Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 2
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/32/q/bon-sent-I-d32-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II.
#### *In what relation that ablative is construed when it is said: The Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit.*

Second, it is asked in what relation that ablative is construed when it is said thus: *The Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit*. And that it is in the relation of form is shown:

1. By a parallel: because Peter loves formally by a love proceeding from himself: therefore by parity of reason the Father and the Son love each other formally by the Holy Spirit.

2. Likewise, nothing denominates a thing to which it is compared only as to a principle, unless it is compared as informing — for although a course is from God, yet God is not said to run — but love is from the Father and the Son, and they are said to love by it: therefore love is in the relation of form.

3. Likewise, by every bond persons are bonded formally; but the Holy Spirit is the bond: therefore certain persons are bonded by him, and none other than the Father and the Son: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, by every whiteness someone is white formally, therefore by every love someone is loving formally; but he is not loving formally by a love unless it is his own love: since therefore the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and the Son, the conclusion is plain.

**On the contrary:**

1. Everything that loves formally by something other than itself has love only by participation: therefore if the Father and the Son love formally by something other than themselves, therefore they love by participation. But this is unfitting: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, if anyone loves by something formally, that being taken away, it is impossible to understand love in him or his loving itself: therefore if the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to understand the Father loving without the Holy Spirit being understood; but this is false: therefore so is the first.

3. Likewise, no hypostasis is a form; but the love which is the Holy Spirit is a hypostasis: therefore he is not a form, therefore no one loves formally by that love.

4. Likewise, no relative can be the form of its correlative — because from form and what is formed there comes one thing, but a relative is distinguished from its correlative — but the love which is the Holy Spirit stands relatively to the Father and the Son: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, every form is prior to that of which it is the form; therefore if the Father and the Son love each other formally by the Holy Spirit, that love precedes the loving of the Father and the Son. But this is false, because the love is produced: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> *When we say that the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit, that ablative is construed in the relation as it were of a formal effect, and so in some way in the relation of form.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the position of certain ones was that that ablative is construed in the relation of a sign, not in the relation of form. For the Holy Spirit stands in the manner of something produced with respect to the love of the Father and the Son, and therefore he is its sign. Whence they say that this is the sense of the locution: *the Father and the Son love each other*: and the sign of this is that they concordantly spirate the Holy Spirit, who is the unique and undivided love. — But this position is not sufficient. For if the ablative could truly be construed in the relation of a sign with the verb, then this would be true: *the Father and the Son love each other by a created love*, because a created love is a sign of that love; which no one concedes. — If you say that that is not so proximate a sign; the objection is that then this would be true simply: *the Father is wise by the begotten wisdom*, since the begotten wisdom is most of all a sign of the wisdom in the begetting Father.

The position of others was that that ablative is construed in the relation of form. For they say that *to love each other*, said of the Father and the Son, is nothing else than to be mutually connected. And since they are connected formally by a bond, and the Holy Spirit is that bond, therefore, formally speaking, this is true: *the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit*, just as this is formally true: *the Father and the Son are bonded by a bond*. But this position cannot stand entirely, because, when it is said: *the Father and the Son are bonded*, either *being bonded* says something which is in the Father and the Son from the Holy Spirit, or which is in them as the principle of the Holy Spirit. If something which is in them from the Holy Spirit: therefore the Father and the Son receive something from the Holy Spirit; if something, since they cannot receive a part, therefore the whole: therefore they are from the Holy Spirit, which is unfitting. It remains, therefore, that this *being bonded* says something which is in the Father and the Son as the principle of the Holy Spirit — for although it is passive according to its mode, it is active according to the thing — and if this, the Holy Spirit is compared to the connection as to a principle, therefore not entirely as in the relation of form.

It is plain, therefore, that the first position says less than is sufficient; the second says too abundantly, because it expresses too much. And the first was that of Master Simon of Tournai; the second was that of Master William of Auxerre. And although neither is entirely sufficient, yet each has in itself something of truth. For the first says that the Holy Spirit stands to the Father and the Son in the manner of something produced; and this indeed is true. The second says that love is compared to the lovers as in the relation of form; and this indeed is true.

And therefore from these two positions, of which one is insufficient and the other excessive, there is gathered a middle position, sober and sufficient; namely, that that ablative is construed in the relation of a formal effect, if it is permitted to name as an effect what is from a principle. And this was the position of Master Hugh of St. Victor, who here clearly saw the truth. Whence he reproves those who reckon this question insoluble. Whence he says that, just as when it is said: *I love thee with a love proceeding from me*, there is a construction in the relation of a formal effect, so it is in the proposition. In this, however, there is a difference, because love proceeding from thee is resting in thee as uniting and inhering, since it is an accident; but in divine matters love proceeding from the Father and the Son is resting in them as uniting, yet not as inhering, since it is not an accident, but a substance and a hypostasis; and therefore it has even less of the relation of form.

The reasons brought forward to this effect are therefore to be conceded, since the ablative has in some way the relation of form. — But what is objected last does not hold, because every whiteness is a form; but some love is a hypostasis.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1, 2.* To what is objected to the contrary: if they love formally by something other [than themselves], therefore by participation; it must be said that *to love* by something other through essence makes participation, but personal otherness does not. Whence Hugh: «The human soul is not love, but love proceeds from it, therefore it does not love by itself; but the Father is love, and the Holy Spirit is his love, therefore he loves by himself; he loves also by the Holy Spirit»; and therefore it is plain that not by participation. — And from this what follows is plain; for since the Father loves by himself by an essential love, therefore the Father can be understood to love without the Holy Spirit being understood; but it is not so concerning notional love.

*To 3, 4.* The following reasons proceed from form, according as it has the perfect act of form. For it belongs to a form to inhere, and therefore it is not a hypostasis; therefore also it is not distinguished. But there the ablative falls away from the act of form which is to inhere, and holds the act of form which is to unite.

*To 5.* To what is objected last, that form precedes that of which it is the form; it must be said that he is speaking of form according as it has the relation of cause, because thus it precedes; but the ablative falls away from the relation of causality, because it is construed in the manner of a formal effect. It is plain, therefore, that in some way there is here the relation of form, in some way the relation of a sign; and in this lies the response to all that has been asked.

---