Dist. 18, Art. 1, Q. 3
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/18/q/bon-sent-I-d18-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### QUESTION III.

#### *Whether it is more fittingly said of the Holy Spirit gift than given.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether it is more fittingly said of the Holy Spirit *gift* than *given*. And that *given* is said as fittingly as *gift*, it seems:

1. Because in James 1: *Every best gift and every perfect donation is from above*; therefore from the Holy Spirit things have been *given* just as also they are *gifts*: therefore just as the account of *gift* is transferred to him, so also that of *given*.

2. Likewise, of the movable and the moved there is the same account: therefore similarly of *given* and *donatable*: therefore if *gift* is said in the account of *donatable*, but *given* in the account of what is actually *given*, then the account of *gift* and of *given* is the same, therefore etc.

3. Likewise, in any genus actuality is more perfect than potency: therefore since *given* expresses [something] in act, *gift* in potency, something is more perfectly expressed when it is called *given* than *gift*; but what is of greater perfection more properly belongs to God: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, when any two things are said of something, of which one is the reason for saying the other of the same, that one is more fittingly said which is the reason for saying; but *given* and *gift* are said of the Holy Spirit, and, as Augustine wills, «He is called *gift* because he is given»: therefore *given* is more properly said.

**On the contrary:**
1. *Given* belongs to the Holy Spirit only from time, but *gift* eternally: therefore *gift* is more properly said.

2. Likewise, if he were never actually given, *gift* he would still be and *spirit* he would be: therefore it seems that *gift* more properly belongs to him.

3. Likewise, the Gloss on that text of James 1: *Every best gift* etc. says, that «*given* is said with respect to natural [things], *gift* with respect to gratuitous [things]». If therefore gratuitous [things] are more aptly appropriated to the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies, than natural [things]: therefore in divine [matters] it is better said of the Holy Spirit *gift* than *given*.

4. Likewise, «a *gift* is a donation that is not to be returned»; but whatever God gives, he gives irretrievably, because when he gives, he can receive nothing: therefore in divine [matters] *given* has the account of *gift* and takes on its account: therefore there it is more fittingly called *gift* than *given*.

### CONCLUSION.

> The Holy Spirit is more fittingly called *gift* than *given*, which is proven by a twofold reason.

**I respond:** It must be said that although in divine [matters] each is said, both *given* and *gift*, nevertheless *gift* is more fittingly said. And of this there is a twofold reason. One indeed is, because *given*, since it is either a participle or a verbal noun, concerns time; but *gift* withdraws from time; and therefore, since all divine [things] are above time, *gift* is more fittingly said in divine [matters] than *given*. Another reason is, because *gift* adds beyond the account of *given* the condition of liberality or irretrievability, which is a condition of great nobility; and therefore it most belongs to divine [matters]. And this is the reason why *gift* is appropriated to gratuitous gifts, not only to the Holy Spirit himself, who is the principle of gratuitous gifts.

**To 1.** And from this is clear the response to that [argument] from the authority of blessed James.

**To 2.** To that which is objected, that of the movable and the moved the account is the same; it must be said, that the case of the movable and the moved is not similar to that of *gift* and *given*: because to be moved adds beyond the movable an act and expresses the whole that the movable expresses. But *given* does not express the whole that *gift* expresses, as far as concerns the general meaning of the term, unless it be appropriated; «for a *gift* is a donation that is not to be returned», and this will appear better in the fourth problem.

**To 3.** To that which is objected, that act is the perfection of potency; it must be said, that something is in potency to act in two ways: either on account of the imperfection of the agent, or on account of the defect of the recipient. If it be in potency in the first way, then act is the perfection of potency; but if in the second way, it is not a perfection. Hence if it be said that the sun, actually shining, can illuminate a house which is not open, and illuminates a house which is opened, no greater perfection at all is noted than before. Thus it must be understood concerning donatability and actual donation.

**To 4.** To that which is objected, that *given* is the reason for saying *gift*, because [it is] therefore *gift*, because it is given; it must be said, that this is not the whole reason, as it is said in the [Master's] text, but only in comparison to him to whom it is given. — Or it can be said, as far as concerns our intellect: it is therefore called *gift* because it is given; but yet on the side of the truth of the matter it is the reverse, because it is therefore given because it is *gift*.