Bonaventure

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de situ huius partis, quia non videtur, quod hic deberet agere de processione temporali, quia in hac parte agit de his quae aeternaliter Deo conveniunt. Praeterea, cum generatio Filii aeterna et temporalis in alio et alio libro determinetur, quia aeterna in primo, sed temporalis in tertio, quare non similiter facit de processione Spiritus sancti?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quia processio temporalis et aeterna ab eodem principio sunt, sicut dicit Magister¹, et iterum est ibi quodam modo modus procedendi conformis, ideo una facit ad declarationem² alterius: et ideo incidenter ponitur hic tractatus de processione temporali ad manifestationem processionis aeternae. Sed non sic est de generatione Filii temporali, quia non est ab eodem principio, immo a Matre tantum, et respicit duas naturas, scilicet divinam et humanam. Ideo debuit de ea determinari post divinam, de qua agitur in primo, et post humanam naturam, de qua in secundo.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de ratione processionis temporalis, de qua dicit Magister, quod a Patre et Filio procedit Spiritus sanctus, cum ad sanctificandam creaturam procedit. Videtur enim dicere falsum, quia processio temporalis est eius missio: sed Spiritus sanctus est missus in columba et in linguis igneis, quas non sanctificavit. Si tu dicas, quod non est missus ad linguas, sed in linguis missus ad Apostolos, quos sanctificavit; contra: missus est in columba super Christum, nec sanctificavit columbam nec Christum.

Respondeo: Potest ad hoc dici, quod Magister non generaliter definit hic processionem temporalem, sed specialiter, prout est idem quod missio invisibilis, in qua datur Spiritus sanctus et sanctificatur creatura. Vel potest dici, quod generaliter accipit sanctificationem. Tripliciter enim accipitur sanctificatio: uno modo, secundum quod est de non sancto sanctum facere; secundo modo, iam sanctum in sanctitate confirmare; tertio modo, iam sanctum et confirmatum manifestare. Et secundum aliquem trium³ istorum modorum reperitur sanctificatio in omni Spiritus sancti missione ratione termini ad quem; et sic accipit Magister.⁴

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Magister de Spiritu sancto: Et ipse est virtus, quae de illo exibat⁵. Videtur enim male dicere, quia aut virtus accipitur proprie, aut appropriate. Primo modo non, constat; secundo modo non, videtur, quia primae ad Corinthios primo⁶ dicimus Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam etc.

Ad hoc potest dici, quod Spiritui sancto non appropriatur virtus simpliciter, sed virtus sanativa, et hoc, quia gratia sanitatum est donum Spiritus sancti⁷, et gratia eius est medicina ipsius animae; sed Filio appropriatur virtus operandi, quia omnia per ipsum facta sunt⁸.

Aliter potest dici, quod virtus habet comparationem ad illud ad⁹ quod est, et sic tenet rationem principii; vel ad id cuius est, et sic tenet rationem complementi; vel ad utrumque, et sic tenet rationem medii. Sicut ergo ex ipso appropriatur Patri, per ipsum Filio, in ipso Spiritui sancto: ita virtus, in quantum tenet rationem principii, appropriatur Patri, in quantum¹⁰ rationem medii, Filio, in quantum rationem completionis, Spiritui sancto; quia completio est in bonitate et delectatione Spiritus sancti; sed hoc infra melius dicetur.¹¹

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod post resurrectionem Dominus Iesus bis dedit Spiritum sanctum. Videtur enim, quod ter dederit: quia primo dedit eis ante passionem, cum dedit eis potestatem eiiciendi daemonia et curare languores, Matthaei decimo¹². Item post resurrectionem, Ioannis vigesimo¹³: Accipite Spiritum sanctum. Item post ascensionem, Actuum secundo¹⁴. Ergo insufficienter enumerat Augustinus.

Respondeo: Ad praesens dicendum, quod possunt numerari dationes Spiritus sancti quantum ad actum et effectum; et sic enumerat Rabanus¹⁵, et fuerunt tres, quia ter dedit et quia ad tria dedit: primo ad miraculorum operationem; secundo ad peccatorum absolutionem; tertio ad infidelium conversionem. Possunt etiam alio modo numerari quantum ad locum et significatum; et sic dedit bis, scilicet in terra et in caelo; item¹⁶ in terra ad commendandum praeceptum dilectionis ad proximum, in caelo ad commendandum affectum dilectionis ad Deum; et sic patet controversia.¹⁷

Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de illo verbo Apostoli: Unum Spiritum potavimus; quo tropo dictum est hoc? Et videtur, quod conveniat magis Filio, quia Ecclesiastici decimo quinto¹⁸ dicitur: Aqua sapientiae salutaris, et Proverbiorum nono¹⁹: Venite, bibite vinum; et hoc dicit ipsa Sapientia, scilicet Dei Filius: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Spiritus sanctus dicitur potus, in quantum saecularis sitis restringit²⁰ ardorem. Hoc autem appropriatur Spiritui sancto, quia, sicut dicit Gregorius²¹, «gustato Spiritu, desipit omnis caro». In quantum autem per potum est delegatio nutrimenti ad singula membra, sic appropriatur Filio, cuius est prudentia et sapientia appropriatum, quae quodam modo habent vim regitivam et ordinativam pastus omnibus viribus animae.²²

Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de alio verbo²³: Caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris. Videtur enim impro-

prie dictum, quia quod diffusum est, dispersum est, et virtus dispersa minor est: si ergo caritas potens est, non ergo debet dici diffusa.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod infundi et diffundi proprie dicitur humoris. Ipsa autem caritas humori comparatur, quia sicut arbor fomentum et vitam et viriditatem habet ab humore, sic tota spiritualis machina ab amore. Iste autem amor infunditur, in quantum intra²⁴ recipitur; diffunditur vero, in quantum ex intimis procedens dilatat affectum ad dilectionem multorum et movet omnes animae vires ad bonas operationes. «Operatur enim magna, si est; si vero operari renuit, amor non est», sicut dicit Gregorius.²⁵ Et ideo Dominus dicit Ioannis septimo²⁶: Flumina de ventre eius fluent aquae vivae. — Quod ergo dicitur quod minuitur; dicendum, quod verum est in his quae habent ortum ab origine deficiente²⁷, sicut est in puteis, in quibus non vivit aqua. Sed caritas habet originem indeficientem, sicut fluvius.²⁸

---

Doubts concerning the Letter of the Master.

Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the letter, and first concerning the placement of this part: for it does not seem that here he ought to treat of temporal procession, since in this part he is treating of those things which belong to God eternally. Furthermore, since the eternal generation of the Son and the temporal generation are determined in different books — for the eternal in the first, but the temporal in the third — why does he not do likewise concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit?

I respond: It must be said that, because the temporal and eternal procession are from the same principle, as the Master says¹, and again because there is in some manner a conformable mode of proceeding there, therefore the one serves to clarify² the other: and therefore a treatise on temporal procession is incidentally placed here for the manifestation of the eternal procession. But it is not so concerning the temporal generation of the Son, because it is not from the same principle — rather from the Mother only — and regards two natures, namely the divine and the human. Therefore the determination concerning it had to be made after the divine, of which one treats in the first [book], and after [the treatment of] human nature, of which in the second.

Doubt II.

Likewise, it is asked concerning the account of temporal procession, of which the Master says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son when He proceeds for the sanctifying of a creature. For he seems to say something false, since temporal procession is His mission: but the Holy Spirit was sent in the dove and in tongues of fire, which He did not sanctify. If you say that He was not sent to the tongues, but sent in tongues to the Apostles, whom He sanctified; on the contrary: He was sent in the dove over Christ, and He sanctified neither the dove nor Christ.

I respond: To this it can be said that the Master is not here defining temporal procession generally, but specially, insofar as it is the same as invisible mission, in which the Holy Spirit is given and a creature is sanctified. Or it can be said that he takes sanctification generally. For sanctification is taken in three ways: in one way, as it is to make holy out of what is not holy; in the second way, to confirm in holiness what is already holy; in the third way, to manifest what is already holy and confirmed. And according to some one of these three³ modes a sanctification is found in every mission of the Holy Spirit by reason of the term to which; and so the Master takes it.⁴

Doubt III.

Likewise, it is asked concerning what the Master says of the Holy Spirit: And He is the power that went out from Him⁵. For he seems to speak ill, since power is taken either properly or by appropriation. In the first way it is not so, as is plain; in the second way it is not so either, it seems, since in the first letter to the Corinthians, chapter one⁶, we say Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God etc.

To this it can be said that power simpliciter is not appropriated to the Holy Spirit, but healing power; and this because the grace of healings is a gift of the Holy Spirit⁷, and His grace is the medicine of the soul itself; but to the Son is appropriated the power of operating, since all things were made through Him⁸.

Otherwise it can be said that power has a relation to that for which⁹ it is, and so it holds the account of principle; or to that whose it is, and so it holds the account of complement; or to both, and so it holds the account of middle. Therefore just as from Him is appropriated to the Father, through Him to the Son, in Him to the Holy Spirit: so power, insofar as it holds the account of principle, is appropriated to the Father; insofar as¹⁰ [it holds] the account of middle, to the Son; insofar as the account of completion, to the Holy Spirit; because completion is in the goodness and delight of the Holy Spirit. But this will be better said below.¹¹

Doubt IV.

Likewise, it is asked concerning what he says, that after the resurrection the Lord Jesus gave the Holy Spirit twice. For it seems He gave Him thrice: since He first gave Him to them before the Passion, when He gave them the power of casting out demons and healing infirmities, in Matthew chapter ten¹². Likewise after the resurrection, in John chapter twenty¹³: Receive the Holy Spirit. Likewise after the ascension, in Acts chapter two¹⁴. Therefore Augustine enumerates insufficiently.

I respond: For the present it must be said that the givings of the Holy Spirit can be numbered as to act and effect; and so Rabanus enumerates¹⁵, and they were three, since He gave thrice and since He gave for three things: first for the working of miracles; second for the absolution of sins; third for the conversion of unbelievers. They can also be numbered in another mode, as to place and signified meaning; and so He gave twice, namely on earth and in heaven; likewise¹⁶ on earth for the commending of the precept of love toward the neighbor, in heaven for the commending of the affection of love toward God; and so the controversy is plain.¹⁷

Doubt V.

Likewise, it is asked concerning that word of the Apostle: We have drunk one Spirit; by what trope is this said? And it seems that it would rather befit the Son, since in Ecclesiasticus chapter fifteen¹⁸ it is said: Water of saving wisdom, and in Proverbs chapter nine¹⁹: Come, drink the wine; and this Wisdom Herself says, namely the Son of God: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that the Holy Spirit is called drink, insofar as He restrains²⁰ the heat of worldly thirst. But this is appropriated to the Holy Spirit because, as Gregory says²¹, «when the Spirit has been tasted, all flesh becomes insipid». But insofar as through drink there is the dispatching of nourishment to the individual members, so it is appropriated to the Son, to whom prudence and wisdom are appropriated, which in some manner have a power of governing and ordering nourishment for all the powers of the soul.²²

Doubt VI.

Likewise, it is asked concerning another word²³: The charity of God has been diffused in our hearts. For it seems improperly said, since what is diffused is dispersed, and a power dispersed is lessened: if therefore charity is mighty, it ought not therefore to be called diffused.

I respond: It must be said that to be infused and to be diffused are properly said of a liquid. But charity itself is compared to a liquid, because just as a tree has its sap and life and greenness from a liquid, so the whole spiritual fabric [has these] from love. But this love is infused insofar as it is received within²⁴; and it is diffused insofar as, proceeding from the inmost parts, it dilates the affection to the love of many and moves all the powers of the soul to good operations. «For it works great things if it is; but if it refuses to work, it is not love», as Gregory says.²⁵ And therefore the Lord says in John chapter seven²⁶: Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. — As to what is said, that it is lessened; it must be said that this is true of those things which have their origin from a deficient source²⁷, as is the case in wells, in which water does not live. But charity has an unfailing origin, like a river.²⁸

---