks (`bon-sent-I-d17-p1-divisio.md` and the four `-p1-a1-q*` chunks).
- Cap. III's chapter title is rendered in the Quaracchi printed text inside the running flow (no separate display heading on every press); we have set it as a `####` heading for parity with the other capp.
- The fn[^61] block is a Quaracchi editor's meta-note about where to draw the d.17/d.18 boundary (Vat. and most editions absorb the opening of d.18 into d.17). We retain it as a footnote because Lombard's last quoted sentence (Augustine, *In Ioan.* 74.3) is anchored here and the editorial note belongs with the apparatus on that page (p. 291).
- Key doctrinal moves to cross-reference in later distinctions: (a) **caritas = Spiritus sanctus** identification (cap. I); (b) **per causam vs. essentialiter** distinction in predication (cap. III) — Augustine refutes the "*Deus est patientia mea*" parallel; (c) **augetur in homine, non in se** (cap. V) — the immutability of the gift, increased only with respect to the recipient; (d) **caritas Dei** is the love by which God *makes us love*, not the love by which God loves us, *yet* it is one and the same charity (cap. VI). Bonaventure picks up (a) and (d) directly in his Articulus I, q. 1 (utrum caritas qua diligimus Deum sit Spiritus sanctus).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 17, Part 1, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Divisio textus distinctionis XVII partis primae

title_alt: Division of the text of Distinction XVII, Part 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 291 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVII.

#### *De invisibili Spiritus sancti missione.*

### Pars I.

#### *Determinatur invisibilis Spiritus sancti missio.*

> *Iam nunc accedamus ad assignandam missionem Spiritus sancti, qua invisibiliter mittitur* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Terminata parte, in qua Magister egit de processione Spiritus sancti visibili, in hac parte agit de invisibili. Et dividitur haec pars in duas. In prima determinat Magister Spiritus sancti invisibilem[^1] missionem secundum suam opinionem. In secunda vero, quia sua opinio habuit multos impugnatores, ponit opinionis suae defensionem, ibi: *Hic quaeritur, si caritas Spiritus sanctus est.*

Prima iterum pars habet duas: in prima, missionem Spiritus sancti invisibilem notificat; in secunda confirmat, ibi: *Ne autem in re tanta aliquid de nostro* etc.

Item, prima pars, in qua notificat, habet duas, in quarum prima praedicit suam intentionem, ibi: *Iam nunc accedamus ad assignandam*; in secunda, supposito, quod Spiritus sanctus sit amor, quo diligimus Deum et proximum, ostendit, ipsum invisibiliter mitti, quando in nobis efficit hunc effectum; et hoc facit ibi: *Hoc autem ut intelligibilius doceri* etc.

*Ne autem in tanta re.* Haec est[^2] secunda pars, in qua positionem suam confirmat; et dividitur haec pars in quatuor partes. In prima ostendit, quod amor, quo diligimus Deum, est Deus, et[^3] similiter amor, quo diligimus proximum. In secunda vero ostendit, quod amor ille proprie est Spiritus sanctus, ibi: *Cum autem fraterna dilectio sit Deus* etc. In tertia ostendit, quod Spiritus sanctus est caritas, non causaliter, sed essentialiter et formaliter loquendo, ibi: *Sed ne forte aliquis dicat, illud dictum*. Quarto et ultimo concludit[^4], tanquam manifestatum iam, quod Spiritus sanctus tunc mittitur invisibiliter, quando nos facit Dei et proximi dilectores, ibi: *Ex praedictis clarescit, quod Spiritus sanctus caritas est* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis quatuor quaeruntur.

Primo et principaliter propter positionem Magistri quaeritur, utrum praeter donum caritatis increatae sit ponere donum caritatis creatae; et hoc est quaerere, utrum caritas, qua diligimus Deum, sit Spiritus sanctus.

Secundo, dato quod sit creata caritas, quaeritur, utrum illa caritas sit diligenda ex caritate.

Tertio, utrum caritas certitudinaliter possit cognosci ab habente caritatem.

Quarto, si possit cognosci a[^5] non habente.

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVII.

#### *On the invisible mission of the Holy Spirit.*

### Part I.

#### *The invisible mission of the Holy Spirit is determined.*

> *Now therefore let us approach the assignment of the mission of the Holy Spirit, by which he is invisibly sent* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

The part being finished in which the Master treated of the visible procession of the Holy Spirit, in this part he treats of the invisible. And this part is divided into two. In the first, the Master determines the invisible[^1] mission of the Holy Spirit according to his own opinion. In the second, however, because his opinion had many opponents, he sets out the defense of his opinion, at: *It is asked here, whether charity is the Holy Spirit.*

Again the first part has two: in the first, he makes known the invisible mission of the Holy Spirit; in the second, he confirms it, at: *But lest in so great a matter [we should seem to bring in anything] of our own* etc.

Likewise, the first part, in which he makes it known, has two; in the first of these he announces his intention, at: *Now therefore let us approach the assignment*; in the second, supposing that the Holy Spirit is the love by which we love God and neighbor, he shows that he is invisibly sent when he effects this effect in us; and this he does at: *But that this may be taught more intelligibly* etc.

*But lest in so great a matter.* This is[^2] the second part, in which he confirms his position; and this part is divided into four parts. In the first he shows that the love by which we love God is God, and[^3] likewise the love by which we love the neighbor. In the second, however, he shows that that love is properly the Holy Spirit, at: *But since fraternal love is God* etc. In the third he shows that the Holy Spirit is charity, not causally speaking, but essentially and formally, at: *But lest perchance someone should say, that thing said*. Fourthly and lastly he concludes,[^4] as something now manifested, that the Holy Spirit is then invisibly sent when he makes us lovers of God and neighbor, at: *From what has been said it becomes clear, that the Holy Spirit is charity* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part four things are asked.

First and principally, on account of the position of the Master, it is asked whether, besides the gift of uncreated charity, a gift of created charity is to be posited; and this is to ask whether the charity by which we love God is the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, granted that there is a created charity, it is asked whether that charity is to be loved by charity.

Thirdly, whether charity can be known with certitude by one having charity.

Fourthly, whether it can be known by[^5] one not having it.

---

la: Ex mss. et sex primis edd. supplevimus male omissum *invisibilem*.

en: From the manuscripts and the first six editions we have supplied *invisibilem*, which had been wrongly omitted.

la: Vat. praeter fidem codd. et ed. 1, verbis Magistri *Ne autem in tanta re* omissis, propositionem ita incipit: *Similiter secunda pars*; mox ob variatam constructionem ponit *habet* loco *et dividitur haec pars in*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the testimony of the manuscripts and edition 1, omits the Master's words *Ne autem in tanta re* and begins the proposition thus: *Similiter secunda pars*; then, on account of the altered construction, it puts *habet* in place of *et dividitur haec pars in*.

la: Praeferimus lectionem nonnullorum codd. ut M T Z (cod. H omittit particulam *et*), in qua additur *Deus et*, quae intentioni Magistri ad amussim correspondet.

en: We prefer the reading of several codices such as M T Z (cod. H omits the particle *et*), in which *Deus et* is added, a reading which corresponds exactly to the Master's intention.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc *ostendit*, sed contra antiquiores codd. cum ed. 1.

en: The Vatican edition, with codex cc, reads *ostendit*, but against the older codices and edition 1.

la: Vat. contra plurimos codd. et ed. 1 *ab aliquo*.

en: The Vatican edition, against many codices and edition 1, reads *ab aliquo*.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 17, Part 2, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Divisio textus distinctionis XVII partis secundae

title_alt: Division of the text of Distinction XVII, Part 2

source_text:
<!-- page 307 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVII.

### Pars II.

#### *Magister ponit opinionis suae defensionem.*

> *Hic quaeritur, si caritas Spiritus sanctus est, cum ipsa augeatur.*

> HUIUS PARTIS TEXTUM VIDE SUPRA P. 289.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de missione Spiritus sancti invisibili secundum suam opinionem. Hic secundo ponit opinionis suae defensionem, et hoc facit respondendo obiectionibus, quae possent[^1] suam opinionem improbare. Et quoniam sua positio improbari potest et ratione et auctoritate et utroque modo, ideo habet haec pars tres partes.

In prima parte impugnat et improbat hoc quod dixerat, quod Spiritus sanctus est caritas, qua diligimus Deum et proximum.

Secundo vero, per auctoritatem, ibi: *Supra dictum est, quod Spiritus sanctus.*

Tertio, per auctoritates et rationes, ibi: *Alias quoque inducunt* etc. — Prima ratio contra Magistrum sumta est ex hoc, quod caritas augetur[^2]; secunda ratio contra ipsum sumta est ex hoc, quod caritas est a Spiritu sancto, sicut dicit Augustinus; tertia ratio sumta est ab hoc, quod caritas est animi affectio, et hoc quidem rationi et auctoritati consonat. In qualibet autem istarum partium Magister primo opponit et secundo determinat; et partes manifestae sunt.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis est hic[^3] quaestio de augmento caritatis, et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor.

Primo quaeritur, utrum caritas possit augeri secundum substantiam.

Secundo quaeritur de modo augmenti ipsius caritatis.

Tertio quaeritur de opposito augmenti ipsius, scilicet de diminutione, utrum caritas possit diminui.

Quarto de augmento caritatis quantum ad terminum sive[^4] statum.

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVII.

### Part II.

#### *The Master sets out the defense of his opinion.*

> *It is asked here, whether charity is the Holy Spirit, since it itself is augmented.*

> FOR THE TEXT OF THIS PART, SEE ABOVE P. 289.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the invisible mission of the Holy Spirit according to his own opinion. Here, secondly, he sets out the defense of his opinion, and this he does by responding to the objections which could[^1] disprove his opinion. And since his position can be disproved by reason and by authority and by both modes together, therefore this part has three parts.

In the first part he attacks and disproves what he had said, namely that the Holy Spirit is the charity by which we love God and neighbor.

Secondly, however, [he attacks his position] by authority, at: *It has been said above, that the Holy Spirit.*

Thirdly, by authorities and reasons, at: *They also adduce other things* etc. — The first reason against the Master is taken from this, that charity is augmented[^2]; the second reason against him is taken from this, that charity is from the Holy Spirit, as Augustine says; the third reason is taken from this, that charity is an affection of the soul, and this indeed is consonant both with reason and with authority. In each of these parts, however, the Master first raises the objection and then determines; and the parts are manifest.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part there is here[^3] a question concerning the augmentation of charity, and concerning this four things are asked.

First it is asked whether charity can be augmented according to substance.

Secondly it is asked concerning the mode of the augmentation of charity itself.

Thirdly it is asked concerning the opposite of its augmentation, namely concerning diminution, whether charity can be diminished.

Fourthly, concerning the augmentation of charity with respect to its term or[^4] state.

---

la: Plurimis codd. cum ed. 1 reluctantibus, Vat. *possunt*.

en: Against the resistance of most codices and edition 1, the Vatican edition reads *possunt*.

la: Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 *augeatur*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and edition 1, reads *augeatur*.

la: Plurimis mss. et ed. 1 consentientibus, supplevimus *hic*.

en: With the agreement of most manuscripts and edition 1, we have supplied *hic*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc repetit *ad*.

en: The Vatican edition, with codex cc, repeats *ad*.