Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 1
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-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On the property of the Holy Spirit.*
### Question I. *Whether love or charity is proper to the Holy Spirit.*

Concerning the first, that charity is proper to the Holy Spirit, it is shown thus.

1. Augustine, in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*: "Just as in that Trinity not only the Holy Spirit is spirit, yet he is properly called the Holy Spirit; so, although the Father is charity and the Son is charity, yet that person is properly called charity, just as he is properly called the Holy Spirit."

2. Likewise, the same is shown by the same [Augustine] on the First Canonical [Epistle] of John, where he intends to find the property of the Holy Spirit, and brings the discourse to this point, that the Holy Spirit is charity.

3. Likewise, the same is shown by reason: since that is properly proper to a person which states its mode of emanating; but love is of this sort, as has been proved: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, as the word stands to the Son, so love to the Holy Spirit; but the word is proper to the Son: therefore love also is proper to the Holy Spirit.

**On the contrary:**

1. Augustine, in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*: "The Father is charity, and the Son is charity, and the Holy Spirit is charity, and all together are one charity": therefore charity is not properly said of the Holy Spirit.

2. Likewise, love does not proceed otherwise than by loving: therefore, since love by necessity is in the lover, and the Father and the Son by loving produce the Holy Spirit, it seems impossible that it should belong to him properly. Either, then, the Holy Spirit is not a person, or he is not love properly, or he does not proceed by the mode of love.

3. Likewise, as wisdom stands to the Son, so love to the Holy Spirit; but wisdom is not proper to the Son, but only appropriated: therefore also love similarly to the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, everything that is said properly imports some relation: therefore if love is said properly, it imports a relation. I ask: to what? Either to the lover, or to the beloved. If to the lover, then the lover is not love; likewise if to the beloved, then the Holy Spirit either would not love or would not be loved; but this is unfitting.

> **Conclusion.** *Charity, taken personally, is proper to the Holy Spirit; taken essentially, it states complacency; but notionally, concord in spirating.*

**I respond:** It must be said that love in the divine [reality] can be and necessarily is taken essentially, notionally, and personally: essentially, because each one loves himself; notionally, however, because the Father and the Son agree in spirating the Holy Spirit, which concord is love or affection; but personally, because he who is produced by the mode of perfect liberality cannot be other than love or affection.

Hence, said essentially, it states complacency; notionally, concord in spirating; but personally, the procession in that concord.

An example of this can be set in created love, by which a husband and wife love each other. For they love each other with social love for living together; they love each other further with conjugal love for the procreation of offspring, and that [offspring], if it were produced from the will of concord alone, would be love; but now it is one beloved, unless it be called love by an emphatic mode of speaking. In the divine, however, it is truly and properly love, having the character of love and of hypostasis: of love on account of this, that from the most liberal will it first proceeds by the mode of perfect liberality; of hypostasis, because, since it is distinguished from the producer and cannot be distinguished essentially, it is distinguished personally; but it is not so in created love.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1 and 2.* From this is clear what is objected in the first and second, when it is said, that it is the property of lovers or producers; for it is taken notionally; for as it proceeds from them, it cannot be a property, but a distinct person. Whence the procession of created love and of uncreated love is not altogether similar, because here it is a property, there a hypostasis and substance.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning wisdom, it must be said that it is not similar; for wisdom does not state a relation to another, and therefore is always said of itself in reference to itself and is essential, unless it be appropriated; but love states a relation to those who are joined by love. Whence, just as the word is proper to the Son, not appropriated, because it connotes a relation to the speaker; so also love or charity is not only appropriated, but indeed proper to the Holy Spirit. And as the Son proceeds from the Father by the mode of word, so the Holy Spirit by the mode of love. And from this it is, as will better appear below, that this is admitted: the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit; but not that the Father is wise by begotten wisdom.

*To 4.* To that which is objected last: to what does it state a relation? It must be said that to the lovers, according as "lovers" is taken notionally, as was already touched on. For in one mode "to love themselves" is the same as "to spirate concordantly"; in this mode the Holy Spirit is not a lover, because he does not spirate. But he [the objector] objects from the essential, which does not state an egress from the lover, but only states the complacency of will by which each one loves and is loved.