title: Dist. 15, Part 1, Dubia

title_alt:
Dubia circa litteram Magistri
Doubts on the Letter of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 266 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

#### DUB. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit, quod Spiritus sanctus donatur non tantum a Patre et Filio, sed etiam datur a se ipso. Videtur dicere falsum, quia supra[^1] fecit argumentum, quod non potest dari a sanctis viris, quia non potest ab ipsis procedere; sed non potest a se ipso procedere: ergo pari ratione non potest dari a se.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Magister[^2] arguebat de processione temporali, et de hac bene concedit ipse, quod procedit a se, eo quod propriae potestatis est, ut spiret in eum, in quem vult; sed sancti viri non habent posse in eum.

#### DUB. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *donum Spiritus sancti nihil aliud est quam ipse Spiritus sanctus, sicut corpus carnis nihil aliud est quam caro*[^3]. Videtur enim, si similitudo bona est, ut omne quod est donum Spiritus sancti, sit Spiritus sanctus. Sed contra: timor[^4] est donum Spiritus sancti, et non est Spiritus sanctus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *donum*, cum dicat[^5] relationem ac per hoc quodam modo distinctionem, potest illam importare tripliciter: aut secundum modum intelligendi, aut secundum modum essendi, aut secundum essentiam. Primo modo idem est dans et datum, sicut «idem intelligens et intellectum[^6]», et differens ratione modi dicendi, quia datur idem a se; et sic intelligit Augustinus. Alio modo secundum modum essendi sive se habendi, qui alius est et alius in personis; et sic dicit relationem personae ad personam. Tertio modo importat distinctionem secundum essentiam, prout dicit effectum[^7] et respectum creaturae ad essentiam increatam; et hoc modo timor dicitur donum Spiritus sancti; sed hoc infra melius patebit[^8].

#### DUB. III.

Item quaeritur de ratione Magistri, qua dicit: *Si Pater et Filius dant Spiritum sanctum, et Spiritus sanctus non dat se, aliquid potest Pater et Filius, quod non potest Spiritus sanctus*; quia ista ratio, ut supra dictum est[^9], non valet: Pater potest generare Filium, et Filius non potest: ergo Pater potest aliquid quod non potest Filius: ergo pari ratione, cum Spiritus sanctus dicat[^10] personam ut Filius, non valet. Si tu dicas, quod non est simile propter actum donandi[^11], qui est operatio in creatura; *contra*: sicut dicit Magister in littera[^12], *Spiritus sancti donatio est eius processio*; sed illud argumentum nihil valet: Spiritus sanctus procedit, et Pater non: ergo aliquid facit Spiritus sanctus, quod non Pater: ergo similiter nec in proposito. Si tu dicas mihi, quod non est simile de activa et passiva; *contra*: inflexio nominis per casus non variat significationem: ergo similiter videtur, quod nec ibi sit variatio per activum et passivum. Et si tu dicas, quod non est simile; ostenditur, quod sic; quia omnis activa infert passivam: ergo videtur, quod si in voce activa tenetur[^13] essentialiter, quod similiter in passiva.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut praedeterminatum est[^14], rationes Magistri bonae sunt, quia ipse accipit *dare*, secundum quod dicit effectum in creatura; et secundum hoc commune est tribus personis necessario, et hoc in activa significatione. Dare enim Spiritum sanctum alicui est facere, quod inhabitet in eo; et ideo non est simile de potentia generandi.

Ad illud ergo[^15] quod obiicitur, quod Magister dicit, quod *donatio idem est quod processio*; dicendum, quod loquitur de donatione passiva, secundum quod arctatur ad Spiritum sanctum; et argumentum suum bonum est, quia ab eodem principio est actio et passio: ergo si donatio activa est a Patre, similiter et donatio passiva; similiter si donatio activa est a Spiritu sancto, et passiva.

<!-- page 267 -->

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in activa tenetur essentialiter, ergo et in passiva, similiter ergo potest dici, quod Pater procedat; dicendum, quod argumentum istud non valet, quia *spirare* in voce activa convenit duobus, in voce passiva convenit uni soli; sic *mittere* potest convenire tribus, *procedere* vero sive *mitti* duobus tantum.

#### DUB. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *Spiritus sanctus procedit a se*. Videtur enim falsum, quia *procedere* est *produci*: ergo si Spiritus sanctus procedit a se, producitur a se. Si tu dicas, quod non dicitur sine determinatione, videlicet *temporaliter*; *contra*: temporaliter est determinatio non diminuens: ergo sequitur de necessitate, si temporaliter procedit a se, quod procedat a se.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut dictum est supra[^16], processio ratione comparationis ad terminum, in quo suscipitur, creatura scilicet quae sanctificatur, de ratione nominis connotat temporale, et ideo dicitur temporalis. Et quoniam ille effectus temporalis est a Spiritu sancto, ideo et processio, licet non ita proprie sicut de Patre. Nec[^17] valet de productione, quia productio solum dicit comparationem ad principium *a quo* et non connotat effectum. Unde sicut non valet: *procedit temporaliter, ergo producitur temporaliter*, sic et in proposito.

#### DUB. V.

Item quaeritur de probatione Magistri, qua probat missionem Spiritus sancti per missionem Filii, ibi: *Ne autem mireris, quod Spiritus sanctus dicitur mitti vel procedere a se. Nam et de Filio* etc. Videtur enim, quod male probet, quia missio dicit subauctoritatem in misso: sed plus est de subauctoritate in Spiritu sancto quam in Filio: ergo plus de ratione missionis: ergo videtur, quod potius deberet procedere e contrario.

Item, missio dicit manifestationem; sed missio Filii manifestata est per missionem Spiritus sancti: ergo manifestior est missio Spiritus sancti: ergo videtur, quod probet ignotum per ignotius[^18].

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, de quo proprius dicitur *mitti*, utrum[^19] scilicet de Filio, an de Spiritu sancto?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Magister probat missionem Spiritus sancti per missionem Filii, quia magis expressas habet auctoritates ad hoc[^20]. Potest tamen nihilominus dici, quod etiam ratiocinando bene procedit. In missione enim personae est duo considerare: scilicet emanationem, ratione cuius est subauctoritas in misso; et quantum ad hoc magis competit Spiritui sancto mitti[^21], et quantum ad hoc arguit Magister a minori: quod si Filius mittitur a Spiritu sancto et a se, multo fortius et Spiritus sanctus. Est etiam considerare manifestationem; et ratione huius magis convenit Filio, quia magis evidenter apparuit mundo, et quantum ad hoc arguit Magister a manifestiori[^22]; et ita peroptime procedit.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Spiritus sanctus manifestat Filium et eius missionem; dicendum, quod hoc non est propter defectum evidentiae a parte missionis Filii, sed propter caecitatem a parte videntium, quam removet gratia Spiritus sancti.

Et sic patet, de quo proprius[^23]. Uno enim modo magis competit Filio, alio modo magis Spiritui sancto secundum duas praedictas conditiones.

#### DUB. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Filium missum, quo factum ex muliere*; quia secundum hoc, cum Spiritus sanctus non sit factus ex muliere, videtur quod non sit missus. Praeterea, si Filius[^24] est factus ex muliere, ergo est factus. *Contra*: in Symbolo[^25]: *Non factus*.

**Respondeo:** Ista non est communis ratio missionis, sed solum missionis visibilis ipsius Filii; et ideo non valet de Spiritu sancto[^26].

<!-- page 268 -->

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est factus[^27]; dicendum, quod illud est intelligendum secundum humanam naturam; et ideo oportet addere determinationem, ut dicatur *factus ex muliere*, vel *secundum humanam naturam*, quia simpliciter propter errorem Arii vitandum non recipit eam eloquium ecclesiasticum.

---

english:
<!-- page 266 -->

### DOUBTS ON THE LETTER OF THE MASTER.

#### DOUBT I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the letter, and first it is doubted concerning what he says — that the Holy Spirit is given not only by the Father and the Son, but also given by himself. He seems to say something false, because above[^1] he made the argument that he cannot be given by holy men, since he cannot proceed from them; but he cannot proceed from himself: therefore, by the same reason, neither can he be given by himself.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master[^2] was arguing about temporal procession, and concerning this he himself rightly grants that the Spirit proceeds from himself, because it is of his own power to breathe upon whom he wills; but holy men have no power over him.

#### DOUBT II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says — that *the gift of the Holy Spirit is nothing other than the Holy Spirit himself, just as the body of the flesh is nothing other than flesh*[^3]. For it seems, if the comparison is good, that everything which is a gift of the Holy Spirit must be the Holy Spirit. But on the contrary: fear[^4] is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and is not the Holy Spirit.

**I respond:** It must be said that *gift*, since it asserts[^5] a relation, and through this in some manner a distinction, can import that [distinction] in three ways: either according to the manner of understanding, or according to the manner of being, or according to essence. In the first way, the giver and the given are the same — as «the same is the one understanding and the thing understood»[^6] — and they differ only by the account of the manner of speaking, since the same one is given by himself; and so Augustine understands [it]. In another way, according to the manner of being or of holding-oneself, which is one and another in the persons; and so it asserts the relation of person to person. In the third way it imports distinction according to essence, insofar as it asserts an effect[^7] and a respect of the creature to the uncreated essence; and in this way fear is called a gift of the Holy Spirit; but this will appear better below[^8].

#### DOUBT III.

Likewise it is asked concerning the Master's reasoning, in which he says: *If the Father and the Son give the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit does not give himself, then the Father and the Son can do something which the Holy Spirit cannot*; for that reasoning, as has been said above[^9], does not hold. The Father can generate the Son, and the Son cannot: therefore the Father can do something which the Son cannot: therefore by like reason, since the Holy Spirit asserts[^10] a person as the Son does, [the argument] does not hold. If you say that it is not parallel on account of the act of giving[^11], which is an operation in the creature; *on the contrary*: as the Master says in the letter[^12], *the donation of the Holy Spirit is his procession*; but that argument is worth nothing: the Holy Spirit proceeds, and the Father does not: therefore the Holy Spirit does something which the Father does not: therefore similarly not in the case at hand. If you tell me that there is no parallel between the active and the passive; *on the contrary*: the inflection of a noun by cases does not change the signification: therefore similarly it seems that there is no variation there through active and passive. And if you say that it is not parallel, it is shown that it is; for every active [voice] infers a passive: therefore it seems that if [the verb] in the active voice is taken[^13] essentially, [it must be taken] similarly in the passive.

**I respond:** It must be said, as has been determined before[^14], that the Master's reasonings are good, since he takes *to give* insofar as it asserts an effect in the creature; and according to this it is necessarily common to the three persons, and this in the active signification. For *to give the Holy Spirit to someone* is to bring it about that he indwell in him; and therefore the case of the power of generating is not parallel.

Therefore[^15] to what is objected — that the Master says that *donation is the same as procession* — it must be said that he is speaking of passive donation, insofar as it is restricted to the Holy Spirit; and his argument is good, because action and passion are from the same principle: therefore if active donation is from the Father, so also passive donation; similarly if active donation is from the Holy Spirit, so also the passive.

<!-- page 267 -->

To what is objected — that in the active [voice it is] taken essentially, therefore also in the passive, [and] similarly therefore it can be said that the Father proceeds — it must be said that this argument does not hold, because *to breathe* in the active voice belongs to two, in the passive voice belongs to one alone; so *to send* can belong to three, but *to proceed* or *to be sent* [belongs] to two only.

#### DOUBT IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says — that *the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself*. For it seems false, since *to proceed* is *to be produced*: therefore if the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself, he is produced from himself. If you say that it is not said without the qualification *temporally*; *on the contrary*: *temporally* is a non-diminishing qualification: therefore it follows necessarily that, if he proceeds from himself temporally, he proceeds from himself.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was said above[^16], procession by reason of comparison to the term in which it is received — namely, the creature that is sanctified — connotes the temporal by the very meaning of the name, and therefore is called temporal. And since that temporal effect is from the Holy Spirit, therefore the procession is also [from him], although not so properly as from the Father. Nor[^17] does this hold of *production*, because production asserts only the comparison to the principle *from which*, and does not connote an effect. Whence just as it does not hold to argue, *he proceeds temporally, therefore he is produced temporally*, so neither in the case at hand.

#### DOUBT V.

Likewise it is asked concerning the Master's proof, by which he proves the mission of the Holy Spirit through the mission of the Son, at: *But do not be amazed that the Holy Spirit is said to be sent or to proceed from himself. For also of the Son*, etc. For it seems that he proves badly, since mission asserts *subauthority* in the one sent: but there is more *subauthority* in the Holy Spirit than in the Son: therefore more of the character of mission: therefore it seems that he ought rather to have proceeded conversely.

Likewise, mission asserts manifestation; but the mission of the Son was manifested through the mission of the Holy Spirit: therefore the mission of the Holy Spirit is more manifest: therefore it seems that he proves the unknown through the more unknown[^18].

Joined to this, it is asked of which it is more properly said *to be sent*, that is[^19], whether of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit?

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master proves the mission of the Holy Spirit through the mission of the Son because he has more express authorities for this[^20]. It can nevertheless be said that he also proceeds well by reasoning. For in the mission of a person there are two things to consider: namely, emanation, by reason of which there is *subauthority* in the one sent; and as far as this, *to be sent* belongs more to the Holy Spirit[^21], and on this point the Master argues from the lesser: that if the Son is sent by the Holy Spirit and by himself, much more is the Holy Spirit. There is also to consider manifestation; and by reason of this it belongs more to the Son, since he appeared more evidently to the world; and on this point the Master argues from the more manifest[^22]; and so he proceeds most excellently.

To what is objected — that the Holy Spirit manifests the Son and his mission — it must be said that this is not because of any defect of evidence on the side of the mission of the Son, but on account of the blindness on the side of those who see, which the grace of the Holy Spirit removes.

And so it is plain of which more properly[^23]. For in one mode it belongs more to the Son, in another mode more to the Holy Spirit, according to the two foregoing conditions.

#### DOUBT VI.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *that the Son was sent inasmuch as he was made of woman*; for according to this, since the Holy Spirit is not made of woman, it seems that he is not sent. Furthermore, if the Son[^24] is made of woman, therefore he is *made*. *On the contrary*: in the Creed[^25]: *Not made*.

**I respond:** That is not the common account of mission, but only of the visible mission of the Son himself; and therefore it does not hold for the Holy Spirit[^26].

<!-- page 268 -->

To what is objected — that he is *made*[^27] — it must be said that this is to be understood according to human nature; and therefore one must add a qualification, so that it is said *made of woman*, or *according to human nature*, since simply [speaking], on account of the error of Arius which must be avoided, ecclesiastical speech does not accept it.

---

la: Dist. XIV. c. 3.

en: Distinction 14, c. 3 [of the *Letter of the Master*].

la: Unus alterque codex ut ff cum ed. 1 addit *supra*.

en: One or another codex, such as ff, with ed. 1, adds *supra*.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. et q. 4.

en: Cf. the *Letter of the Master* here, c. 1, and [above] q. 4.

la: Cod. A *amor*.

en: Codex A reads *amor* ["love"].

la: Ex antiquioribus mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 substituimus *dicat* loco *dicit*.

en: From the older manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3 we have substituted *dicat* (subjunctive) for *dicit*.

la: Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 18. (c. 4.). — Mox cod. dd *a se ipso* pro *a se*.

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* III, text 18 (c. 4). — Soon after, codex dd reads *a se ipso* in place of *a se*.

la: Lectio mutila Vat., in qua omittitur *prout dicit effectum*, resarcitur ope mss. et ed. 1. Paulo infra, licet in nonnullis tantum mss. ut F T X dd habeatur, pro *amor* substituimus *timor*, utpote quod obiectioni magis respondet.

en: The mutilated reading of the Vatican edition, in which *prout dicit effectum* is omitted, is restored with the help of the manuscripts and ed. 1. A little further on, although it is held only in a few manuscripts (F, T, X, dd), we have substituted *timor* for *amor*, since [*timor*] corresponds better to the objection.

en: Distinction 18, q. 2 and 5.

la: Dist. 7. q. 2, et ibid. dub. 1.

en: Distinction 7, q. 2, and *ibidem* dub. 1.

la: Vat. contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 *dicit*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the older codices and ed. 1, reads *dicit*.

la: Fide vetustiorum mss. et ed. 1 posuimus *donandi* loco *dandi*.

en: On the testimony of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have set *donandi* in place of *dandi*.

la: Hic, c. 1. — Mox ex plurimis mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *nihil* pro *non*.

en: Here, c. 1 [of the Master's letter on this distinction]. — Soon after, from most manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted *nihil* for *non*.

la: Aliqui codd. ut S X Z *teneatur*.

en: Some codices (S, X, Z) read *teneatur*.

la: Hic, q. 4, quae totam huius dubii solutionem magis explicat.

en: Here, q. 4 [above], which more fully explains the entire solution of this doubt.

la: Ex mss. et ed. 1 restituimus particulam *ergo*.

en: From the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have restored the particle *ergo*.

la: Dist. 14. a. 1. q. 1. Mox ed. 1 *creatura* pro *creaturam*.

en: Distinction 14, art. 1, q. 1. Soon after, ed. 1 reads *creatura* for *creaturam*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc *Et non* loco *Nec*. Mox post *quo* aliqui codd. ut A G T W Z bb cc cum ed. 1 omittunt *et*, aliqui vero ut F H I dd ponunt *nec* pro *et non*.

en: The Vatican edition with codex *cc* reads *Et non* in place of *Nec*. Soon after *quo*, some codices (A, G, T, W, Z, bb, cc) with ed. 1 omit *et*; others (F, H, I, dd) put *nec* for *et non*.

la: Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et sex primarum edd. et minus bene *ignotum*.

en: The Vatican edition, without the authority of the manuscripts and the first six editions, less well reads *ignotum*.

la: In Vat. et cod. cc omittitur *utrum*, quod tamen in aliis codd. et ed. 1 habetur. Nonnulla scripta ut U Y cum ed. 1 paulo ante *per prius* loco *proprius*, sed falso, sicut ex responsione patet.

en: In the Vatican edition and codex *cc* *utrum* is omitted, which is nevertheless held in the other codices and ed. 1. Some writings (U, Y) with ed. 1 a little before [read] *per prius* in place of *proprius*, but wrongly, as is plain from the response.

la: Exhibemus lectionem maioris partis codd. ut A G H I M O T V W X aa bb etc. et ed. 1, dum Vat. cum aliquibus codd., interpunctione mutata, male habet *auctoritates. Adhuc potest*. Mox post *nihilominus* lectiones codd. variant; alii codd. ut H O T Y Z ff cum ed. 1 exhibent nostram, alii addunt cum Vat. *alio modo*, alii ut A S W perperam *nullo modo*, cod. I *nonnullo modo*.

en: We display the reading of the majority of the codices (A, G, H, I, M, O, T, V, W, X, aa, bb, etc.) and ed. 1, while the Vatican edition with some codices, with the punctuation altered, wrongly reads *auctoritates. Adhuc potest*. Soon after *nihilominus* the readings of the codices vary; others (H, O, T, Y, Z, ff) with ed. 1 display ours, others add with the Vatican *alio modo*, others (A, S, W) wrongly *nullo modo*, codex I *nonnullo modo*.

la: Vat. contra multos codd. et ed. 1 *convenit* pro *competit*, quae et dein, mutata interpunctione, ponit *Spiritum sanctum mitti*, sed nostram lectionem exhibent explicite multi codd. cum ed. 1; aliqui propter abbreviationem dubiae sunt lectionis. Paulo infra post *multo fortius et* cod. I addit *a se*, dum cod. dd habet *multo fortius Spiritus sanctus mittitur a se*.

en: The Vatican edition, against many codices and ed. 1, reads *convenit* for *competit*, which then, with the punctuation altered, puts *Spiritum sanctum mitti*; but many codices with ed. 1 explicitly display our reading; some on account of abbreviation are of doubtful reading. A little further on, after *multo fortius et*, codex I adds *a se*, while codex dd has *multo fortius Spiritus sanctus mittitur a se*.

la: In mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 *minori* pro *manifestiori*, sed falso. Cod. dd ultimas propositiones ita exhibet: *Est etiam considerare manifestationem apparentis, et ratione huius magis convenit Filio, quia apparuit benignitas Filii evidenter mundo in unione carnis, et quantum ad hoc arguit Magister a manifestiori et taliter peroptime procedit. Et per hoc patet ad primum obiectum: Ad illud quod secundo obiicitur* etc.

en: In the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3 *minori* [is read] for *manifestiori*, but wrongly. Codex dd displays the final propositions thus: *There is also to consider the manifestation of the one appearing, and by reason of this it belongs more to the Son, since the kindness of the Son appeared evidently to the world in the union of flesh, and on this point the Master argues from the more manifest, and so proceeds most excellently. And by this the [response] to the first objection is plain: To what is objected secondly*, etc.

la: Vat. sibi non constans et contra plurimos codd. nec non ed. 1 *prius*; pauci codd. *per prius*, quod tamen cum subnexis minus convenit. Cod. dd: *Sic etiam patet, de quo proprius dicatur missio*. Mox post *alio modo* ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus *magis*.

en: The Vatican edition, inconsistent with itself and against most codices as well as ed. 1, reads *prius*; a few codices read *per prius*, which however accords less with what follows. Codex dd: *So also it is plain of which mission is more properly said*. Soon after *alio modo*, from the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied *magis*.

la: In cod. W additur *Dei*.

en: In codex W, *Dei* is added.

la: Vat., obnitentibus mss. et sex primis edd., *per Symbolum*.

en: The Vatican edition, with the manuscripts and the first six editions resisting, reads *per Symbolum*.

la: Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 *se* pro *Spiritu sancto*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, reads *se* for *Spiritu sancto*.

la: Errorem, qui in mss. et edd. irrepsit, scil. post *quod* addendo *non*, quique ortus esse videtur ex permutatione ultimae obiectionis cum propositione post *Contra*, emendavimus eliminando particulam *non*, quae etiam in cod. H expuncta conspicitur. Idem dubium recurrit III. Sent. d. 1. dub. 2, ex quo emendatio a nobis facta comprobatur. Cod. I legendo *non factus* paulo infra ponit *divinam* pro *humanam*, sed cum subnexis incohaerenter. Vat. *non est intelligendum nisi* loco *est intelligendum*, sed absque fide mss. et ed. 1. — Cod. cc cum ed. 2 retinet *non*, sed omittit *nisi*, at contra subnexa. *Nempe* propositionem, quae est: *Filius est factus*.

en: An error which had crept into the manuscripts and editions — namely, the addition of *non* after *quod* — and which seems to have arisen from the permutation of the last objection with the proposition after *Contra*, we have emended by eliminating the particle *non*, which is also seen expunged in codex H. The same doubt recurs at III *Sent.* d. 1, dub. 2, by which our emendation is confirmed. Codex I, reading *non factus*, a little further on puts *divinam* for *humanam*, but inconsistently with what follows. The Vatican edition reads *non est intelligendum nisi* in place of *est intelligendum*, but without the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1. — Codex *cc* with ed. 2 retains *non*, but omits *nisi*, again contrary to what follows. [Understand] *Nempe* — namely, the proposition which is: *The Son is made*.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 15, Part 2, Dubia

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 273 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

#### DUB. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de situ primi capituli huius partis. Videtur enim, quod Magister non debeat hic ponere tractatum de missione Filii, quia missio Filii est incarnatio; sed de eius incarnatione agetur[^1] in tertio: ergo ibi deberet agere de missione, non hic.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum[^2], quod Magister incidenter introducit hic tractatum de missione Filii propter explicationem missionis Spiritus sancti. Posset tamen dici, quod Magister hic agit de missione Filii in mentem principaliter, sed de missione Filii in carnem per accidens, ut distinguat a missione Filii in mentem. De illa autem missione, quae est in carnem, specialiter et principaliter agit in tertio, et ideo[^3] aliter ibi quam hic.

#### DUB. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Non eo ipso, quod de Patre natus est, missus dicitur Filius*. Videtur enim dicere falsum et contra Gregorium[^4], qui dicit: «Eo modo mittitur Filius, quo generatur».

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Augustinus loquitur cum praecisione, ut intelligatur: *non eo ipso tantum*; Gregorius autem cum praesuppositione manifestationis. Vel aliter: Augustinus loquitur de generatione aeterna, Gregorius de temporali; unde nulla ibi[^5] est omnino contradictio.

#### DUB. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *ante incarnationem missus est ad omnes Sanctos, qui ante fuerunt*. Quaeritur ergo, utrum post incarnationem plenius sit datus Filius et Spiritus sanctus. Et quod sic, videtur, quia status Legis fuit status imperfectionis, status Evangelii status perfectionis. Lex enim neminem duxit ad perfectionem[^6], sed Evangelium dicit: *Estote perfecti*, Matthaei quinto[^7]: ergo etc.

Item, de Spiritu sancto videtur hoc specialiter, quia scribitur Ioannis septimo[^8]: *Spiritus nondum erat datus, quia Iesus nondum erat glorificatus*; hoc non dicitur, quod nullo modo ante fuerit datus, sed quia non ita abundanter: ergo etc.

Item, maior cognitio et dilectio est tempore Legis gratiae, quam tempore Legis scriptae: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *plenius dari* potest dupliciter intelligi: aut *intensive*, aut *extensive*. Si extensive, sic pluribus datus est Spiritus sanctus tempore Legis gratiae, quia *in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum*[^9] etc., non tantum ad unam gentem. Si intensive, hoc est quantum ad *generalem statum*, aut quantum ad *speciales personas*; quantum ad generalem statum in novo Testamento,

<!-- page 274 -->

quantum ad speciales personas in veteri Testamento; et sic se habent ut excedentia et excessa, quia in veteri Testamento fuerunt aliqui viri Evangelici; et sic procedunt rationes ad utramque partem. In veteri enim[^10] Testamento fuerunt aliqui abundantes in sapientia, ut Salomon, aliqui in patientia, ut Iob, aliqui in mansuetudine, ut Moyses, aliqui in fide, ut Abraham, aliqui in devotione, ut David, aliqui in miraculorum operatione[^11], ut Elias.

#### DUB. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *missus est ad Angelos*. Videtur enim falsum, quia Angelus dicitur *nuntius* seu *missus*: sed ad missum non est missio: ergo etc. Si tu dicas, quod alio modo mittitur; *contra*: qui semper est praesens non indiget missione; sed Angelus semper contemplatur Deum ut praesentem: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod missio Sapientiae sive Filii est ad creaturam *illustrandam*, sicut missio Spiritus sancti ad creaturam *sanctificandam*. Et quoniam Angeli nec ex se fuerunt sapientes nec ex se fuerunt sancti, ideo oportuit, quod a principio mitteretur eis Sapientia, quae est Filius, et etiam[^12] Spiritus sanctus. Unde Augustinus[^13] loquitur pro statu glorificationis; proprie autem non dicitur mitti nunc, nisi dicatur large mitti ad manifestationem alicuius occulti[^14].

#### DUB. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Secundum quod aliquid aeternum mente capimus, non in hoc mundo sumus*. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia aut hoc[^15] dicit secundum animam, aut secundum carnem. Non secundum carnem, hoc constat: ergo secundum animam: ergo videtur, quod anima, quando Deum cognoscit, sit in caelo sive extra mundum. Item hoc videtur ratione, quia *capere* aeternum, est magis *capi*: ergo si quod capitur a capiente locatur, ergo anima locatur in aeternitate, ergo extra tempus. Praeterea, quod cognoscitur et amatur, aut trahitur ad cognoscentem et amantem, aut e converso[^16]; sed dum Deum amamus et cognoscimus, non trahimus Deum ad nos, sed nos ad Deum, sicut dicitur in quarto *de Divinis Nominibus*[^17]: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *locus* habet naturam continentis et quietantis[^18]. Esse ergo in hoc mundo est dupliciter: aut quantum ad veritatem et continentiam, aut quantum ad quietem. Augustinus autem loquitur non primo[^19] modo, quod anima et corpus vere egrediantur hunc mundum, dum mente capit Deum, sed intelligit quantum ad quietem, quia affectus animae non requiescit in temporalibus, quibus superfertur, sed in aeternis[^20], et quantum ad hoc intelligit Dionysius. — Et secunda ratio intelligitur, quod amatum trahit, non localiter mutando, sed sibi conformando, quia amans transformatur in amatum, et cognoscens conformatur cognito[^21].

#### DUB. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: *Pater est principium totius Divinitatis, vel si melius dicitur, Deitatis*. Videtur enim male dicere, quia aut hoc est per generationem, aut per spirationem. Sed si hoc: ergo Pater generat vel spirat Deitatem, quod est contra Magistrum, supra distinctione quinta[^22], ubi dicit, quod essentia nec generat nec generatur. — Praeterea quaeritur, quare dicit: «Vel si melius dicitur Deitatis»?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Augustinus non

<!-- page 275 -->

simpliciter dicit, quod sit *principium Divinitatis*, sed cum hac determinatione, *totius*. Et quoniam in simplicissimo non cadit aliqua totalitas, nisi extenso nomine totalitatis ad personarum pluralitatem, ideo *Deitas* sive *Divinitas* stat ut in personis; tamen quia non potest trahi ad personas, cum sit nomen abstractum, praedictus sermo exponendus est, sicut supra exponit Magister locutiones consimiles.

Quod quaeritur: quare dicitur *Deitatis* melius? dicendum, quod *divinum* potest dici de creaturis, secundum quod dicitur *homo divinus*; sed *Deus* solius Dei est proprium; ideo *Deitas* magis proprie dicit formam Dei quam *Divinitas*: ideo melius dicitur *Deitatis* quam *Divinitatis*.

---

english:
<!-- page 273 -->

### DOUBTS ON THE LETTER OF THE MASTER.

#### DOUBT I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the letter, and first it is doubted concerning the placement of the first chapter of this part. For it seems that the Master ought not to put here a treatise on the mission of the Son, since the mission of the Son is the Incarnation; but his Incarnation will be treated[^1] in [Book] III: therefore he ought to treat of his mission there, not here.

**I respond:** It must be said[^2] that the Master here introduces incidentally a treatise on the mission of the Son for the sake of explaining the mission of the Holy Spirit. It can also be said that the Master here treats principally of the mission of the Son *into the mind*, but only incidentally of the mission of the Son *into the flesh* — in order to distinguish [the latter] from the mission of the Son into the mind. But of that mission which is *into the flesh*, he treats specially and principally in [Book] III, and therefore[^3] differently there than here.

#### DOUBT II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *Not by that very thing by which he was born of the Father is the Son said to be sent*. For he seems to speak falsely and contrary to Gregory[^4], who says: «In that mode by which the Son is generated, [in that] he is sent».

**I respond:** It must be said that Augustine speaks with precision, so that it is understood: *not only by that very thing*; but Gregory speaks with the manifestation [in the creature] presupposed. Or otherwise: Augustine speaks of *eternal* generation, Gregory of *temporal*; whence there is no contradiction at all there[^5].

#### DOUBT III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says — that *before the Incarnation [the Son] was sent to all the Saints who were before*. It is asked, therefore, whether after the Incarnation the Son and the Holy Spirit have been more fully given. And that they have, seems [clear], since the state of the Law was a state of imperfection, [whereas] the state of the Gospel is a state of perfection. For *the Law led no one to perfection*[^6]; but the Gospel says: *Be ye perfect*, Matthew 5[^7]: therefore etc.

Likewise, this seems specially [clear] of the Holy Spirit, since it is written in John 7[^8]: *The Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified*; this is not said because he was in no way given before, but because not so abundantly: therefore etc.

Likewise, the cognition and love [of God] is greater in the time of the Law of grace than in the time of the Law as written: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that *to be more fully given* can be understood in two ways: either *intensively* or *extensively*. If extensively, then the Holy Spirit was given to more in the time of the Law of grace, since *into all the earth their sound went out*[^9], etc., not only to one nation. If intensively, this is either as to the *general state*, or as to *special persons*; as to the general state, in the New Testament,

<!-- page 274 -->

[but] as to special persons, in the Old Testament; and so they stand related as exceeding and exceeded — for in the Old Testament there were certain Evangelical men; and so the arguments proceed to either side. For in the Old Testament[^10] there were some abounding in *wisdom*, like Solomon; some in *patience*, like Job; some in *meekness*, like Moses; some in *faith*, like Abraham; some in *devotion*, like David; some in the *working of miracles*[^11], like Elijah.

#### DOUBT IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says — that *[the Son] was sent to the Angels*. For it seems false, since *angel* is so called as *messenger* or *one sent*: but to the one sent there is no mission: therefore etc. If you say that he is sent in another mode; *on the contrary*: he who is always present has no need of mission; but the angel always contemplates God as present: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that the mission of *Wisdom* or of the Son is for *illuminating* the creature, just as the mission of the Holy Spirit is for *sanctifying* the creature. And since the angels were neither of themselves wise nor of themselves holy, therefore it was necessary that from the beginning Wisdom — who is the Son — should be sent to them, and also[^12] the Holy Spirit. Whence Augustine[^13] is speaking with regard to the state of glorification; but properly [he] is not now said to be sent — unless he is said in a wide sense to be sent for the manifestation of something hidden[^14].

#### DOUBT V.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *Insofar as we grasp anything eternal in the mind, we are not in this world*. For he seems to speak falsely, since either he says this[^15] of the soul, or of the flesh. Not of the flesh — this is plain: therefore of the soul: therefore it seems that the soul, when it knows God, is in heaven or outside the world. Likewise this seems [clear] by reason, since *to grasp* the eternal is rather *to be grasped*: therefore if what is grasped by the grasper is located [in him], then the soul is located in eternity, [and] therefore outside time. Furthermore, what is known and loved is either drawn to the knower and lover, or conversely[^16]; but while we love and know God, we do not draw God to ourselves, but ourselves to God, as is said in the fourth [book] *On the Divine Names*[^17]: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that *place* has the nature of *that which contains* and *that which brings to rest*[^18]. Therefore *to be in this world* is twofold: either as to truth and containment, or as to rest. Augustine, however, speaks not in the first[^19] mode (so that the soul and body truly go forth from this world while the mind grasps God), but he understands [it] as to *rest* — because the affection of the soul does not rest in temporal [things], over which it is carried, but in eternal[^20]; and Dionysius understands it accordingly. — And the second argument is to be understood [thus]: that what is loved draws [the lover], not by changing [his] location, but by conforming [him] to itself, since the lover is transformed into the loved, and the knower is conformed to the known[^21].

#### DOUBT VI.

Likewise it is asked concerning what Augustine says: *The Father is the principle of the whole Divinity — or if better said, of the Deity*. For he seems to speak badly, since either this is by generation or by spiration. But if so: then the Father generates or spirates the Deity — which is against the Master, above in distinction 5[^22], where he says that the essence neither generates nor is generated. — Furthermore it is asked: why does he say «Or if better said, of the Deity»?

**I respond:** It must be said that Augustine does not

<!-- page 275 -->

simply say that [the Father] is *the principle of the Divinity*, but with this qualification: *of the whole*. And since in what is most simple there does not fall any *totality* — except by extending the name of totality to the plurality of persons — therefore *Deity* or *Divinity* stands as in the persons; yet because it cannot be drawn over to the persons (since it is an abstract name), the foregoing speech must be expounded just as the Master above expounds similar locutions.

As for what is asked — why is *Deity* said to be better? — it must be said that *divine* (*divinum*) can be said of creatures, insofar as a man is called *divine*; but *God* (*Deus*) is proper to God alone; therefore *Deitas* more properly asserts the form of God than *Divinitas*: and therefore it is better said *of the Deity* than *of the Divinity*.

---

la: Adstipulantibus vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1, posuimus *agetur* pro *agitur*. Paulo infra post *non* cod. V satis bene addit *autem*.

en: With the older manuscripts and ed. 1 in agreement, we have set *agetur* (future) for *agitur* (present). A little further on, after *non*, codex V quite well adds *autem*.

la: Supplevimus ex antiquis codd. et ed. 1 *hoc*; mox substituimus *hic* loco *hunc*.

en: From the old codices and ed. 1 we have supplied *hoc*; soon after we have substituted *hic* in place of *hunc*.

la: Ed. 1 *ita* pro *ideo*.

en: Ed. 1 reads *ita* in place of *ideo*.

la: Homil. 26. n. 2. in Evang. Cfr. supra huius d. q. 2.

en: Homily 26, n. 2, on the Gospel. Cf. above, in q. 2 of this distinction.

la: Ad fidem antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus *ibi*.

en: On the testimony of the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have added *ibi*.

la: Epist. ad Hebr. 7, 19: *Nihil enim ad perfectum adduxit lex.*

en: Epistle to the Hebrews 7:19: *For the law brought nothing to perfection.*

la: Vers. 48.

la: Vers. 39. — Mox unus alterque codex ut A cum ed. 1 *quia* loco *quod*, sed minus bene.

en: Verse 39 [John 7:39]. — Soon after, one or another codex (such as A) with ed. 1 reads *quia* in place of *quod*, but less well.

la: Psalm. 18, 5. — Mox post *hoc est* Vat. addit *dupliciter aut*, quod deest in mss., licet aliqui eorum ut V X Y habeant cum ed. 1 *aut hoc est quantum*.

en: Psalm 18:5. — Soon after *hoc est*, the Vatican edition adds *dupliciter aut*, which is missing in the manuscripts, although some of them (such as V, X, Y) with ed. 1 have *aut hoc est quantum*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc minus bene omittit *enim*, quod tamen exstat in aliis codd. et ed. 1.

en: The Vatican edition with codex *cc* less well omits *enim*, which is nevertheless present in the other codices and ed. 1.

la: Vat. *opere* pro *operatione*, sed castigatur ope mss. et ed. 1. — Quaestionem hic propositam invenies fusius pertractatam apud Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 73. m. 2. a. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 5. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 18. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.

en: The Vatican edition reads *opere* for *operatione*, but is corrected with the help of the manuscripts and ed. 1. — The question here proposed you will find more fully treated in Alex. Hal., *Summa* p. I, q. 73, m. 2, a. 4. — St. Thom., here q. 5, a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 18. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 5, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here, second principal q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 5.

la: In Vat. et cod. cc incongrue deest *etiam*, quod in ceteris codd. et ed. 1 invenitur.

en: In the Vatican edition and codex *cc* *etiam* is unfittingly absent, which is found in the other codices and ed. 1.

la: Libr. IV. de Trin. c. 20. n. 27, ex quo textus huius dubii sumtus est; vide lit. Magistri, c. 8.

en: Book IV of *On the Trinity*, c. 20, n. 27, from which the text of this doubt is taken; see the *Letter of the Master*, c. 8.

la: De hoc specialiter agunt Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 73. m. 3. a. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 5. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 19. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 1. collat. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic a. 5. q. 1.

en: On this specifically Alex. Hal., *Summa* p. I, q. 73, m. 3, a. 2. — St. Thom., here q. 5, a. 1, quaestiuncula 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 19. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1, quaestiuncula 2. — Giles of Rome, here, second principal q. 1, collat. 2. — Dionys. Carth., here a. 5, q. 1, treat especially of this.

la: Supplevimus fide vetustiorum mss. et ed. 1 *hoc*.

en: On the testimony of the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied *hoc*.

la: Quoad primam partem huius propositionis sequimur lectionem multorum mss. ut F G H I K S T X Y Z dd ee ff, dum Vat. falso habet *quod cognoscit et amat*, et ed. 1 *quod cognoscitur et amat*. Quoad secundam vero partem exhibemus lectionem cod. Y, quae et in se distinctior est et cum subnexis concordat, a qua non multum dissidet lectio cod. M *trahitur ad cognoscentem et in amantem*; pro quo maior pars mss. cum ed. 1 *trahitur a cognoscente in amantem*, Vat. autem cum aliquibus codd. *trahitur a cognoscente et amante*. — Mox ed. 1 *cum* loco *dum*, et paulo infra post *sed nos* in cod. dd additur *trahimur*.

en: As to the first part of this proposition, we follow the reading of many manuscripts (F, G, H, I, K, S, T, X, Y, Z, dd, ee, ff), while the Vatican edition wrongly has *quod cognoscit et amat*, and ed. 1 has *quod cognoscitur et amat*. As to the second part we display the reading of codex Y, which is both more distinct in itself and concords with what follows; from which the reading of codex M, *trahitur ad cognoscentem et in amantem*, does not much differ; for which the majority of the manuscripts with ed. 1 [read] *trahitur a cognoscente in amantem*, while the Vatican edition with some codices [reads] *trahitur a cognoscente et amante*. — Soon after, ed. 1 reads *cum* in place of *dum*; and a little further on, after *sed nos*, in codex *dd* *trahimur* is added.

la: Cap. 3. 11: *Non ut trahentes ubique praesentem, et nusquam virtutem, sed ut memoriis et invocationibus nosmetipsos iniungentes ei et adunantes.*

en: Chap. 3, [§] 11 [of *On the Divine Names*]: *Not as drawing him who is everywhere present and nowhere [absent in] power, but as joining and uniting ourselves to him by remembrances and invocations.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 41. et 48. (c. 4. et 5.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* IV, text 41 and 48 (cc. 4 and 5).

la: Vat. praeter fidem mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 *proprio* loco *primo*, sicuti et mox contra plures vetustiores codd. ut A G T Z dd *egrediatur* pro *egrediantur*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the testimony of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 6, reads *proprio* in place of *primo*; likewise soon after, against several older codices (A, G, T, Z, dd), it reads *egrediatur* (sg.) in place of *egrediantur* (pl.).

la: Mss. cum quinque primis edd. transponunt verba *sed aeternis* post *in temporalibus*, sed minus bene, eo quod verba immediate sequentia *quibus superfertur* tunc in sensu parum usitato accipienda essent, scil. in hoc: *per quae affectus fertur super temporalia*, qui non concordat cum modo loquendi alias a S. Doctore usurpato respectu huius verbi *superferri*, cfr. infra d. 17. p. I. dub. 5, ubi habetur *superferri passionibus*. — Mox Vat. absque auctoritate codd. et ed. 1 *intelligitur* pro *intelligit*.

en: The manuscripts with the first five editions transpose the words *sed aeternis* after *in temporalibus*, but less well — since the words immediately following, *quibus superfertur*, would then have to be taken in a sense scarcely used, namely *through which the affection is borne above temporal things*; this does not accord with the manner of speaking otherwise employed by the Holy Doctor concerning this verb *superferri* — cf. below d. 17, p. I, dub. 5, where one finds *superferri passionibus*. — Soon after, the Vatican edition, without the authority of the codices and ed. 1, reads *intelligitur* in place of *intelligit*.

la: Eadem Augustini verba exponunt S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 20. — Petr. a Tar. et Richard., hic circa lit. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5. in fine.

en: The same words of Augustine are expounded by St. Thom., here q. 3, a. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 20. — Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the letter [of the Master]. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 5 *in fine*.

la: Cap. 1. — Paulo ante ed. 1 *et* loco *vel*.

en: Chap. 1 [of d. 5]. — A little before, ed. 1 reads *et* in place of *vel*.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 16

source_text:
<!-- page 276 -->

### DISTINCTIO XVI.

*De missione Spiritus sancti, quae fit duobus modis, visibiliter et invisibiliter.*

Nunc de Spiritu sancto videndum est, praeter illam ineffabilem et aeternam processionem, qua procedit a Patre et Filio, et non a se ipso, quae sit eius temporalis processio, quae dicitur missio sive donatio[^1]. Ad quod dicimus, quia sicut Filius duobus modis dicitur mitti: uno, quo visibiliter apparuit; altero, quo invisibiliter[^2] castis mentibus percipitur: ita et Spiritus sanctus a Patre et Filio ac a se ipso duobus modis procedere sive mitti sive dari dicitur: uno visibiliter, altero invisibiliter. Datus est enim visibilis creaturae demonstratione, sicut in die Pentecostes aliisque vicibus, et datur quotidie invisibiliter illabendo mentibus fidelium.

Et primo agamus de illo missionis modo, qui fit visibili specie. De hoc Augustinus in secundo libro *de Trinitate*[^3] ita ait: «In promptu est intelligere de Spiritu sancto, cur missus et ipse dicatur. Facta est enim quaedam creaturae species ex tempore, in qua visibiliter ostenderetur Spiritus sanctus, sive cum in ipsum Dominum corporali specie columbae descendit, sive cum in die Pentecostes factus est subito de caelo sonus, quasi ferretur flatus vehemens, et visae sunt illis linguae divisae sicut ignis, qui et insedit super unumquemque eorum. Haec operatio visibiliter expressa et oculis oblata mortalibus missio Spiritus sancti dicta est, non ut appareret eis[^4] ipsa substantia, qua et ipse invisibilis et incommutabilis est, sicut Pater et Filius, sed ut exterioribus visis corda hominum commota a temporali manifestatione venientis ad occultam aeternitatem semper praesentis converterentur». Ecce his verbis aperit Augustinus illum modum missionis, qui visibiliter exhibetur, cum tamen ipse Spiritus in sui natura non videatur, qui nec in illis creaturis magis erat quam in aliis, sed ad aliud. In illis enim erat, ut per eas ad homines veniens[^5] ostenderetur esse in illis, ad quos illae creaturae veniebant. Non enim Spiritus sanctus temporali motu tunc venit vel descendit in homines, sed per temporalem motum creaturae significata est spiritualis et invisibilis Spiritus sancti infusio. Et ut apertius dicam, per illum modum missionis Spiritus sancti corporaliter exhibitum monstrata est spiritualis et interior missio sancti Spiritus sive donatio, de qua agendum est.

Sed prius quaerendum est, cum Filius dicatur minor Patre secundum missionem, qua in forma creata apparuit, cur et Spiritus sanctus non dicatur similiter minor Patre, cum in forma creata apparuerit[^6]. Nam de Filio, quod minor sit Patre secundum formam, qua missus apparuit, aperte ostendit Augustinus in quarto libro *de Trinitate*[^7] dicens: «Misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, usque adeo parvum, ut factum; eo itaque missum, quo factum. Fateamur ergo factum minorem, et in tantum minorem, in quantum factum, et in tantum factum, in quantum missum». Ecce habes, quia Filius, in quantum est missus, id est factus, minor est Patre. Cur ergo Spiritus sanctus non dicitur minor Patre, cum et ipse creaturam assumserit in qua apparuit? Quia aliter Spiritus assumsit creaturam, in qua apparuit, aliter Filius. Nam Filius accepit per unionem[^8], Spiritus vero non. Filius enim accepit hominem ita, ut fieret homo; Spiritus vero sanctus non ita accepit columbam, ut fieret columba. De hoc Augustinus in secundo libro *de Trinitate*[^9] ita ait: «Ideo nusquam scriptum est, quod Deus Pater maior sit Spiritu sancto, vel Spiritus sanctus minor Patre, quia non sic est assumta creatura, in qua appareret Spiritus sanctus, sicut assumtus est Filius hominis, in qua forma ipsius Verbi Dei persona praesentaretur, non ut haberet Verbum Dei, sicut alii sancti sapientes, sed quod ipsum Verbum erat. Aliud est enim Verbum in carne, aliud Verbum caro, id est, aliud est Verbum in homine, aliud Verbum homo. Caro enim pro homine posita est in eo quod ait[^10]: *Verbum caro factum est*. Non ergo sic est

<!-- page 277 -->

assumta creatura, in qua apparuit Spiritus sanctus, sicut assumta est caro illa et humana forma ex virgine Maria. Non enim columbam vel illum flatum vel illum ignem beatificavit sibique in unitatem personae coniunxit in aeternum». Ex praedictis aperte ostensum est, secundum quid Filius dicatur minor Patre, et quare Filius dicatur minor Patre, et non Spiritus sanctus.

### Cap. II.

*Quod Filius secundum quod homo non modo Patre, sed Spiritu sancto etiam minor est.*

Notandum autem, quod Filius, secundum quod homo factus est, non tantum Patre, sed Spiritu sancto et etiam se ipso minor dicitur. Et quod etiam se ipso minor dicatur secundum formam servi, Augustinus ostendit in primo libro *de Trinitate*[^11] dicens: «Erraverunt homines, ea quae de Christo secundum hominem dicta sunt, ad eius substantiam, quae sempiterna est, transferentes, sicut illud quod ipse Dominus dicit[^12]: *Pater maior me est*; quod propter formam servi Veritas dicit, secundum quem modum etiam se ipso minor est Filius. Quomodo enim non etiam se ipso minor factus est, qui se ipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens[^13]? Non enim sic accepit formam servi, ut amitteret formam Dei, in qua erat aequalis Patri. In forma ergo Dei Unigenitus Patris aequalis est Patri. In forma servi etiam se ipso minor est. Non ergo immerito Scriptura dicit utrumque, scilicet et aequalem Patri Filium, et Patrem maiorem Filio; illud enim propter formam Dei, hoc autem propter formam servi intelligitur». De hoc eodem in secundo libro *de Trinitate*[^14] Augustinus ait: «Dei Filius est aequalis Patri secundum Dei formam, in qua est, et minor Patre secundum formam servi, quam accepit, in qua non modo Patre, sed etiam Spiritu sancto, nec hoc tantum, sed etiam se ipso minor inventus est». «Propter quam, ut idem in *Epistola ad Maximum*[^15] ait, non tantum Patre, sed etiam se ipso et Spiritu sancto minor factus est et etiam minoratus paulo minus ab Angelis». «Est ergo Dei Filius, ut ipse ait in primo libro *de Trinitate*[^16], Deo Patri natura aequalis, habitu minor, id est in forma servi, quam accepit». His auctoritatibus aperte ostenditur Filius secundum formam servi minor Patre et se ipso et Spiritu sancto.

Hilarius autem dicere videtur, quod Pater sit maior Filio, nec tamen Filius sit[^17] minor Patre. Pater enim dicitur maior propter auctoritatem, quia in eo est auctoritas generationis, secundum quam dicit[^18]: *Pater maior me est*; et Apostolus: *Donavit ei nomen, quod est super omne nomen*. Cum ergo ait: *Pater maior me est*, hoc est ac si diceret, donavit mihi nomen. «Si igitur, inquit Hilarius in nono libro *de Trinitate*[^19], donantis auctoritate Pater maior est, nunquid per doni confessionem minor Filius est? Maior itaque donans est, sed minor iam non est, cui unum esse donatur; ait enim: *Ego et Pater unum sumus*. Si non hoc donatur Iesu, ut confitendus sit in gloria Dei Patris, minor Patre est. Si autem in ea gloria donatur ei esse, qua Pater est, habes et in donantis auctoritate, quia maior est, et in donati[^20] confessione, quia unum sunt. Maior itaque Pater Filio est et plane maior, cui tantum donat esse, quantus est ipse; cui innascibilitatis esse imaginem sacramento nativitatis impertit, quem ex se in forma sua generat». Audisti, lector, quid super hoc dicat Hilarius, cuius verba, ubicumque occurrerint, diligenter nota pieque intellige.

---

english:
<!-- page 276 -->

### Distinction XVI.

*On the mission of the Holy Spirit, which is made in two ways, visibly and invisibly.*

Now we must consider, concerning the Holy Spirit, beyond that ineffable and eternal procession by which he proceeds from the Father and the Son and not from himself, what his temporal procession is — which is called mission or bestowal[^1]. To this we say that, just as the Son is said to be sent in two ways — one, by which he appeared visibly; the other, by which he is invisibly[^2] perceived by chaste minds — so also the Holy Spirit is said to proceed or be sent or be given by the Father and the Son and by himself in two ways: one visibly, the other invisibly. For he was given by visible demonstration of a creature, as on the day of Pentecost and on other occasions; and he is given daily, invisibly, by gliding into the minds of the faithful.

And first let us treat of that mode of mission which is made in a visible form. Of this Augustine in book II *On the Trinity*[^3] thus says: "It is easy to understand concerning the Holy Spirit why he too is said to be sent. For there was made some species of a creature in time, in which the Holy Spirit was visibly shown forth — whether when he descended upon the Lord himself in the bodily form of a dove, or when on the day of Pentecost there came suddenly a sound from heaven, as of a vehement wind being borne, and there appeared to them divided tongues as it were of fire, which also sat upon each one of them. This operation, visibly expressed and offered to mortal eyes, was called the mission of the Holy Spirit — not that there should appear to them[^4] that very substance by which he himself is invisible and unchangeable, just as the Father and the Son are, but that by these external sights the hearts of men, moved from the temporal manifestation of him as coming, might be turned to the hidden eternity of him who is always present." Behold, by these words Augustine opens up that mode of mission which is exhibited visibly — although the Spirit himself in his own nature is not seen, who was not in those creatures more than in others, but to a different end. For he was in them, that, coming through them[^5] to men, he might be shown to be in those to whom those creatures came. For the Holy Spirit did not then come or descend upon men by a temporal motion, but by the temporal motion of the creature was signified the spiritual and invisible infusion of the Holy Spirit. And, to speak more openly, by that mode of mission of the Holy Spirit exhibited bodily, the spiritual and interior mission or bestowal of the Holy Spirit was shown — concerning which we must now treat.

But first it must be asked: since the Son is said to be lesser than the Father with respect to the mission by which he appeared in a created form, why is the Holy Spirit not said to be similarly lesser than the Father, since he too has appeared in a created form[^6]. For concerning the Son, that he is lesser than the Father according to the form in which he appeared as sent, Augustine plainly shows in book IV *On the Trinity*[^7], saying: "God sent his Son made of a woman, made under the law, so much made small that he was made; and so sent in the manner in which he was made. Let us therefore confess that he is lesser as having been made, and as much lesser as he was made, and as much made as he was sent." Behold, you have it that the Son, insofar as he is sent — that is, made — is lesser than the Father. Why then is the Holy Spirit not called lesser than the Father, since he also assumed a creature in which he appeared? Because the Spirit assumed the creature in which he appeared otherwise than the Son did. For the Son received [it] through union[^8], but the Spirit not [so]. For the Son received the man in such a way that he became man; but the Holy Spirit did not so receive the dove that he became a dove. Of this Augustine in book II *On the Trinity*[^9] thus says: "Therefore it is nowhere written that God the Father is greater than the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is lesser than the Father, since the creature in which the Holy Spirit appeared was not so assumed as the Son of Man was assumed, in which the form of the very Word of God's person was presented — not so that he might *have* the Word of God, as do other holy wise men, but that he himself was the Word. For one thing is the Word in flesh, another the Word [which is] flesh; that is, one is the Word in a man, another is the Word [who is] man. For *flesh* is put for *man* in that which he says[^10]: *The Word was made flesh*. Therefore the creature

<!-- page 277 -->

in which the Holy Spirit appeared was not so assumed as that flesh and human form was assumed from the Virgin Mary. For he did not beatify and join to himself in unity of person, for eternity, the dove or that wind or that fire." From the foregoing it has been plainly shown according to what the Son is called lesser than the Father, and why the Son is called lesser than the Father, and not the Holy Spirit.

### Chapter II.

*That the Son according as he is man is lesser not only than the Father but also than the Holy Spirit.*

It must be noted, however, that the Son, according as he was made man, is called lesser not only than the Father but also than the Holy Spirit, and even than himself. And that even than himself he is called lesser according to the form of a servant, Augustine shows in book I *On the Trinity*[^11], saying: "Men have erred, transferring those things which were said of Christ according to [his] humanity to his substance, which is sempiternal — as in that which the Lord himself says[^12]: *The Father is greater than I*; which Truth says on account of the form of a servant, in which manner the Son is also lesser than himself. For how is he not also made lesser than himself, who emptied himself, taking the form of a servant[^13]? For he did not so take the form of a servant that he might lose the form of God, in which he was equal to the Father. In the form of God therefore the Only-Begotten of the Father is equal to the Father. In the form of a servant he is even lesser than himself. Therefore not without reason does Scripture say both — namely, both that the Son is equal to the Father, and that the Father is greater than the Son; the former is understood on account of the form of God, the latter on account of the form of a servant." On this same point in book II *On the Trinity*[^14] Augustine says: "The Son of God is equal to the Father according to the form of God, in which he is, and lesser than the Father according to the form of a servant which he received, in which he was found lesser not only than the Father but also than the Holy Spirit; and not only this, but even than himself." "On account of which" — as the same Augustine says in the *Letter to Maximus*[^15] — "he was made lesser not only than the Father but even than himself and than the Holy Spirit, and was even *made a little less than the Angels*." "The Son of God therefore is, as he himself says in book I *On the Trinity*[^16], equal to God the Father in nature, lesser in condition — that is, in the form of a servant which he received." By these authorities it is plainly shown that the Son according to the form of a servant is lesser than the Father and than himself and than the Holy Spirit.

Hilary, however, seems to say that the Father is greater than the Son, yet that the Son is not[^17] lesser than the Father. For the Father is called greater on account of authority, since in him is the authority of generation, according to which he says[^18]: *The Father is greater than I*; and the Apostle: *He bestowed on him a name which is above every name*. When therefore he says: *The Father is greater than I*, this is as if he were saying: he bestowed on me a name. "If therefore," says Hilary in book IX *On the Trinity*[^19], "by the authority of the giver the Father is greater, is the Son lesser through the confession of the gift? The giver is therefore greater; but he is not now lesser to whom it is given to be one [with the giver]; for he says: *I and the Father are one*. If this is not given to Jesus, that he should be confessed in the glory of God the Father, he is lesser than the Father. But if it is given to him to be in that glory in which the Father is, you have both, in the authority of the giver — that he is greater — and in the confession of the one given to[^20] — that they are one. The Father therefore is greater than the Son, and plainly greater, to whom he gives to be as great as he himself is; to whom by the sacrament of [his] nativity he imparts being as the image of unbegottenness, [the one] whom from himself in his own form he begets." You have heard, reader, what Hilary says on this; whose words, wherever they come up, mark carefully and understand piously.

---

la: Vat. cum aliis edd., exceptis 1, 8, contra codd. *dicto*. Paulo ante codd. ABE repetunt *a* ante *Filio*. Denique post *ad quod dicimus* edd. 1, 6, 8 *quod* loco *quia*.

en: The Vatican edition with the other editions, except 1 and 8, against the codices, [reads] *dicto*. A little earlier, codices A, B, E repeat *a* before *Filio*. Lastly, after *ad quod dicimus*, edd. 1, 6, 8 [read] *quod* in place of *quia*.

la: Vat. et edd. 2, 4, 5, 9 contra codd. et alias edd. post *invisibiliter* addunt *a*; e contra paulo post ante *se ipso* codd. BCE et edd. 1, 8 omittunt *a*. Mox edd. 1, 7 post *mitti* omittunt *sive dari*. Denique ante *creaturae* edd. 2, 3, 7 legunt *visibiliter* loco *visibilis*.

en: The Vatican edition and edd. 2, 4, 5, 9, against the codices and the other editions, after *invisibiliter* add *a*; conversely, a little later, before *se ipso*, codices B, C, E and edd. 1, 8 omit *a*. Shortly after, edd. 1, 7, after *mitti*, omit *sive dari*. Lastly, before *creaturae*, edd. 2, 3, 7 read *visibiliter* in place of *visibilis*.

la: Cap. 5. n. 10. — Vat. et edd. 4, 6 omittunt *ita* ante *ait*.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* II,] c. 5, n. 10. — The Vatican edition and edd. 4, 6 omit *ita* before *ait*.

la: Codd. DE cum originali legunt *eius*; codd. A *eis eius*.

en: Codices D, E, with the original [Augustine], read *eius*; codices A [read] *eis eius*.

la: Codd. BCDE et edd. 1, 6 *venientes*, referendo hoc participium ad *eas*, quod displicet.

en: Codices B, C, D, E and edd. 1, 6 [read] *venientes* [plural], referring this participle to *eas* [the creatures], which is unsatisfactory.

la: Vat. cum aliis edd. contra codd. et edd. 1, 8 non bene *apparuit*. Paulo ante codd. DE et edd. 1, 8 omittunt *et* ante *Spiritus sanctus*.

en: The Vatican edition with the other editions, against the codices and edd. 1, 8, [reads] *apparuit* not well [for *apparuerit*]. A little earlier, codices D, E and edd. 1, 8 omit *et* before *Spiritus sanctus*.

la: Cap. 19. n. 26. — Locus Scripturae est Gal. 4, 4.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* IV,] c. 19, n. 26. — The Scripture place is Galatians 4:4.

la: Solummodo Vat. et edd. 5, 6 adiiciunt *personae*.

en: Only the Vatican edition and edd. 5, 6 add *personae* ("of [the] person").

la: Cap. 6. n. 11. — Vat. et ed. 6 iterum omittunt *ita* ante *ait*.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* II,] c. 6, n. 11. — The Vatican edition and ed. 6 again omit *ita* before *ait*.

la: Cap. 7. n. 14, sed multis a Magistro omissis. — Paulo ante cod. D *Quod autem* pro *Et quod*; cod. C *Quod*.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* I,] c. 7, n. 14, but with many [things] omitted by the Master [Lombard]. — A little earlier, codex D [reads] *Quod autem* for *Et quod*; codex C [reads] *Quod*.

la: Ioan. 14, 28. — Edd. legunt *ait* pro *dicit* contra codd. et originale.

en: John 14:28. — The editions read *ait* ("says") for *dicit* against the codices and the original [Augustine].

en: Philippians 2:7.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* II,] c. 1, n. 2.

la: Epist. 170. (olim. 66) n. 9. — Omnes codd. et edd. male citant sic: *in libro contra Maximinum (vel Maximianum)*; Vat. *in libr. Epist. ad Maximum*. Maximus fuit medicus ab haeresi Ariana conversus. — In fine huius loci textus S. Scripturae est Hebr. 2, 9: *qui modico quam Angeli minoratus est*.

en: [Augustine,] *Letter* 170 (formerly 66), n. 9. — All the codices and editions cite this badly as *in the book against Maximinus (or Maximianus)*; the Vatican edition [reads] *in the book of the Letter to Maximus*. Maximus was a physician converted from the Arian heresy. — At the end of this place the Scripture text is Hebrews 2:9: *who was made a little less than the Angels*.

la: Cap. 7. n. 14. — Hic Vat. cum ceteris edd. addit *in* ante *natura* contra originale, nostros codd. et etiam contextum, cum sibi correspondeant verba *natura* et *habitu*. Deinde solummodo Vat. et cod. C omittunt *id est*.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* I,] c. 7, n. 14. — Here the Vatican edition with the other editions adds *in* before *natura* against the original, our codices, and even the context, since the words *natura* and *habitu* correspond to one another. Then only the Vatican edition and codex C omit *id est*.

la: Vat. cum plurimis edd., sed contra codd. et edd. 1, 8 omittit *sit*.

en: The Vatican edition with most editions, but against the codices and edd. 1, 8, omits *sit*.

la: Ioan. 14, 28; et mox Phil. 2, 7. — Ed. 8 verbo *dicit* praemittit *ipse Filius*, quod ceterae subaudiunt.

en: John 14:28; and shortly after, Philippians 2:7. — Ed. 8 prefixes *ipse Filius* ("the Son himself") to the verb *dicit*, which the others understand [implicitly].

la: Num. 54. — Textus Scripturae est Ioan. 10, 30.

en: [Hilary, *De Trin.* IX,] no. 54. — The Scripture text is John 10:30.

la: Contra originale, omnes codd. et edd. 6, 8, 9 [legunt *donati*]; Vat. cum aliis edd. male legit *donantis*. Paulo post ead. Vat. et ed. 4 perperam addunt *et* ante *Filio*.

en: Against the original, all the codices and edd. 6, 8, 9 [read *donati*]; the Vatican edition with the other editions wrongly reads *donantis*. A little later, the same Vatican edition and ed. 4 wrongly add *et* before *Filio*.


title: Dist. 16, Divisio Textus

title_alt:
Divisio textus distinctionis XVI
Division of the text of distinction XVI

source_text:
<!-- page 277 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVI.

*De missione Spiritus sancti specialiter, et quidem de visibili.*

> *Nunc de Spiritu sancto videndum est, praeter illam ineffabilem* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Haec est secunda pars illius partis, in qua agit de missione quantum ad modum. In hac parte agit de missione Spiritus sancti specialiter[^1]. Et quoniam missio Spiritus sancti duobus modis est, scilicet visibilis et invisibilis, sicut missio Filii: ideo haec pars habet duas partes. In prima agit Magi-

<!-- page 278 -->

ster de missione Spiritus sancti visibili. In secunda agit de missione[^2] invisibili, et hoc infra distinctione decima septima: «*Iam nunc accedamus ad assignandam missionem Spiritus sancti*».

Prima iterum pars habet duas. In prima Magister explicat Spiritus sancti visibilem missionem. In secunda ad maiorem explanationem movet et determinat dubitationem quandam, ibi: «*Sed prius quaerendum est, cum Filius dicatur minor Patre*» etc.

Prima iterum[^3] pars habet duas. In prima Magister assignat duplicem modum missionis Spiritus sancti secundum duplicem modum missionis Filii. Secundo vero prosequitur de altera, scilicet missione visibili, ibi: «*Et primo agamus de illo modo missionis, qui fit visibiliter*» etc., ubi dicit, quod missio visibilis est apparitio facta in exteriori signo, per quod monstratur missio interior.

«*Sed prius quaerendum est, cum Filius dicatur minor Patre*» etc. Haec est secunda pars distinctionis[^4], in qua Magister movet dubitationem, et habet haec dubitatio ortum ex comparatione missionis Filii et Spiritus sancti. Cum enim Spiritus sanctus mittatur visibiliter, sicut et Filius, quaestio est, quare non dicitur minor Patre, ut Filius. Haec autem pars, in qua hanc quaestionem prosequitur[^5], habet tres partes. In prima opponit et determinat, quod Spiritus sanctus non debet dici ex missione minor, sicut Filius, quia Spiritus sanctus non est unitus. Secundo[^6], occasione huius adiungit quoddam verum huic annexum, scilicet quod Filius ratione missionis dicitur minor se ipso, ibi: «*Notandum autem, quod Filius, secundum quod homo factus est*». Tertio docet sane intelligere quoddam verbum dubium, quod est praesenti considerationi coniunctum, quod dicit Hilarius, scilicet quod Pater secundum divinitatem est maior Filio, et[^7] Filius secundum divinitatem non est minor, ibi: «*Hilarius autem dicere videtur, quod Pater sit*» etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad evidentiam huius partis quaeruntur tria de missione visibili:

Primo quaeritur[^8], *quid sit*.

Secundo, *ad quid sit utilis*.

Tertio quaeritur, *quibus modis facta sit*.

---

english:
<!-- page 277 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVI.

*On the mission of the Holy Spirit specifically, and indeed on its visible [mode].*

> *Now we must consider, concerning the Holy Spirit, beyond that ineffable* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

This is the second part of that part in which [the Master] treats of mission with respect to *mode*. In this part he treats of the mission of the Holy Spirit specifically[^1]. And since the mission of the Holy Spirit is in two ways — namely visible and invisible, just as the mission of the Son [is] — therefore this part has two [sub]parts. In the first the Master

<!-- page 278 -->

treats of the visible mission of the Holy Spirit. In the second he treats of the invisible mission[^2], and this below in distinction seventeen: «*Now then let us approach the assigning of the mission of the Holy Spirit*».

The first [part] in turn has two. In the first the Master explains the visible mission of the Holy Spirit. In the second, for the sake of fuller explanation, he raises and settles a certain doubt, at: «*But first it must be asked, since the Son is said to be lesser than the Father*» etc.

The first[^3] [part] in turn has two. In the first the Master assigns a twofold mode of mission of the Holy Spirit corresponding to the twofold mode of mission of the Son. In the second he pursues the other, namely the visible mission, at: «*And first let us treat of that mode of mission which is made visibly*» etc., where he says that the visible mission is an appearance made in an external sign, by which the interior mission is shown forth.

«*But first it must be asked, since the Son is said to be lesser than the Father*» etc. This is the second part of the distinction[^4], in which the Master raises a doubt — and this doubt has its origin in the comparison of the mission of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For since the Holy Spirit is sent visibly just as the Son [is], the question is why he is not called lesser than the Father, as the Son is. And this part, in which he pursues this question[^5], has three parts. In the first he objects and determines that the Holy Spirit ought not to be called lesser on account of [his] mission, as the Son [is], because the Holy Spirit is not united. Secondly[^6], on this occasion he adjoins a certain truth annexed to it, namely that the Son by reason of his mission is called lesser than himself, at: «*It must be noted, however, that the Son, according as he was made man*». Thirdly he teaches how to understand soundly a certain doubtful word which is joined to the present consideration — what Hilary says, namely that the Father according to divinity is greater than the Son, and[^7] [yet] the Son according to divinity is not lesser, at: «*Hilary, however, seems to say that the Father is*» etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the elucidation of this part three [questions] are asked concerning the visible mission:

First it is asked[^8], *what it is*.

Second, *to what it is useful*.

Third it is asked, *in what ways it has been made*.

---

la: Vat. contra auctoritatem omnium codd. et ed. 1 primam propositionem ita exhibet: *Supra egit Magister de temporali processione Spiritus sancti, qua procedit vel mittitur a se ipso, hic agit de eadem processione in modum dicendi. Ex omnibus* etc., sed falso, ut patet ex divisione textus 15. p. I. et II.

en: The Vatican edition, against the authority of all the codices and ed. 1, sets out the opening proposition thus: «*Above the Master treated of the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit, by which he proceeds or is sent from himself; here he treats of the same procession with respect to its manner. From all* etc.» — but falsely, as is plain from the division of the text of dist. 15, parts I and II.

la: In Vat. contra mss. deest *missione*.

en: In the Vatican edition, against the manuscripts, *missione* is missing.

la: Ex mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus *iterum*.

en: From the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied *iterum* ("again").

la: Vat., omissis verbis Magistri, ita propositionem incipit: *Similiter secunda pars, in qua*, et paulo infra ponit *quae habet* loco *et habet haec dubitatio*, obnitentibus mss. et ed. 1.

en: The Vatican edition, with the Master's words omitted, begins the proposition thus: *Similiter secunda pars, in qua*, and a little below puts *quae habet* in place of *et habet haec dubitatio* — against the manuscripts and ed. 1.

la: In Vat. desunt verba *Haec autem pars, in qua hanc quaestionem prosequitur*, quae tamen exstant in mss. et ed. 1.

en: In the Vatican edition the words *Haec autem pars, in qua hanc quaestionem prosequitur* ("And this part, in which he pursues this question") are missing — though they stand in the manuscripts and ed. 1.

la: Codd. cum ed. 1 *Et* pro *Secundo*, sed minus distincte.

en: The codices with ed. 1 [read] *Et* for *Secundo*, but less distinctly.

la: Fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus *et*.

en: On the credit of the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have added *et*.

la: Ex vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1 restituimus *quaeritur*. Paulo post in principio quaestionis restituimus ex codd. et ed. 1 verba: *Circa primum proceditur sic*, quae desunt in Vat.

en: From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have restored *quaeritur* ("it is asked"). A little after, at the beginning of the question, we have restored from the codices and ed. 1 the words: *Circa primum proceditur sic* ("Concerning the first one proceeds thus"), which are missing in the Vatican edition.