Dist. 18, Art. 1, Q. 4
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-q4
----------------------------------------
### QUESTION IV.

#### *Whether 'gift' is an essential name, or personal and proper to the Holy Spirit.*

Fourthly it is asked, whether *gift* properly belongs to the Holy Spirit. And that it does, it seems:

1. Augustine, *On the Trinity* book fifteen: «Just as in the Trinity there is no *Word* except the Son, so neither is there a *Gift* except the Holy Spirit».

2. Likewise, *gift* expresses an emanation by mode of liberality; but this is proper to the Holy Spirit alone: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, *gift* is said relatively to the giver; but the giver is not only the Father, but also the Son, since each is one who sends: therefore *gift* is said relatively to the Father and to the Son: and if so, then it is distinguished from each: therefore neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Holy Spirit, is properly called *gift*.

**On the contrary:** 1. *Gift* is said in habit, but *given* is said in act, therefore *given* adds beyond *gift*: therefore to that to which *given* belongs, the account of *gift* also belongs. But *given* belongs to the whole Trinity, since the whole Trinity gives itself, therefore so does *gift*: therefore not properly to the Holy Spirit.

2. Likewise, *gift* expresses a relation to the giver and to him to whom it is given: if therefore it is proper to the Holy Spirit, [it is so] either on account of the relation to the *giver*, or to the *recipient*. Not on account of the relation to the *recipient*, since the Son likewise has been given to us, and indeed has been given even more than the Holy Spirit. But if [on account of the relation] to the *giver*; on the contrary: the Son is said to proceed from a giver, namely from the Father: therefore by a common account he seems to belong to the Son. *If you say* that the Son does not proceed by mode of *donatable*, nor «in the manner in which he was given, but in the manner in which he was born»; on the contrary: the Son so proceeded from eternity that he should be missible in time, since «by that by which the Son is begotten, by that he is sent»; but mission is nothing other than donation: therefore the Son proceeded as donatable.

3. Likewise, if the Son is given in time, either he was apt for this from eternity, or not. If so: therefore he proceeded as donatable; if not: therefore something belongs to the Son in time which is repugnant to the eternal emanation, which is inconvenient.

4. Likewise, it is a rule that every name expressing a relation or effect to creatures is common to the three; but *gift* is of this kind: therefore etc.

### CONCLUSION.

> *Gift is a personal name and proper to the Holy Spirit; but* given *can be said both essentially of the three persons, and personally of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and properly of the Holy Spirit.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, as is plain from the words of Augustine, *gift* is said in divine [matters] properly or personally, not essentially, just as *Word* is said properly of the Son; but *given* can be taken both essentially and personally, that is to say, properly and commonly. For the whole Trinity gives itself, and yet the Father and the Son properly give the Holy Spirit.

On account of this it must be noted that *given*, by its account, is the same as *communicated*. Therefore this which is *given* can be called communicated out of liberality, and thus is common to the whole Trinity; or out of liberality and authority, and thus belongs to the Holy Spirit and to the Son, who have sub-authority with respect to the Father; or *given* can be called not only communicated but also produced out of liberality and authority, and in this mode it is proper to the Holy Spirit, whose property is to proceed according to the account of liberality, and thus according to the account of *gift* or *donatable*. And in this mode *gift* and *given* are equivalent; they differ, however, in that *given* expresses communication in act, but *gift* in habit. And thus it must be conceded that *gift* is said properly in divine [matters] of the Holy Spirit.

**To 1.** To that which is objected, that *given* adds beyond *gift*: it must be said that, according to the common acceptation of *given* and *gift*, *gift* expresses something beyond *given*, and *given* something beyond *gift*. *Gift* beyond *given* implies an emanation by mode of liberality; but *given* beyond *gift* implies an act of communication, since *gift* expresses habit. And therefore, since that which *gift* adds beyond *given* is personal, therefore *gift* properly belongs to the person of the Holy Spirit.

**To 2.** To that which is asked, by reason of which relation *gift* is properly said: the response is now plain, because [it is so said] by reason of the relation to the *giver*, not, I say, by reason of the relation simply, but by reason of such a relation, since [the Spirit] emanates by mode of *donatable*, which is proper to the Holy Spirit.

**To 3.** As to what is objected, that the Son emanates by mode of *donatable*; it must be said that this is false. For although donatability or liberality is communicated to the Son in his generation, yet it is not the reason of his emanating; and because it is communicated eternally, therefore he is given in time; but because it is not the reason of his emanating, therefore the Son does not emanate as *gift*, but only the Holy Spirit.

**To 4.** To what is lastly objected concerning relation to the creature, it must be said that this is to be understood of that name which implies only a relation to the creature, not [a relation] of person to person; but *gift* implies both; therefore that rule does not have a place here.