Dist. 15, Part 1, 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/15/q/bon-sent-I-d15-p1-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS ON THE LETTER OF THE MASTER.

#### DOUBT I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the letter, and first it is doubted concerning what he says — that the Holy Spirit is given not only by the Father and the Son, but also given by himself. He seems to say something false, because above he made the argument that he cannot be given by holy men, since he cannot proceed from them; but he cannot proceed from himself: therefore, by the same reason, neither can he be given by himself.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master was arguing about temporal procession, and concerning this he himself rightly grants that the Spirit proceeds from himself, because it is of his own power to breathe upon whom he wills; but holy men have no power over him.

#### DOUBT II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says — that *the gift of the Holy Spirit is nothing other than the Holy Spirit himself, just as the body of the flesh is nothing other than flesh*. For it seems, if the comparison is good, that everything which is a gift of the Holy Spirit must be the Holy Spirit. But on the contrary: fear is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and is not the Holy Spirit.

**I respond:** It must be said that *gift*, since it asserts a relation, and through this in some manner a distinction, can import that [distinction] in three ways: either according to the manner of understanding, or according to the manner of being, or according to essence. In the first way, the giver and the given are the same — as «the same is the one understanding and the thing understood» — and they differ only by the account of the manner of speaking, since the same one is given by himself; and so Augustine understands [it]. In another way, according to the manner of being or of holding-oneself, which is one and another in the persons; and so it asserts the relation of person to person. In the third way it imports distinction according to essence, insofar as it asserts an effect and a respect of the creature to the uncreated essence; and in this way fear is called a gift of the Holy Spirit; but this will appear better below.

#### DOUBT III.

Likewise it is asked concerning the Master's reasoning, in which he says: *If the Father and the Son give the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit does not give himself, then the Father and the Son can do something which the Holy Spirit cannot*; for that reasoning, as has been said above, does not hold. The Father can generate the Son, and the Son cannot: therefore the Father can do something which the Son cannot: therefore by like reason, since the Holy Spirit asserts a person as the Son does, [the argument] does not hold. If you say that it is not parallel on account of the act of giving, which is an operation in the creature; *on the contrary*: as the Master says in the letter, *the donation of the Holy Spirit is his procession*; but that argument is worth nothing: the Holy Spirit proceeds, and the Father does not: therefore the Holy Spirit does something which the Father does not: therefore similarly not in the case at hand. If you tell me that there is no parallel between the active and the passive; *on the contrary*: the inflection of a noun by cases does not change the signification: therefore similarly it seems that there is no variation there through active and passive. And if you say that it is not parallel, it is shown that it is; for every active [voice] infers a passive: therefore it seems that if [the verb] in the active voice is taken essentially, [it must be taken] similarly in the passive.

**I respond:** It must be said, as has been determined before, that the Master's reasonings are good, since he takes *to give* insofar as it asserts an effect in the creature; and according to this it is necessarily common to the three persons, and this in the active signification. For *to give the Holy Spirit to someone* is to bring it about that he indwell in him; and therefore the case of the power of generating is not parallel.

Therefore to what is objected — that the Master says that *donation is the same as procession* — it must be said that he is speaking of passive donation, insofar as it is restricted to the Holy Spirit; and his argument is good, because action and passion are from the same principle: therefore if active donation is from the Father, so also passive donation; similarly if active donation is from the Holy Spirit, so also the passive.

To what is objected — that in the active [voice it is] taken essentially, therefore also in the passive, [and] similarly therefore it can be said that the Father proceeds — it must be said that this argument does not hold, because *to breathe* in the active voice belongs to two, in the passive voice belongs to one alone; so *to send* can belong to three, but *to proceed* or *to be sent* [belongs] to two only.

#### DOUBT IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says — that *the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself*. For it seems false, since *to proceed* is *to be produced*: therefore if the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself, he is produced from himself. If you say that it is not said without the qualification *temporally*; *on the contrary*: *temporally* is a non-diminishing qualification: therefore it follows necessarily that, if he proceeds from himself temporally, he proceeds from himself.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was said above, procession by reason of comparison to the term in which it is received — namely, the creature that is sanctified — connotes the temporal by the very meaning of the name, and therefore is called temporal. And since that temporal effect is from the Holy Spirit, therefore the procession is also [from him], although not so properly as from the Father. Nor does this hold of *production*, because production asserts only the comparison to the principle *from which*, and does not connote an effect. Whence just as it does not hold to argue, *he proceeds temporally, therefore he is produced temporally*, so neither in the case at hand.

#### DOUBT V.

Likewise it is asked concerning the Master's proof, by which he proves the mission of the Holy Spirit through the mission of the Son, at: *But do not be amazed that the Holy Spirit is said to be sent or to proceed from himself. For also of the Son*, etc. For it seems that he proves badly, since mission asserts *subauthority* in the one sent: but there is more *subauthority* in the Holy Spirit than in the Son: therefore more of the character of mission: therefore it seems that he ought rather to have proceeded conversely.

Likewise, mission asserts manifestation; but the mission of the Son was manifested through the mission of the Holy Spirit: therefore the mission of the Holy Spirit is more manifest: therefore it seems that he proves the unknown through the more unknown.

Joined to this, it is asked of which it is more properly said *to be sent*, that is, whether of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit?

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master proves the mission of the Holy Spirit through the mission of the Son because he has more express authorities for this. It can nevertheless be said that he also proceeds well by reasoning. For in the mission of a person there are two things to consider: namely, emanation, by reason of which there is *subauthority* in the one sent; and as far as this, *to be sent* belongs more to the Holy Spirit, and on this point the Master argues from the lesser: that if the Son is sent by the Holy Spirit and by himself, much more is the Holy Spirit. There is also to consider manifestation; and by reason of this it belongs more to the Son, since he appeared more evidently to the world; and on this point the Master argues from the more manifest; and so he proceeds most excellently.

To what is objected — that the Holy Spirit manifests the Son and his mission — it must be said that this is not because of any defect of evidence on the side of the mission of the Son, but on account of the blindness on the side of those who see, which the grace of the Holy Spirit removes.

And so it is plain of which more properly. For in one mode it belongs more to the Son, in another mode more to the Holy Spirit, according to the two foregoing conditions.

#### DOUBT VI.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *that the Son was sent inasmuch as he was made of woman*; for according to this, since the Holy Spirit is not made of woman, it seems that he is not sent. Furthermore, if the Son is made of woman, therefore he is *made*. *On the contrary*: in the Creed: *Not made*.

**I respond:** That is not the common account of mission, but only of the visible mission of the Son himself; and therefore it does not hold for the Holy Spirit.

To what is objected — that he is *made* — it must be said that this is to be understood according to human nature; and therefore one must add a qualification, so that it is said *made of woman*, or *according to human nature*, since simply [speaking], on account of the error of Arius which must be avoided, ecclesiastical speech does not accept it.

---