Dist. 10, 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/1/d/10/q/bon-sent-I-d10-dubia
----------------------------------------
### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning what he says, namely that *the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father, or charity, or love (dilection).* It is asked therefore whether *caritas* and *dilectio* differ; and that they do is seen through Isidore, who says: *Amor* belongs to rational and irrational beings, *dilectio* to rational beings only. But on the contrary: Dionysius, *On the Divine Names*, chapter four: « To me the theologians seem to say something common under the name of *dilectio* and *amor* »: and in the same place he rebukes those who distinguish, saying that they make much of light sounds, as though we could not signify *four* through *twice two*, and *fatherland* through *native soil*.

**I respond:** Some have wished to say that they differ, because *dilectio* is properly said of that which is from an ordered will, but *amor* is a libidinous affection. But this distinction is against Dionysius and against Augustine *on John* and against the canon of sacred Scripture, since the Lord first asked Peter: *Simon son of John, do you love (diligis) me?* and afterwards said: *do you love (amas) me?* — and so they are taken for the same: and Dionysius rebukes this difference.

Nevertheless some difference can be assigned. For although they may be said of one and the same affection, yet by different accounts. For *amor* expresses the affection's adhesion in respect of the beloved; whence Dionysius: « We call *amor* unitive ». But *dilectio* adds election beyond this: hence *dilectio* (love-by-choice) is "election from various ones"; whence Canticles 5: *My beloved (dilectus) is chosen out of thousands.* But *caritas* adds beyond these a great appreciation. For that is called *carum* (dear) which is esteemed of great price, according to which the Apostle in his epistles calls the faithful *carissimi* (most dear), 1 Corinthians 4.

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is doubted concerning what he says: *Properly the Word of God is also called the wisdom of God*; for either it is taken properly because it belongs to him alone, or properly because by appropriation: for if to him alone, this is false, because wisdom in no way states a personal property; if properly, because by appropriation, this does nothing for the matter in hand, because the Master wishes to inquire into a property of the Holy Spirit, not something appropriated. And again, *caritas* seems rather to be appropriated to the Father, according to what is said in that prose, « charity is the Father »: Likewise this seems so through Richard, because « gratuitous love is in the Father, owed love in the Holy Spirit, mingled from both in the Son »: therefore since *caritas* signifies gratuitous love, it ought to be appropriated to the Father.

**I respond:** It must be said that the similitude is not in every way, but there is a similitude in this: for what is common can be appropriated, the unity of the vocable or of the signification remaining. Likewise some name can at the same time be said by property and by essence, the unity of the vocable and signification remaining, and yet it is of itself common; and such is this name *caritas*.

Otherwise it can be said that *caritas* is common and proper and appropriated; and Augustine first shows that it is appropriated by similitude to wisdom, and afterwards shows that it is truly proper, below: *Now, what we have begun to show, etc.* Hence from this authority it is not gathered that *caritas* is proper, but only that it is appropriated. But nevertheless from other words of Augustine it is gathered that *caritas* is not only appropriated, but also properly proper to the Holy Spirit.

To that which is objected, that *caritas* is appropriated to the Father: it must be said that *caritas* has a twofold

comparison to the other virtues. For it is compared as a mother, as Ambrose says, and it is compared as a bond, as the Apostle says to the Colossians 3: *Charity is the bond of perfection.* By reason of the first it is appropriated to the Father, by reason of the second to the Holy Spirit.

To that which is objected from Richard, it must be said that *gratuitous* does not state a property of the love or of loving, but a property of the person who gives and does not receive.

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that *the Holy Spirit is the love by which the Father and the Son love one another and us.* It is asked whether the Father and the Son love us by the Holy Spirit. For whether they love themselves by the Holy Spirit will be asked in distinction 32, where he moves this question specifically. But the first seems altogether false and improper. For when it is said: *the Father and the Son love us etc.*, it is established that the verb *to love* is held essentially; therefore if they love by the Holy Spirit, they are the Holy Spirit. And again, Augustine says that this is in no way conceded: *The Father loves himself by the Holy Spirit*, because *to love* is held essentially: therefore likewise in the matter in hand.

**I respond:** *Some* say that this ablative is expounded through this preposition *per* (through) with the accusative, that is, *through the Holy Spirit*; and the rule is that this preposition *per* with transitive verbs states sub-authority, but with absolute verbs authority. Hence since *to love* is transitive, the sense is that the Father and the Son love us *through* the Holy Spirit, as though one were saying: the Father works *through* the Son. — But this exposition does not seem fitting, because likewise it could be said: the Father and the Son punish or hate us by the Holy Spirit; which Augustine does not wish to say.

Therefore it must be noted that *to love* is sometimes held purely essentially, as when it is said: *The Father loves himself*; sometimes purely notionally, as when it is said: *The Father and the Son love themselves by the Holy Spirit*, as will be shown; sometimes partly essentially, partly notionally, as when it is said: *they love us by the Holy Spirit*; and this is clear, because it is the same thing for the Father and the Son to love us by the Holy Spirit, and for them to send or inspire the Holy Spirit into us. But *to send* or *to inspire* implies a notional and an essential act, because the sense is that they produce the Spirit and confer his gift upon us; whence he says at one stroke the production of the Holy Spirit and the conferral of grace. And although in respect of an essential act the relation of the ablative is not received, nevertheless it is received by reason of the notion, just as also here: *the Father speaks himself by his Word*, he also speaks creatures by the Word; in a similar way it is to be understood in the matter in hand.

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *Whether (this) be the unity of the two or their sanctity*; what is said by this name *unitas*; for either *unitas* states essential unity, or notional, or personal. Not essential, because then it would not be of the two, but of the three; not notional, because the Holy Spirit is not common spiration; not personal, because the Father and the Son are not one in person. Likewise it is asked, in what way these three are distinguished — *unitas*, *sanctitas*, *caritas*.

**I respond:** It must be said that *unitas* is held personally. But it must be observed that the *unity of some* is said in a twofold way: either *that by which some are one*, and thus there is not a personal unity of the Father and the Son; or *that by which some are united*, and thus the Father and the Son are united by a single person, namely the person of the Holy Spirit, who is love and the binding bond.

To what is asked, in what way these three differ; it must be said that one adds upon another. For *unitas* states the condition of every love, since every love is a *unitive power*; *sanctitas* states the condition of chaste love over against libidinous love, which is not pure; *caritas* states the condition of pre-eminent love: for *caritas* is so called because it is a love having its beloved as dear beyond estimation.

### Dub. V.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *If each (loves) not by participation but by his own essence... preserving the unity of the spirit.* For he seems not to speak well, because *to preserve the unity of the spirit* is to produce the Holy Spirit: therefore according to this the Father and the Son by their essence produce the Holy Spirit, and so it seems

that they spirate by essence. Likewise also what is said seems false, *not by participation*, because the Father and the Son by participation in spiration preserve the unity.

**I respond:** It must be said that Augustine wishes to show that the twofold mode of unity between the Father and the Son is the same as that between the members of Christ, namely of *nature* and of *will*; but differently, because in us there is unity of nature through participation in one common essence, but we are not that essence itself. But the Father and the Son do not participate in essence as in something distinct; rather, they are the essence itself. Similarly in us there is conformity of will through the gift of God which unites us; but the Father and the Son are united not by a gift received from another, but by their proper Spirit; and so the response is clear.

### Dub. VI.

Likewise it is asked concerning the argument of Augustine: *For because it is common to both, that is properly called the same which both (are) in common*; therefore according to this, by parity of reasoning the Holy Spirit is properly called God, since God is common to both.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is equivocation in *commonness*. For Augustine does not call *common* what is in many and of many, but what is from many; and so *commune* is called rather from *communio* (communion) than from *communitas* (community), so that emphasis falls upon the word, just as happens between *unio* (union) and *unitas* (unity). And because *caritas* states not only community, because in many, but communion through the unity of distinct ones: therefore although it is said essentially, it can nevertheless also be said personally.

---