Bonaventure

English

Now therefore let us approach the assignment of the mission of the Holy Spirit, by which he is invisibly sent etc.

The part being finished in which the Master treated of the visible procession of the Holy Spirit, in this part he treats of the invisible. And this part is divided into two. In the first, the Master determines the invisible mission of the Holy Spirit according to his own opinion. In the second, however, because his opinion had many opponents, he sets out the defense of his opinion, at: It is asked here, whether charity is the Holy Spirit.

Again the first part has two: in the first, he makes known the invisible mission of the Holy Spirit; in the second, he confirms it, at: But lest in so great a matter [we should seem to bring in anything] of our own etc.

Likewise, the first part, in which he makes it known, has two; in the first of these he announces his intention, at: Now therefore let us approach the assignment; in the second, supposing that the Holy Spirit is the love by which we love God and neighbor, he shows that he is invisibly sent when he effects this effect in us; and this he does at: But that this may be taught more intelligibly etc.

But lest in so great a matter. This is the second part, in which he confirms his position; and this part is divided into four parts. In the first he shows that the love by which we love God is God, and likewise the love by which we love the neighbor. In the second, however, he shows that that love is properly the Holy Spirit, at: But since fraternal love is God etc. In the third he shows that the Holy Spirit is charity, not causally speaking, but essentially and formally, at: But lest perchance someone should say, that thing said. Fourthly and lastly he concludes, as something now manifested, that the Holy Spirit is then invisibly sent when he makes us lovers of God and neighbor, at: From what has been said it becomes clear, that the Holy Spirit is charity etc.

For the understanding of this part four things are asked.

First and principally, on account of the position of the Master, it is asked whether, besides the gift of uncreated charity, a gift of created charity is to be posited; and this is to ask whether the charity by which we love God is the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, granted that there is a created charity, it is asked whether that charity is to be loved by charity.

Thirdly, whether charity can be known with certitude by one having charity.

Fourthly, whether it can be known by one not having it.

---

Fresh draft (Claude), approved by Wilson Pruitt · cc-by · published at bonaventure.wrootpress.com (Bonaventure edition (bonaventure.wrootpress.com)). This page quotes it; that is its home.

Latin

S. Bonaventurae, Opera Omnia, Tomus I (Quaracchi, 1882), p. 291, Book I, Dist. XVII, Pars 1, Divisio textus · pd

Notes

Bonaventure's own map of Lombard's six chapters before he comments on them — the earliest reading of the distinction's argument on this page, and the witness a transmits thread runs from. Quotes Lombard's own incipit phrases as its section markers.

Threads

• ← contests · Thomas Aquinas
  The answer to the Master carries a cost, and this article names it. Because charity comes to the soul after its natural being, ut forma perficiens ipsam ad esse gratiae, oportet quod sit accidens. The charity the Master had identified with God is, on the created answer, an accident of the soul; the divisio is the witness carrying Lombard's own text on this page.
• ← transmits · Gabriel Biel
  Biel's first conclusion keeps the Master's account of the indwelling itself while the second gives away his account of charity: tunc spiritussanctus dari vel mitti dicitur nobis, cum nos facit diligere deum et proximum, per quod manemus in deo et deus in nobis. The mission is still known by the love it produces; only the identification is dropped.
• ← contests · Thomas Aquinas
  The gentlest sentence written against the Master on this page, and the most damaging: his position is not refuted but explained. Ita etiam caritas qua formaliter diligimus proximum est quaedam participatio divinae caritatis. Hic enim modus loquendi consuetus est apud Platonicos, quorum doctrinis Augustinus fuit imbutus. Quod quidam non advertentes ex verbis eius sumpserunt occasionem errandi. The Augustinian texts the divisio carries are granted; what is denied is that they were ever meant to be read as the Master read them.
• ← contests · Gabriel Biel
  The end of the story, and it is not a refutation but a summary. Three hundred and thirty years after Lombard, Biel reduces the distinction to three conclusions and settles the crux inside one of them: quod si intelligitur formaliter, non tenetur; si effective, verum est, quia ipse infundit habitum charitatis. Nothing is argued. The Master's sentence is kept, in a sense he did not mean, on the way to the question Biel actually wants to ask.
• ← echoes · Martin Luther
  And then, alone on this page, someone gives the Master ground again: et videtur Magister non penitus absurdissime loqui, in eo quod habitum dicit esse spiritum sanctum. Luther does not restore the thesis — his own first two principles concede a created love — so this is an echo of Lombard's position rather than a citation of it, and it arrives after the position has stopped being argued about.
• ← contests · Thomas Aquinas
  Thomas names the distinction and the thesis he is refuting: Magister perscrutatur hanc quaestionem in XVII dist. I Lib. Sent., et ponit quod caritas non est aliquid creatum in anima, sed est ipse spiritus sanctus mentem inhabitans. The divisio is the witness that carries Lombard's own text and division on this page, so the contest is drawn to it.
• ← echoes · Martin Luther
  Alone on this page Luther gives the Master ground: et videtur Magister non penitus absurdissime loqui, in eo quod habitum dicit esse spiritum sanctum. He does not restore the thesis — his own first two principles concede a created love — so this is an echo of Lombard's position and not a citation of it.
• ← contests · Gregory of Rimini
  Gregory states the Master's thesis in the Master's own terms before rejecting it: Circa primam partem decimae septimae distinctionis, in qua Magister ostendit quod spiritus sanctus est charitas qua immediate elicimus actum dilectionis meritorie, et quod ad huiusmodi actum non concurrit aliquis habitus charitatis creatae infusus. He then breaks with him by name: communiter tamen doctores oppositum opinantur, et ego una cum eis puto oppositum esse verum. The divisio carries Lombard's own text on this page, so the contest is drawn to it.
• ← contests · Gabriel Biel
  The whole crux disposed of in a subordinate clause, in the summary of the littera before the question has begun: Spiritussanctus charitas est et amor quo nos diligimus deum. Quod si intelligitur formaliter, non tenetur. Si effective, verum est: quia ipse infundit habitum charitatis. Drawn to the divisio, which is the witness carrying Lombard's own text and division on this page, as the other summaries of the littera are.
• ← contests · Albert the Great
  The bluntest rejection on the page and the earliest: contradicendum est Magistro in ista parte, et dicendum, quod charitas qua habitualiter diligimus Deum et proximum, non est Spiritus sanctus. Drawn to the divisio, which is the witness carrying Lombard's own text on these pages.
• ← parallel · John Duns Scotus
  Alone among the witnesses on this page, Scotus reads the Master as already holding a created habit: Vult enim quod praeter fidem et spem ponatur in anima etiam habitus gratificans animam. The thread is drawn to the divisio, which carries Lombard's own text here, because the relation being asserted is between Scotus and what Lombard MEANT — and no citation runs between them, only a reading of him against everyone else's.
• ← transmits · Bonaventure
  The divisio maps Lombard's six chapters and then announces the four questions the article will ask, the first of which is this one: primo et principaliter, propter positionem Magistri, quaeritur utrum praeter donum caritatis increatae sit ponendum donum caritatis creatae.
• ← cites · Thomas Aquinas
  Thomas's sed contra quotes Lombard's letter for the affirmative: Contra est quod habetur in littera ex verbis Augustini: qui proximum diligit, consequens est ut ipsam praecipue dilectionem diligat. The divisio is the witness carrying Lombard's text and division on these pages. The Master supplies the argument for the side Thomas takes, in the same distinction whose main thesis Thomas rejects.
• ← cites · Martin Luther
  Luther's glosses are keyed to Lombard's own words and quote them as lemmata — dilectionem, diligat fratrem, eandem dilectionem, dilectionem qua diligit, Plane notiorem — all of them from caput I. He is annotating the letter directly, not a question raised about it.
• ← contests · Thomas Aquinas
  Thomas reports the Master's answer as the first of four opinions denying essential increase, and gives its ground: quidam enim dixerunt, ut Magister in littera, quod caritas secundum se non augetur, sed dicitur augeri in nobis, inquantum nos in caritate proficimus; et hoc quia ponit caritatem esse spiritum sanctum, in quem variatio non cadit. Lombard's own caput V says exactly that: sic ergo dicitur proficere in te caritas, quia tu in ea proficis.
• ← contests · Albert the Great
  Albert states the Master's answer and rejects it in one breath: Et a Magistro dicitur, quod non essentialiter augetur, sed nobis, vel in nobis — and then, bene videtur mihi in hac parte Magister falsum dixisse. Lombard's caput V is the text being rejected, and the divisio is the witness carrying it on these pages.
• ← cites · Bonaventure
  Bonaventure asks whether charity can be augmented according to substance, which is the question Lombard's second part raises against his own opinion — the Master's text at this point is the objection he must answer, and the divisio is the witness carrying it on these pages.