Bonaventure

QUAESTIO IV.

Utrum donum sit nomen essentiale, an personale et proprium Spiritus sancti.

Quarto quaeritur, utrum donum proprie conveniat Spiritui sancto. Et quod sic videtur.

1. Augustinus decimo quinto de Trinitate¹: «Sicut in Trinitate non est verbum nisi Filius, ita nec donum nisi Spiritus sanctus».

2. Item, donum dicit emanationem per modum liberalitatis; hoc autem est proprium solius Spiritus sancti: ergo etc.

3. Item, donum² dicitur relative ad donantem; sed donans non tantum est Pater, immo etiam Filius, quia uterque est mittens: ergo donum dicitur relative ad Patrem et Filium: et si hoc, ergo³ distinguitur ab utroque: ergo nec Pater nec Filius, sed solum Spiritus sanctus dicitur proprie donum.

Contra: 1. Donum dicitur in habitu, sed datum dicitur in actu, ergo datum addit supra donum: ergo cui convenit esse datum convenit⁴ et ratio doni. Sed datum convenit toti Trinitati, quia tota Trinitas dat se, ergo et donum: non ergo proprie Spiritui sancto.

2. Item, donum dicit respectum ad dantem et ad eum cui datur: si ergo est proprium Spiritus sancti, aut propter respectum ad dantem, aut⁵ recipientem. Non propter respectum ad recipientem, quia similiter Filius datus est nobis⁶, et magis etiam datus quam Spiritus sanctus. Si vero ad dantem; contra: Filius dicitur procedere a dante, scilicet a Patre: ergo videtur secundum communem⁷ rationem Filio convenire. Si dicas, quod Filius non procedit per modum donabilis, neque «quomodo datus est, sed quomodo natus⁸»; contra: Filius sic ab aeterno processit, ut temporaliter esset missibilis, quia «eo mittitur Filius, quo generatur⁹»; sed missio non est aliud quam donatio: ergo Filius processit ut donabilis.

3. Item, si datus est Filius ex tempore, aut erat ad hoc habilis ab aeterno, aut non. Si sic: ergo processit ut donabilis; si non: ergo aliquid convenit ex tempore Filio, quod repugnat aeternae emanationi, quod est inconveniens.

4. Item, regula est, quod omne nomen dicens respectum vel effectum ad creaturas est commune tribus¹⁰; sed donum est huiusmodi: ergo etc.

CONCLUSIO.

Donum est nomen personale et proprium Spiritus sancti; datum vero potest dici et essentialiter de tribus personis, et personaliter de Filio et Spiritu sancto, et proprie de Spiritu sancto.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut patet ex verbis Augustini, donum dicitur in divinis proprie sive personaliter, non essentialiter, sicut verbum proprie dicitur de Filio; datum autem potest accipi et essentialiter et personaliter, sive proprie et communiter. Tota enim Trinitas dat se, et tamen Pater et Filius proprie dant Spiritum sanctum¹¹.

Propter hoc notandum, quod datum de sui ratione idem est quod communicatum. Potest igitur hoc quod est datum dici communicatum ex liberalitate¹², et sic commune est toti Trinitati; vel ex liberalitate et auctoritate, et sic convenit Spiritui sancto et Filio, qui habent subauctoritatem respectu Patris; vel potest dici datum ex liberalitate et auctoritate non tantum communicatum, sed etiam productum, et hoc modo proprium est Spiritus sancti, cuius proprium est procedere secundum rationem liberalitatis, et ita secundum rationem doni vel donabilis. Et hoc modo donum et¹³ datum aequivalent; differunt tamen, quia datum dicit communicationem in actu, sed donum in habitu. Et ita¹⁴ concedendum est, quod donum proprie dicitur in divinis de Spiritu sancto.

Ad 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod datum addit supra donum: dicendum, quod secundum communem acceptionem dati et doni, donum aliquid dicit ultra quam datum, et datum ultra quam donum. Donum¹⁵ ultra quam datum importat emanationem per modum liberalitatis; datum vero ultra quam donum importat actum communicationis, quia donum dicit habitum. Et ideo, quia illud quod addit donum supra datum, est personale, ideo donum proprie¹⁶ est personae Spiritus sancti.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod quaeritur, ratione cuius respectus dicatur donum proprie: iam patet responsio¹⁷, quia ratione respectus ad dantem, non inquam ratione respectus simpliciter, sed ratione talis respectus, quia emanat per modum donabilis, quod est proprium Spiritus sancti.

Ad 3. Quod ergo obiicitur, quod emanat per modum donabilis Filius; dicendum, quod falsum est. Quamvis enim donabilitas sive liberalitas communicetur Filii generationi¹⁸, non tamen est ratio emanandi; et quia communicatur aeternaliter, ideo datur temporaliter; sed quia non est ratio emanandi, ideo non emanat Filius ut donum, sed solum Spiritus sanctus.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur de respectu ad creaturam¹⁹, dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur de illo nomine, quod importat solum respectum ad creaturam, non personae ad personam; donum autem utrumque importat; ideo non habet hic illa²⁰ regula locum.

SCHOLION.

I. Quaestionis est, utrum hoc nomen donum in genere conveniat Spiritui sancto, sed sub qua collatione ipsi conveniat, utrum scilicet sit nomen personale sive proprietas personae, an essentiale. — Ut solutio melius intelligatur, sciendum est, in dono divino duos respectus notari, alterum cum relatione reali ad dantem, alterum cum relatione rationis ad eum cui datur. Respectus ad dantem, id est Patrem et Filium, importat, ut Spiritus sanctus emanet per modum donabilis; et ratione huius respectus nomen doni est proprium sive personale. Nam recte observat Richard. a Med. (loc. infra cit.): «Donum, prout accipitur in divinis, est res procedens, cui ex suo modo procedendi convenit prima ratio doni. Prima namque ratio doni amor est... Proprium autem Spiritui sancto est, quod procedat ut amor». Altera ratio importat respectum rationis ad creaturas. — Nec tamen, ut bene observat S. Thomas (S. I. q. 38. a. 1. ad 4.) per hoc, quod in dono importatur respectus ad creaturam, oportet, quod sit essentiale, sed quod aliquid essentiale in suo intellectu includatur, sicut essentia includitur in intellectu personae».

II. Antiqui magistri hic cum Scriptura concordant, excepto Durando, qui singularem viam tenens docet, hoc nomen Spiritui sancto tantum appropriari, quod bene reprobat Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 2.). — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 64. m. 1. — Scot. de hac et seqq. in utroque scripto hic q. unic. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1, 2; S. loc. cit. — B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. p. tr. 8. q. 36. m. 2. partic. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 1. — De hac et seq. q. Durand., hic q. 1.

---

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 fifteen¹: «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, gift² 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, then³ 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 belongs⁴. 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, or⁵ to the recipient. Not on account of the relation to the recipient, since the Son likewise has been given to us⁶, 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 common⁷ 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 born⁸»; 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 sent⁹»; 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 three¹⁰; 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 Spirit¹¹.

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 liberality¹², 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 and¹³ given are equivalent; they differ, however, in that given expresses communication in act, but gift in habit. And thus¹⁴ 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. Gift¹⁵ 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 properly¹⁶ 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 response¹⁷ 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 generation¹⁸, 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 creature¹⁹, 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 here²⁰.