Dist. 10, Art. 1, Q. 3
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/1/d/10/q/bon-sent-I-d10-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III

*Whether in God a third person is to be posited proceeding by way of mutual charity.*

Thirdly it is asked whether it is necessary to posit a third person proceeding by way of mutual charity. And that it is so, it seems.

1. John 17: «That they may be one, even as we are»: the Lord prays and asks for the disciples a unity, not of nature, but of love through conformity to that highest unity; but the members of Christ are united by mutual love: therefore in God there is an exemplar of this: and so on.

2. Likewise, Jerome on Psalm 17: «The Holy Spirit is the love which the Father has toward the Son, and the Son toward the Father»: therefore it is a mutual love.

3. Likewise, this same point is shown by reason, because love is more perfect when it is mutual, since if it is not mutual, it limps on the other side; but in that love is the highest perfection and no limping: therefore, and so on.

4. Likewise, he who does not love in return one who loves him rightly and liberally is either unjust or ungrateful: since therefore in God there is no injustice and no ingratitude, it is necessary that there be mutual love.

**On the contrary:**

1. If there is mutual love, therefore [it is] of the Son toward the Father and of the Father toward the Son: therefore the Father receives something from the Son; which is absurd.

2. Likewise, he who loves one who loves him does what is owed, because this is a debt which is to be repaid; therefore if in God there is mutual love, therefore it is owed: therefore it is not most liberal, which is absurd.

3. Likewise, no mutual love is a unique love; this is self-evident; therefore if the Holy Spirit is mutual love, He is not a unique love.

4. Likewise, if the love is mutual, therefore it is the love of the Father toward the Son; but this love, as Richard says, is gratuitous love; likewise will there be [love] of the Son toward the Father; and this, as he himself says, is owed love: therefore if the third person proceeds by way of gratuitous and owed love, therefore it is a love mixed from both: therefore not pure love. And again, since this love is the Son, it seems that the Son is the Holy Spirit, because, as Richard says, in the Son there is a love mixed from both.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** The third person proceeds by way of mutual charity.

**I respond:** It must be said that, since love has the perfection of delight and of union and of rectitude from mutuality, either one is not to posit a person in God to proceed by way of love, or, if one does proceed, it proceeds by way of mutual charity.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*To 1.* To what is objected to the contrary, that then the Son gives something to the Father; it must be said that from the fact that the lover by love tends toward the beloved, he gives nothing to him; otherwise we would be giving something to God when we love Him.

*To 2.* To what is objected, that mutual love is owed; it must be said that it is owed because it is right; yet love does not consider what is owed. Hence however much may be owed, so long as the debt is not attended to, the character of liberality is not diminished; rather, the character of rectitude is shown.

*To 3.* To what is objected: if mutual, not unique; it must be said that this is true among lovers whose affections are diverse; it is not so in God.

*To 4.* To what is objected, that it is not pure love; it must be said that from each side it is liberal, and therefore wholly pure. And as to what Richard says, that it is owed and gratuitous love; it must be said that these conditions do not state the mode of loving with respect to the love itself, but state the mode of emanation or of origin with respect to the persons.