Dist. 12, 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/12/q/bon-sent-I-d12-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS ON THE TEXT OF THE MASTER (Distinction XII).

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts on the text, and first on the heretic's argument which he makes there: *Either when the Son was already born, or when He was not yet born*. For that argument seems necessary, because it is necessary that one part of any contradiction be true; but *born* and *not born* are contradictorily opposed: therefore it is necessary to grant one part, that the Holy Spirit proceeds either when the Son was already born, or when He was not yet born: since therefore the Master and Augustine reply by *killing* both parts, they seem to reply badly.

**I respond:** It must be said that the heretic in his question was asking about the order of the generation of the Son to the procession of the Holy Spirit, and was asking about the order according to *duration and time*, not according to the *order of understanding*, and was asking whether the Son was born first, before the Holy Spirit proceeded, or conversely. And both were false; therefore the Master and Augustine, considering the intention of the heretic — that is, the question according to the sense in which he proposed it — reply simply and well by *killing* it.

To that, then, which is objected, that the heretic's division is by contradictories; it must be said that this is false; because a *contradictory proposition* is taken by negating the *principal composition*; but he carries the negation to a composition that is not principal, but understood in the [participle] *born*; and therefore the cause of falsity always remains. For this is false: *The Holy Spirit proceeded, the Son [already] born*; because it is signified that *the nativity of the Son precedes the procession of the Holy Spirit*. This too is false: *He proceeded, the Son not [yet] born*; because it is signified that *the nativity of the Son was not at the same time as the procession of the Holy Spirit*. But this is true: *The Holy Spirit did not proceed, the Son being born first*; because the nativity of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit were at the same time.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what is said: *Whatever He gave to the Only-begotten, He gave by begetting*. He seems to say [this] badly, because if so; but He gave Him spiration, therefore He gave it by begetting, therefore *spiration is begotten*. But whatever is said in the divine [persons] concretely is also said abstractly — though not conversely: therefore if spiration is begotten, *spiration is generation*, which is against everyone today.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a defect in both arguments.

*Solution 1.* For this does not hold: *He gave by begetting spiration, therefore He begot spiration*; just as it does not follow: *by begetting He gave the essence to the Son, therefore the essence is begotten*. For some things are said to be *given* by generation which are not said to be *generated*.

*Solution 2.* And again the other reasoning does not hold: *spiration is begotten, therefore spiration is generation*. For as will appear below concerning the two notions of one person, it is true that one is predicated of the other *denominatively*, not *in abstract*; and so that reasoning does not hold — rather, an accident is committed there. So when it is said: *whatever is predicated denominatively is also [predicable] abstractly*, this is true of *essence*; but it is not true of *property of a person*; and these things will appear better below.

### Doubt III.

Likewise there is a doubt about what Jerome says: *We believe in the Holy Spirit, who properly proceeds from the Father*. For he seems to say [something] false, because *property is what belongs to one alone*: therefore if [the Spirit] proceeds *properly* from the Father, He does not [proceed properly] from the Son. If you say that he does not say *properly* against *commonness* but against *improperness*: then it seems that He proceeds *improperly* from the Son.

**I respond:** It must be said that *proprie* does not denote *property* or *solitude*, but rings of *authority*, like *principally*.

*Solution 1.* For just as the Father is said to spirate *principally* because He does not have this from another; so also *properly*, because this condition — *not to have from another* — He communicates to no one. So the Master seems to say.

*Another solution.* Yet it can be said that in one way *proper* is said against *commonness*; in another way against *improperness*; in a third way it is taken for *appropriation*; and so it is taken here. For although spiration belongs as truly and properly to the Father and the Son, yet Jerome appropriates it to the Father on account of *authority*.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what Hilary, addressing the Father, says: *From Thee, through Him, is Thy Holy Spirit*. For he seems to say [it] badly by saying *through Him*, because, as Prepositivus says, *per* (through) with transitive verbs signifies *sub-authority*, but with absolute [verbs] *authority*; as is plain when it is said: *I am wise through God*, in *God* authority is denoted. When therefore it is said that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, in *the Son* authority is denoted.

**I respond:**

*The solution of others.* It must be said that some have wished to say that this is improper: *The Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son*, or *proceeds*; and it should be resolved into: *The Holy Spirit is spirated by the Father through the Son*; and they consent to the aforesaid reasoning.

*Not proven.* But since *creature proceeds from the Father through the Son* is true, and likewise *goes out or proceeds*: I do not see why those words of Hilary similarly cannot be said properly.

*The true solution.* And therefore it must be said that, although *to proceed* is not a transitive verb in mode of signifying — because it is not construed with the accusative — yet because it is equivalent to a transitive [verb], as when it is said: *He proceeds from the Father through the Son*, it is to be judged as if [it were] a transitive verb; and so it denotes *sub-authority*.

---