Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 2
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-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether the Holy Spirit is the bond or unity of the Father and the Son.*

Secondly it is asked whether the Holy Spirit is properly the bond or unity of them both. And that it is so, seems to be the case in this way.

1. Augustine, *On the Trinity*, Book VI: «There is not anything of the two by which each is conjoined»; but [the Father and the Son] are conjoined by a bond: therefore the bond is not anything of the two: therefore it is properly the third person.

2. Likewise, love in creatures is a bond: but as has been proved, the Holy Spirit is most perfect love: therefore etc. That love is a bond, however, is clear from Dionysius: «Love, whether divine or intellectual, we call a unitive power».

3. Likewise, the Holy Spirit, according to the Greeks, proceeds from the Father into the Son, according to the Latins from the Father and the Son. But by whichever of these modes he proceeds, the Father and Son are united in the Spirit; but that in which they are united is the bond of them both: therefore the Holy Spirit is the bond.

4. Likewise, either the Spirit of the Father is the Spirit of the Son, or not. If not: then since no one knows the things which are in a man except the spirit of him which is in him, as the Apostle says, the Father does not know the will of the Son, nor the Son the will of the Father: therefore, if the spirit of them both is the same, they are united in the Spirit.

**On the contrary:**

1. There is no bond except of things separated, for those which are not separated need not anything connecting them; but the Father is not separated from the Son, nor conversely, because the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, a bond is that in which two things come together; but the Father and the Son do not come together in person: therefore no person is the bond of the Father and the Son.

3. Likewise, those things are said to be bound which come together in something in which they are united. If therefore the Son and the Holy Spirit originally come together in the Father, then the Father is the bond of the Son and the Holy Spirit: therefore the Holy Spirit is not the bond.

4. Likewise, a bond is so called  either because it is bound, or because it binds; if therefore the Holy Spirit is a bond, then either because he is bound, or because he binds. Not because he is bound: because then likewise any other person would be a bond, and likewise the Father would be a bond; if because he binds the Father and the Son: then he gives something to the Father and the Son; but this is unsuitable: therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> *The Holy Spirit is properly called the bond or unity of the Father and the Son.*

**I respond:** It must be said that "bond" is properly said of the Holy Spirit, or the unity of them both. The reason for this is that the Father and the Son communicate in one Spirit, and so he is the unity of them both. And again, that Spirit is love, and so they communicate in him as in one love; and because love is most properly a bond, therefore the Holy Spirit is properly a bond, because he is mutual love, he is singular and substance-conferring love.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

1. To that which is objected to the contrary, that there is no bond except of things separated; it must be said that separation is spoken of in three ways: according to distance, and thus it is called local separation; and according to difference by essence, and thus it is called substantial separation; and according to difference of relative property, and thus it is not called separation properly, but distinction. And in any of these modes there can be a bond. Since therefore the Father and the Son are distinct, therefore they are rightly said to be connected.

2. To that which is objected, that a bond is that in which two things come together; it must be said that there is essential agreement, and there is agreement of origin; and a bond can be in either mode; and although the Father and the Son do not come together formally in one person, nevertheless they come together originally, because one person arises from both of them in one and the same way.

3. To that which is objected, that the Son and the Holy Spirit come together in the Father; it must be said that agreement of origin is spoken of in two ways: either because they arise from one, or because from them one arises. If because from one, so it is not called a bond, because a bond is a union following upon distinction, but unity in origin precedes distinction. But if [it is] because [it is the] origin of one, so, since there is distinction and consequent union, it is most properly a bond; and thus it is in the Father and the Son with respect to the Holy Spirit.

Otherwise, however, it can be said that the case is not the same, because the Son and the Holy Spirit are not produced from the Father in the same way, but the Father and the Son spirate the Holy Spirit in the same way. And again, the agreement of the Father and the Son is in the Holy Spirit as in love, whose function is to bind; the Son and the Holy Spirit do not thus come together in the Father.

4. To that which is objected, that "bond" is so called either because it binds etc.; it must be said that there are some verbs which in the active voice signify passion, as the verbs pertaining to the senses, as *I see*, *I hear*, and the like; and some which in the active voice signify action, as *I make* and *I strike*, similarly in the passive. It must therefore be said that this act of binding, since the Spirit is said to bind because he proceeds from both, in the active voice rightly signifies passion and in the passive action; and therefore it is not signified that he gives something to the Father and the Son, but rather that he receives.