Dist. 30
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/30/q/bon-sent-I-d30-littera
----------------------------------------
### DISTINCTION XXX.

#### *On those things that are said of God temporally and relatively according to accident, which befalls not God but creatures.*

For there are certain things that are said of God in time and are suited to Him temporally without any change in Himself, and they are said relatively according to accident — not because the accident befalls God, but because it befalls creatures: such as *creator*, *lord*, *refuge*, *gift* or *donated* and the like. Concerning these things Augustine in the fifth book *On the Trinity* says: "Creator is said relatively in relation to the creature, just as lord in relation to servant." Likewise: "Let it not trouble anyone that the Holy Spirit, although He is co-eternal with the Father and the Son, is yet said to be something in time, as for instance this very thing which we called *donated*. For the Spirit is eternally *gift*, but temporally *donated*. And if He is not called lord except when He begins to have a servant, then even that relative appellation exists for God in time. For the creature of which He is lord is not eternal: therefore He does not have it as an eternal thing to be lord, lest we be compelled to say the creature is also eternal, since He would not have ruled eternally unless the creature had also served eternally. But just as there cannot be a servant who has no lord, so neither a lord who has no servant."

But someone here will say that this appellation by which He is called *lord* did not come to God in time, because He is lord not only of things that began to be in time, but also of that thing that did not begin in time, namely of time itself, which did not begin in time, because there was no time before time began: and therefore He did not begin to be lord in time.

To which it can be said: although He did not begin in time to be lord of time, He nevertheless began to be lord of time, because time did not always exist; and of man himself He began in time to be lord. Concerning this Augustine in the same book continues thus saying: "Whoever maintains that God alone is eternal, but that the times are not eternal on account of their variability and mutability — but that the times themselves did not begin to be in time, since there was no time before the times began, and therefore that it did not happen to God in time that He should be lord, since He was lord of those times themselves which certainly did not begin to be in time — what will he answer concerning man, who was made in time, whose lord certainly He was not before man existed? Surely, that He should be lord of man happened to God in time, and that all controversy might be removed — surely that He should be your lord, or mine, we who have recently begun to be, He obtained in time. How then will we maintain that nothing is said of God according to accident? Only because nothing happens to His own nature whereby He is changed; so that there are relative accidents, which happen together with some change in the things of which they are said, just as *friend* is said relatively. For one does not begin to be a friend except when one has begun to love: therefore some change of will occurs, that one may be called *friend*. A coin, on the other hand, when it is called *price*, is said relatively; and yet it has not been changed when it has begun to be *price*, nor when it is called *pledge* and the like. If therefore a coin can be said relatively so many times without any change of itself, so that neither when it begins to be said [such] nor when it ceases [to be so called] does any change occur in its nature or form by which it is a coin; how much more easily ought we to accept concerning that unchangeable substance of God, that something is thus said of Him relatively in relation to the creature, so that, although it begins to be said temporally, yet no accident is understood to have happened to the very substance of God, but to that creature in relation to which it is said. In like manner also *our refuge* is spoken of: for God is called our refuge relatively; for He is referred to us, and then our refuge comes to be, when we flee to Him. Is anything then brought into being in His nature, when someone

flees to Him, which was not there before? In us therefore some change occurs, who by fleeing to Him are made better; but in Him none. So also *He begins to be our father*, when through His grace we are regenerated, *who gave us power to become sons of God*. Our substance therefore is changed for the better when we become His sons. Likewise also *He begins to be our father*, but with no change of His own substance. Therefore that which God begins to be called temporally, which He was not called before, is manifestly said relatively, yet not according to an accident of God, as if something had happened to Him, but plainly according to an accident of that to which God begins to be said relatively." From these things it is plainly shown that certain things are said of God temporally, relatively to creatures, without any change in *God*, but not without change in the *creature*: and so the accident is in the creature, not in the Creator, and the appellation by which the creature is said relatively to the Creator is relative and denotes a relation which is in the creature itself. But that appellation by which the Creator is said relatively to the creature is indeed relative, but denotes no relation which is in the Creator.

#### *Whether the Holy Spirit is said to be given or donated relatively to Himself, when He is given from Himself.*

Here can be solved the question proposed above, where it was asked — since the Holy Spirit is said to be *gift* or *donated*, but what is given is referred both to the one who gives and to the one to whom it is given — and since the Holy Spirit gives Himself, whether He is said relatively to Himself when He is said to be given or donated. In answering this question we say that the Holy Spirit is said to be given or donated relatively both in relation to the giver and in relation to the one to whom He is given. The giver or donor is the Father with the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet we do not say the Holy Spirit is referred to Himself; rather, the appellation of *given* or *donated* is referred both to the giver and to the recipient, since nothing can be called given unless it is given by someone and to someone. But when the Holy Spirit is said to be given from Himself or to have been given from Himself, He is indeed said relatively to the one to whom He is given; and the appellation is relative, and in the one to whom He is given a change occurs, not in the giver.

---