Dist. 18, Art. 1, Q. 6
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-q6
----------------------------------------
### QUESTION VI.

#### *Whether the Holy Spirit by reason of donability can be called our Spirit.*

Sixthly and lastly it is asked, whether by reason of donability He is called *our Spirit*. And that it is so, it seems:

1. Because *ours* expresses possession; but we do not have anything divine except through largesse and donation: therefore since the Holy Spirit expresses something divine, which is called *ours*, this is by reason of donability.

2. Likewise, this also seems [the case], because He is called *our Spirit*, but the Son or the Father is not called *ours*: therefore on account of some property which is in the Holy Spirit and not in the Father and the Son; but this is nothing other than donability: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, before the Holy Spirit dwells in us, He is not called *ours*; but He inhabits through donation: therefore He is called *ours* by reason of donability.

**On the contrary:**

1. If by reason of donability: therefore since donability is a personal, not essential property, it seems to be said only of the person of the Holy Spirit: but this is false, because we say *our God*.

2. Likewise, if by reason of donability: therefore it is established that not by comparison to the giver, but to him to whom He is given; but *the Son was given to us*  even more than the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if by reason of donability: therefore He ought fittingly to be called *our gift*.

4. Likewise, if by reason of donability: therefore since He is donatable to us more in that He is *holy* than in that He is *spirit*, it would be better to say *our Holy Spirit* — which however is not said.

It is asked therefore generally, of what things *ours* can be said.

### CONCLUSION.

> *The possessive pronoun* mine *or* ours *with a copula is most properly said of the Holy Spirit by reason of donability and through appropriation; the same pronoun without a copula is joined only to those divine names which express a relation to us according to the account of cause or of correlation.*

**I respond:** It must be said that *mine* and *ours* can in two ways be attributed to someone: either by means of composition, or immediately. If by means of composition, then of themselves they posit a proper relation toward the term — namely, the relation of *possession* — as when it is said: this is mine. And in this way, because everyone who has the Spirit of God has God and all things which are God's, in this way *mine* or *ours* and *thine* can be said of everything that is in God commonly, but more properly of the Son, who was given to us through the incarnation, and most of all of the Holy Spirit, *who is the pledge of eternal inheritance*. Hence it must be conceded that by reason of donability, among the other persons, the account of possessing can be appropriated to the Holy Spirit.

That which is *ours* can also be attributed to someone *immediately*, and thus it does not express a relation [as such], but the account of the relation conveyed by the term to which it is joined. For thus it is joined to nothing except what conveys a relation *explicitly*, as *our* or *my* father, or *implicitly*, as *my* book, as it is my possession.

According to this it must be noted that one is not said

[to be] *mine* or *ours* with respect to anything except according to that name according to which it is said *this is of him*; but this *being of him* can be said according to a threefold relation: either of *information*, as the whiteness of Peter; and this relation is conveyed by names which signify in abstraction; and because nothing divine is compared to us according to a relation of *information*, therefore *ours* cannot be said of abstract names: therefore it is not said *our deity* nor *our eternity*.

It can also *secondly* be said *this is of him* according to a relation of *causality*; and this relation is conveyed by names which express an act, as *creator*; and because divine [things] altogether have this relation to us, of nearly all such names *ours* is said.

It can also be said in a *third* way *this is of him* according to a relation of *correlation*; and this relation is conveyed by relative names. But these are of two kinds: because some express a relation of person to person, others a relation to a creature. Of those which express a relation to a person, *mine* or *ours* is not said. But of those which [express a relation] to us, as *lord*, *master*, *ours* is rightly said.

It must be said therefore that donability has nothing to do with this manner of saying *ours*, as the second-adduced reasons prove; but this is done by relation, because *spirit* expresses a relation to him to whom it is breathed in, and this is we ourselves; therefore He is called *our Spirit*. Similarly *God*, because [the name] is imposed from an act which He has toward us, as Damascene says[?]; therefore He is called *our God*.

The rule, therefore, is that *ours* is said of those [names] which express a relation to us according to the relation of *causality* or of *correlation*: and thus all the objections are clear.