title: Dist. 14, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 230 -->

### Articulus II.
### Quaestio II. *Utrum Spiritus sanctus detur ab aliquo viro sancto.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Spiritus sanctus detur ab aliquo viro sancto. Et quod sic, probatur hoc modo:

Spiritum sanctum dari non est aliud quam gratiam gratum facientem dari; sed ostenditur, quod gratiam gratum facientem ab homine dari sive infundi est *possibile* et *conveniens* et *verum*.

**Quod sit possibile:**

1. Et quod sit *possibile*, videtur *a minori*: quia maioris virtutis est producere formam substantialem quam accidentalem; sed[^1] gratia est forma accidentalis: cum ergo creatura habeat virtutem producendi formam substantialem, multo fortius videtur de gratia, quae est forma accidentalis.[^2]

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur *a simili*: quia gratia est lumen spirituale; sed ita videmus in lumine corporali, quod aliquid est luminis dativum, aliquid receptivum, aliquid dativum et receptivum: ergo si lumen spirituale est aeque potens, pari ratione videtur de ipso. Sed dativum, cum sit Deus, non potest esse receptivum, quia nihil recipit ab aliquo: ergo hoc est reperiri in creatura, quod recipiat lumen spirituale, quod est gratia, et det ipsum; et sic etc.[^3]

3. Item, duo sunt, quae faciunt creaturam habere posse producendi sibi simile, scilicet corruptibilitas, ob quam indiget conservari in alio, et perfectio in natura, ob quam potest in actum perfectum, qui est producere sibi similem.[^4] «Perfectum enim dicitur unumquodque, cum potest generare tale, quale ipsum est».[^5] Si ergo gratia est forma, quae citissime corrumpitur, et forma magnae perfectionis: ergo debet habere virtutem producendi sibi similem; sed non in subiecto in quo est: ergo in alio.

<!-- page 231 -->

4. Item, quod potest perfecte expellere contrarium potest perfecte aggenerare[^6] habitum contrarium, quia contrarium non expellitur perfecte nisi per contrarium; sed gratia potest perfecte expellere culpam: ergo gratia in homine potest ex se generare gratiam; sed non in habente, ergo in alio.

**Quod sit congruum:**

5. Ostenditur etiam,[^7] quod sit *congruum*, quod gratia procedat ab uno homine in alium. Et sic ostenditur: ratio superbiendi fuit ratio amittendi gratiam, ergo ab oppositis, humiliatio est ratio recuperandi;[^8] sed si gratia datur ab homine, plus humiliatur homo, quam si tantum a Deo; quia si datur ab homine, humiliatur homo sub Deo et sub homine, non autem, si a solo Deo datur, humiliatur sub utroque: ergo videtur, quod iste modus magis congruat.[^9]

6. Item, si in actu iustitiae, qui est punitio, subiicitur anima peccatrix creaturae corporali, ut ordinetur in universo: ergo in actu misericordiae debet subiici alicui creaturae, ut reordinetur: ergo sicut ab aliqua creatura recipit poenam, ita videtur congruum, quod recipiat et gratiam.

7. Item, perfectum agens non tantum dat suscipienti formam, sed etiam dat potentiam consimilem;[^10] et hoc est in manifestationem suae potentiae: ergo si Deus est agens nobilissimum et qui maxime debet laudari in sua actione, congruum est, ut non tantum det formam gratiae, sed etiam potentiam dandi.

8. Item, sicut a Deo est esse, ita et bene esse; sed in nullo derogatur Deo, cum dat potentiam creaturae dandi esse: ergo in nullo derogatur, cum dat potentiam dandi bene esse, ergo et esse gratuitum.

**Quod sit verum:**

9. Ostenditur autem quod sit *verum*, quia Ioannis vigesimo[^11] dixit Dominus: *Accipite Spiritum sanctum; quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis* etc.

10. Item, in Actibus[^12] dicitur, quod per impositionem manuum Apostolorum dabatur Spiritus sanctus, non per impositionem manuum aliorum, ut dicit Glossa de Philippo discipulo, Actuum octavo: ergo aliqua virtus erat in Apostolis, quae non erat in aliis; sed per illam dabatur Spiritus sanctus: ergo ab homine dabatur Spiritus sanctus.

**Fundamenta in oppositum:**

E converso ostenditur, quod donum Spiritus sancti dari ab homine sit *falsum*, sit *incongruum*, sit etiam *impossibile*.

**Quod sit falsum:**

1. Quod sit *falsum*, videtur per Augustinum, decimo quinto *de Trinitate*[^13]: «Non aliquis discipulorum dabat Spiritum sanctum, sed orabant, ut veniret in hominem».

2. Item, quicumque dat vel donat aliquid, habet posse[^14] activum super illud; sed super donum Spiritus sancti nullus homo habet posse: ergo etc.

**Quod sit inconveniens:**

3. Item, quod sit *inconveniens*, videtur, quia si anima ab alio quam a Deo gratificatur, alius quam Deus cadit medium inter animam et Deum. Sed quandocumque aliquid cadit medium[^15] inter animam et Deum, anima hominis est perversa: ergo secundum hoc, dum daretur animae gratia, perverteretur.

4. Item, gratia potest super liberum arbitrium, ergo si posset homo dare gratiam, homo haberet posse super alterius arbitrium; sed arbitrium, quod est alii subiectum, non est liberum: ergo talis donatio tolleret[^16] libertatem.

5. Item, maxima est gloria Deo[^17] de impii iustificatione; sed maxima gloria Dei non debet alii communicari: ergo si communicatur, divinae gloriae derogatur; sed si alius quam Deus dat gratiam, alius quam Deus iustificat: ergo talis donatio minuit Dei gloriam.

6. Item, iustum est in eo sperare, qui potest dare meritum salutis; sed si homo posset dare gratiam, posset dare meritum salutis: ergo iustum esset

<!-- page 232 -->

sperare in homine; sed homo est *vanitas*[^18]: ergo donatio talis daret fiduciam vanitatis.

Ex his quatuor mediis patet, quod donatio Spiritus sancti ab homine tollit ordinem ipsius animae,[^19] tollit libertatem, minuit gloriam Dei et inducit in vanam confidentiam, quae omnia sunt inconvenientia.

**Quod sit impossibile:**

7. Ostenditur etiam, quod *impossibile* sit, dari talem potentiam creaturae: quia, sicut dicit Augustinus[^20], «maius est de impio facere pium quam creare caelum et terram». Sed potentia creandi non potuit a creatura recipi: ergo nec potentia dandi gratiam.

8. Item, productio gratiae per praesentiam agentis ab anima suscipitur; sed solus Deus potest animae illabi: ergo solus Deus potest gratiam infundere in animam.

9. Item, gratia est forma simplex et deiformis et spiritualis, non habens ortum a principiis subiecti: ergo cum anima rationalis ratione deiformitatis et spiritualitatis non possit[^21] esse nisi a Deo, patet quod nec gratia, quae aeque spiritualis, immo spiritualior est ipsa anima.

10. Item, gratia immediate unit Deo: ergo non potest esse a Deo nisi immediate, ergo nullo cooperante: ergo creatura non potest producere gratiam.

> **Conclusio.** Spiritus sanctus non potest dari ab homine sicut a principio effectivo, potest tamen dari ab ipso sicut a praeparante vel impetrante.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut istae ultimae rationes ostendunt, gratiam sive Spiritum sanctum dari ab homine sicut a principio *effectivo* sive *productivo*, omnino est falsum et impossibile.

Tamen propter intelligentiam obiectorum in contrarium est notandum, quod gratiam dari ab aliquo est tripliciter: vel sicut *a praeparante*, sive administrante[^22] Sacramenta sive annuntiante salutaria documenta; vel sicut *ab impetrante*, sive per orationem sive per bona opera; vel sicut *a producente*. Primo modo datur gratia a bonis et a malis; secundo modo tantum a bonis; tertio modo tantum a Deo.

Et per hoc manifesta est responsio ad duo ultima,[^23] quae probant, Spiritum sanctum dari, quia ibi datio nihil aliud est quam praeparatio.

**Ad opposita:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo, quod agens creatum possit in formam substantialem; dico, quod non potest in omnem substantialem, ut puta in eam quae est deiformis, sicut est anima rationalis. Et quia gratia est deiformis,[^24] ideo non potest ab agente tali produci. Si autem de aliis formis naturalibus arguat, non est locus a minori.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de lumine corporali, dicendum, quod non est simile. Lumen enim corporale diffunditur per medium deferens, et per idem medium potest iterum aggenerari[^25] quod defertur; gratia autem non est per delationem, sed per illapsum agentis et omnimodam indistantiam.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod creatura corruptibilis debet habere potentiam generandi; dicendum, quod verum est de illa quae corruptibilis est *de se*; sed gratia de se nunquam corrumpitur vel senescit.

Vel dic, quod illa non est tota causa, maxime in his quae non dicunt substantiam completam, sed magis dispositionem.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod gratia potest expellere culpam; dicendum, quod expellere culpam est dupliciter: vel *effective*, vel *formaliter*. Quod potest expellere effective, potest efficere gratiam; sed non oportet, quod illud quod formaliter, quia illud se ipso expellit. Quoniam igitur gratia expellit formaliter, non oportet eam in homine generare aliam gratiam.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in iustificatione debet peccator humiliari; dicendum, quod verum est, quia humiliari debet et sub homine et etiam sub visibilibus signis: tamen aliter quam sub Deo, quia alius honor debetur Deo quam homini; et ideo, quia sub Deo humiliatur ut sub principio salutis et a quo salvatur, non[^26] debet sub creatura humiliari, ut a qua salus detur ei, sed ut a qua salus administratur.

6. Et sic patet etiam sequens de humiliatione in poena. Non enim est simile de humiliatione illa, quia ibi anima perversa, *manens* in sua perversitate, ratione illius subiicitur inferiori per naturam, vel quia habet reliquias perversitatis; sed in gratiae donatione anima perversa a perversitate mutatur et ad Deum immediate ordinatur.

<!-- page 233 -->

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod agens perfectum dat potentiam agendi simile; dicendum, quod verum est, si patiens congruenter[^27] posset suscipere; sed, sicut ostensum est, ex parte hominis non est possibile, ut talis potentia ab eo recipiatur, propter talis formae nobilitatem, quae non potest esse nisi a nobilissimo agente.

8. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod dare potentiam ad esse non derogat Deo; dicendum, quod ordo [est in nobilitate creaturarum,][?] quia aliquae creaturae sunt ita nobiles, quod non decet eas nisi a nobilissimo agente produci, ut sunt illae quae sunt ad imaginem.[^28] Quoniam igitur gratia est de nobilissimis, patet, quod non potest produci ab homine, sicut nec esse animae.

9. 10. Quae ultimo obiiciuntur soluta sunt supra per distinctionem dationis secundum differentiam[^29] trimembrem.

english:
### Article II.
### Question II. *Whether the Holy Spirit is given by any holy man.*

Secondly, the question is asked whether the Holy Spirit is given by any holy man. And that He is, is proved in this way:

For the Holy Spirit to be given is nothing other than for grace-making-pleasing (*gratia gratum faciens*) to be given; but it is shown that for grace-making-pleasing to be given or infused by a man is *possible* and *fitting* and *true*.

**That it is possible:**

1. That it is *possible* is seen *from the lesser*: since it is of greater power to produce a substantial form than an accidental one; but[^1] grace is an accidental form: since therefore a creature has the power of producing a substantial form, much more does it seem so concerning grace, which is an accidental form.[^2]

2. Likewise, this same thing seems so *from a similitude*: since grace is a spiritual light; but we so see in corporeal light that something is a giver of light, something a receiver, something both giver and receiver: therefore if spiritual light is equally powerful, by parity of reasoning the same seems true of it. But the giver, since it is God, cannot be a receiver, because He receives nothing from anything: therefore this is to be found in a creature, that it both receives spiritual light, which is grace, and gives it; and so on.[^3]

3. Likewise, two things make a creature have the power of producing something like itself, namely *corruptibility*, on account of which it needs to be preserved in another, and *perfection in nature*, on account of which it can attain to a perfect act, which is to produce something like itself.[^4] «For each thing is called *perfect* when it can generate one like itself».[^5] If therefore grace is a form that very quickly corrupts, and a form of great perfection: therefore it ought to have the power of producing something like itself; but not in the subject in which it is: therefore in another.

4. Likewise, what can perfectly expel the contrary can perfectly engender[^6] the contrary habit, since the contrary is not perfectly expelled except by its contrary; but grace can perfectly expel guilt: therefore grace in a man can of itself generate grace; but not in the one in whom it inheres, therefore in another.

**That it is fitting:**

5. It is shown also[^7] that it is *fitting* that grace should proceed from one man to another. And it is shown thus: the ground of pride was the ground of losing grace; therefore from opposites, humbling is the ground of recovering it;[^8] but if grace is given by a man, the man is more humbled than if [it were given] only by God; for if it is given by a man, the man is humbled under God and under man, whereas if it is given by God alone, he is not humbled under both: therefore it appears that this mode is more fitting.[^9]

6. Likewise, if in the act of justice, which is punishment, the sinful soul is subjected to a corporeal creature, in order that it may be ordered in the universe: therefore in the act of mercy it ought to be subjected to some creature, in order that it may be re-ordered: therefore just as it receives punishment from some creature, so it seems fitting that it should also receive grace.

7. Likewise, a perfect agent not only gives the recipient the form, but also gives a like power;[^10] and this is for the manifestation of its power: therefore if God is the most noble agent and one who most ought to be praised in His action, it is fitting that He give not only the form of grace, but also the power of giving [it].

8. Likewise, just as being is from God, so also is well-being; but God is in no way derogated when He gives a creature the power of giving being: therefore He is in no way derogated when He gives the power of giving well-being, and therefore also of giving gratuitous being.

**That it is true:**

9. That it is *true* is shown because in the twentieth [chapter] of John[^11] the Lord said: *Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them*, etc.

10. Likewise, in the Acts[^12] it is said that by the imposition of the hands of the Apostles the Holy Spirit was given, not by the imposition of the hands of others, as the Gloss says concerning the disciple Philip, in Acts 8: therefore some power was in the Apostles which was not in others; but by it the Holy Spirit was given: therefore the Holy Spirit was given by a man.

**Foundations to the contrary:**

Conversely it is shown that the gift of the Holy Spirit being given by a man is *false*, is *unfitting*, and is also *impossible*.

**That it is false:**

1. That it is *false* is seen through Augustine, in book fifteen *On the Trinity*[^13]: «No one of the disciples gave the Holy Spirit, but they prayed that He might come into a man».

2. Likewise, whoever gives or bestows anything has active power[^14] over it; but no man has power over the gift of the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.

**That it is unfitting:**

3. Likewise, that it is *unfitting* is seen because if the soul is graced by another than God, another than God falls as middle between the soul and God. But whenever something falls as middle[^15] between the soul and God, the soul of the man is perverse: therefore on this account, while grace would be given to the soul, it would be perverted.

4. Likewise, grace has power over free choice, therefore if a man could give grace, the man would have power over another's choice; but a choice that is subjected to another is not free: therefore such a giving would take away[^16] freedom.

5. Likewise, the greatest glory accrues to God[^17] from the justifying of the impious; but the greatest glory of God ought not to be communicated to another: therefore if it is communicated, divine glory is derogated; but if another than God gives grace, another than God justifies: therefore such a giving diminishes God's glory.

6. Likewise, it is just to hope in him who can give the merit of salvation; but if a man could give grace, he could give the merit of salvation: therefore it would be just

to hope in a man; but man is *vanity*[^18]: therefore such a giving would give confidence to vanity.

From these four middle terms it is plain that the giving of the Holy Spirit by a man takes away the order of the soul itself,[^19] takes away freedom, diminishes the glory of God, and induces vain confidence — all of which are unfitting.

**That it is impossible:**

7. It is shown also that it is *impossible* for such a power to be given to a creature: because, as Augustine[^20] says, «it is greater to make a pious man out of an impious one than to create heaven and earth». But the power of creating could not be received by a creature: therefore neither the power of giving grace.

8. Likewise, the production of grace by the presence of the agent is received by the soul; but God alone can flow into the soul: therefore God alone can infuse grace into the soul.

9. Likewise, grace is a form simple and deiform and spiritual, not having its origin from the principles of the subject: therefore since the rational soul, by reason of its deiformity and spirituality, cannot[^21] be except from God, it is plain that neither can grace, which is equally spiritual — nay rather, more spiritual than the soul itself.

10. Likewise, grace immediately unites to God: therefore it cannot be from God except immediately, therefore with no co-operator: therefore a creature cannot produce grace.

> **Conclusion.** The Holy Spirit cannot be given by a man as by an effective principle; He can however be given by him as by one preparing or impetrating.

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as those last reasonings show, that grace or the Holy Spirit is given by a man as by an *effective* or *productive* principle is altogether false and impossible.

Yet for the understanding of the objections to the contrary it must be noted that grace is given by someone in three ways: either as *by one preparing*, whether by administering[^22] the Sacraments or by announcing salvific teachings; or as *by one impetrating*, whether through prayer or through good works; or as *by one producing*. In the first mode grace is given by good and bad alike; in the second mode only by the good; in the third mode only by God.

And from this the response to the last two arguments,[^23] which prove that the Holy Spirit is given, is plain — for there the giving is nothing other than preparation.

**To the objections:**

1. To that which is objected first, that a created agent can attain to a substantial form; I say that it cannot attain to every substantial form — for instance, to that which is deiform, as is the rational soul. And because grace is deiform,[^24] therefore it cannot be produced by such an agent. But if it argues from other natural forms, there is no place for an argument from the lesser.

2. To that which is objected concerning corporeal light, it must be said that it is not similar. For corporeal light is diffused through a conveying medium, and through the same medium that which is conveyed can be engendered again[^25]; but grace is not by conveyance, but by the inflowing of the agent and total absence of distance.

3. To that which is objected, that a corruptible creature ought to have a power of generating; it must be said that it is true of that which is corruptible *of itself*; but grace of itself is never corrupted nor grows old.

Or say: that this is not the whole cause, especially in those things which do not signify a complete substance, but rather a disposition.

4. To that which is objected, that grace can expel guilt; it must be said that to expel guilt is in two ways: either *effectively* or *formally*. What can expel effectively can effect grace; but it is not necessary that what [expels] formally [should do so], because that thing expels by itself. Since therefore grace expels formally, it is not necessary for it to generate another grace in the man.

5. To that which is objected, that in justification the sinner ought to be humbled; it must be said that it is true, because he ought to be humbled both under man and also under visible signs: yet otherwise than under God, since a different honor is due to God than to man; and therefore, because under God he is humbled as under the principle of salvation and the one by whom he is saved, he ought not[^26] to be humbled under a creature as one by which salvation is given to him, but as one by which salvation is administered.

6. And so the next [reply], concerning humbling in punishment, is also plain. For there is not a like case with that humbling, because there the perverse soul, *remaining* in its perversity, by reason of that is subjected to what is inferior by nature, or because it has the remnants of perversity; but in the giving of grace the perverse soul is changed from perversity and is ordered immediately to God.

7. To that which is objected, that a perfect agent gives the power of producing something like [itself]; it must be said that it is true, if the patient could fittingly[^27] receive [it]; but, as has been shown, on man's part it is not possible that such a power be received by him, on account of the nobility of such a form, which cannot be except from a most noble agent.

8. To that which is objected, that to give the power [unto] being does not derogate God; it must be said that the order [is in the nobility of creatures,][?] because some creatures are so noble that it does not befit them to be produced except by a most noble agent — as are those which are *to the image* [of God].[^28] Since therefore grace is among the most noble things, it is plain that it cannot be produced by a man, just as neither can the being of the soul.

9. 10. Those which were objected last are resolved above by the threefold[^29] distinction of giving.

la: Vat., obnitentibus mss. et ed. 1, omittit *est*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and the first edition, omits *est*.

la: Hoc enim eruitur ex propositione prima obiectionis.

en: For this is drawn from the first proposition of the objection.

la: Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 *donatione* loco *datione*, et paulo infra contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 omittit *duo*, deinde post *habens* absque auctoritate mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 addit *et habet et*. Codd. TW *habens dicitur haberi*, plures codd. ut ACGLRSUY corrupte *habens dicitur*, alii tamen codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 exhibent lectionem nostram.

en: The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and the first edition, has *donatione* in place of *datione*, and a little below, against the older codices and the first edition, omits *duo*; then after *habens*, without the authority of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, it adds *et habet et*. Codices TW have *habens dicitur haberi*; many codices such as ACGLRSUY corruptly *habens dicitur*; yet other codices with editions 1, 2, 3 exhibit our reading.

la: Fide mss. et ed. 1 hic et circa finem argumenti loco *simile* substituimus *similem*, quod et plures codd. cum ed. 1 circa principium argumenti exhibent. — De duplici ratione, ob quam creaturis convenit potentia producendi sibi simile, vide supra d. 7. q. 2. in corp.

en: On the trust of the manuscripts and the first edition, here and toward the end of the argument we substitute *similem* in place of *simile*, which several codices with the first edition also exhibit toward the beginning of the argument. — On the twofold ground on which the power of producing something like itself befits creatures, see above d. 7, q. 2, in the body.

la: Aristot., II. *de Anima*, text. 34. (c. 4.) et IV. *Meteor.* text. 19. (c. 3.). Cfr. supra d. 9. q. I. — In quo textu, postulantibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1, posuimus *cum* loco *quod*. Mox Vat. cum cod. cc, aliis tamen codd. et ed. 1 obnitentibus, minus bene *autem* pro *ergo*. Paulo infra cod. O *maximae* loco *magnae*.

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 34 (c. 4) and *Meteorology* IV, text 19 (c. 3). Cf. above d. 9, q. 1. — In which text, at the demand of the older manuscripts and the first edition, we have placed *cum* in place of *quod*. Next, the Vatican edition with codex cc, against other codices and the first edition, less well [reads] *autem* for *ergo*. A little below, codex O has *maximae* in place of *magnae*.

la: Sequimur codd. ACHIRSTU etc. cum ed. 1 ponendo *aggenerare* loco *generare*, quod Vat. habet.

en: We follow codices ACHIRSTU etc. with the first edition in placing *aggenerare* in place of *generare*, which the Vatican edition has.

la: Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 *autem*.

en: The Vatican edition, without the authority of the manuscripts and the first edition, [adds] *autem*.

la: Unus alterque codex ut I V repetit hic *gratiam*. Mox plures codd. ut A I S T W Y etc. incongrue *ergo* pro *sed*.

en: One or two codices such as I and V here repeat *gratiam*. Next, several codices such as A I S T W Y etc. incongruously [have] *ergo* for *sed*.

la: Fide plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *iste* loco *ille*, et *congruat* pro *conveniat*.

en: On the trust of very many manuscripts and the first edition, we substitute *iste* in place of *ille*, and *congruat* for *conveniat*.

la: Averroes, *Comment.* in VIII. *Phys.* text. 32: *Generans enim est illud quod dat corpori simplici generato formam suam et omnia accidentia contingentia formae*. — In fine argumenti cod. B addit *gratiam*.

en: Averroes, *Commentary on Physics* VIII, text 32: *For the generator is that which gives to the simple generated body its form and all the accidents pertaining to the form*. — At the end of the argument codex B adds *gratiam*.

en: Verses 22, 23.

la: Cap. 8, 17. — Verba glossae ordinariae mox citatae sunt: *Philippus, qui Samariae evangelizabat, unus de septem (diaconis) fuit. Si enim Apostolus esset, manus imponere posset, ut Spiritum acciperent, quod solis episcopis licet*.

en: Chapter 8, verse 17. — The words of the *Glossa ordinaria* just cited are: *Philip, who was evangelizing in Samaria, was one of the seven (deacons). For if he had been an Apostle, he could have laid on hands so that they might receive the Spirit, which is permitted to bishops alone*.

la: Cap. 26. n. 46. Vide in lit. Magistri, c. 3.

en: Chapter 26, no. 46. See in the *Littera* of the Master, c. 3.

la: Auctoritate plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 expunximus hic minus apte additum *aliquod*; mox bis substituimus *super* loco *supra*.

en: On the authority of very many manuscripts and the first edition we have expunged here the less aptly added *aliquod*; next, twice we substitute *super* in place of *supra*.

la: In Vat. et cod. cc perperam deest *medium*, quod in aliis mss. et ed. 1 habetur. Paulo infra unus alterque codex ut T ee *cum* pro *dum*.

en: In the Vatican edition and codex cc the word *medium* is wrongly missing, which is found in the other manuscripts and the first edition. A little below, one or two codices such as T and ee [have] *cum* for *dum*.

la: Vat. contra vetustiores codd. et ed. 1 *tollit*, deinde contra omnes codd. et ed. 1 addit *arbitrii*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the older codices and the first edition, [has] *tollit*; then against all codices and the first edition it adds *arbitrii*.

la: Ita antiquiores codd. cum ed. 1, dum Vat. *Dei*, quod edd. 2, 3 omittunt.

en: So the older codices with the first edition, while the Vatican edition has *Dei*, which editions 2 and 3 omit.

la: Psalm. 38, 6: *Verumtamen universa vanitas omnis homo vivens*. — Mox cod. aa cum ed. 1 *datio* pro *donatio*.

en: Psalm 38:6: *Yet truly every living man is altogether vanity*. — Next, codex aa with the first edition [has] *datio* for *donatio*.

la: Vat., omisso *ipsius*, hic addit *ad Deum* et post *tollit* adiungit *arbitrii*, sed obstant codd. cum ed. 1. — In principio huius propositionis post *his* cod. M et ed. 1 satis bene addunt *igitur*.

en: The Vatican edition, omitting *ipsius*, here adds *ad Deum* and after *tollit* adjoins *arbitrii*, but the codices with the first edition stand against this. — At the beginning of this proposition, after *his*, codex M and the first edition not badly add *igitur*.

la: *Expositio in Evang. Ioan.* tract. 72. n. 3.

en: Augustine, *Tractates on the Gospel of John*, tract 72, no. 3.

la: Multi codd. cum tribus primis edd. *potest*.

en: Many codices with the first three editions [have] *potest*.

la: Ex plurimis mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *administrante* pro *ministrante*, et post *Sacramenta* particulam *sive* pro ambiguo *seu sicut ab*; deinde post *impetrante* adiecimus non bene omissum *sive*. Mox codd. aa bb post *producente* addunt *et infundente*.

en: From very many manuscripts and the first edition we substitute *administrante* for *ministrante*, and after *Sacramenta* the particle *sive* for the ambiguous *seu sicut ab*; then after *impetrante* we have inserted the not-well-omitted *sive*. Next, codices aa and bb after *producente* add *et infundente*.

la: Vat. praeter fidem vetustiorum mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 addit *obiecta*.

en: The Vatican edition, beyond the trust of the older manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, adds *obiecta*.

la: Vat. cum paucis codd. hic superflue repetit *sicut est anima rationalis*. Mox ex codd. cum sex primis edd. posuimus *arguat* loco *arguatur*.

en: The Vatican edition with a few codices here superfluously repeats *sicut est anima rationalis*. Next, from the codices with the first six editions we have placed *arguat* in place of *arguatur*.

la: Ex plurimis codd. substituimus *aggenerari* pro *generari*, loco cuius codd. L O habent *aliud generari* et ed. 1 *aggregari*. Omnes codd. cum ed. 1 post *aggenerari* omittunt *per*, quod Vat. falso adiungit.

en: From very many codices we substitute *aggenerari* for *generari*, in place of which codices L and O have *aliud generari* and the first edition *aggregari*. All codices with the first edition after *aggenerari* omit *per*, which the Vatican edition falsely adjoins.

la: Fide mss. et ed. 1 expunximus *sic*, quod Vat. particulae *non* praefigit.

en: On the trust of the manuscripts and the first edition we have expunged *sic*, which the Vatican edition prefixes to the particle *non*.

la: Anchor on *congruenter* — Vat. variant not flagged in OCR; entry continues on next page (see [?] in tier2-ambiguities).

en: Anchor on *fittingly* — Vatican variant not separately flagged in the surviving OCR; placeholder pending PDF spot-check.

la: Cf. supra d. 3. p. 1. (Bonav. on creatures *ad imaginem*.)

en: Cf. above d. 3, p. 1 (Bonaventure on creatures *to the image*).

la: Sc. *praeparans*, *impetrans*, *producens*; vide supra in corp.

en: Namely *the one preparing*, *the one impetrating*, *the one producing*; see above in the body.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Haec quaestio non parum luminis affert ad solvendas difficultates, quae contra doctrinam catholicam de sacerdotio visibili ab adversariis Ecclesiae proferuntur. — Vocabulum *deiformis* (in solut. ad 1.) duplici sensu sumitur, scil. *improprie* de ea similitudine, quae naturaliter inest imagini Dei, et *proprie* de supernaturali similitudine, quae est per gratiam quae nos immediate Deo coniungit. Cfr. supra d. 3. p. 1. q. 2.[?] ad ult.; et II. Sent. d. 16. q. 1. a. 1.[?]

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. q. 72. m. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 16.[?] — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 7. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. — Aegid. R., hic 3. princ. q. unic. ad ult.; et II. Sent. d. 26. a. 1. q. 4.[?] — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. quaestiunc. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** This question brings no little light to resolving the difficulties which are urged against the Catholic doctrine of the visible priesthood by adversaries of the Church. — The word *deiform* (in the solution to objection 1) is taken in two senses, namely *improperly* of that likeness which is naturally present in the image of God, and *properly* of the supernatural likeness, which is by the grace that immediately joins us to God. Cf. above d. 3. p. 1. q. 2.[?] ad ult.; and II. *Sent.* d. 16. q. 1. a. 1.[?]

**II.** Alex. of Hales, *S.* p. q. 72. m. 4. — St. Thomas, here q. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 16.[?] — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 1. a. 7. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 3. — Giles of Rome, here 3. princ. q. unic. ad ult.; and II. *Sent.* d. 26. a. 1. q. 4.[?] — Durandus, here q. 1. — Denis the Carthusian, here q. 2. quaestiunc. 1.

---

translators_notes:
Bonaventure's threefold distinction (*praeparans / impetrans / producens*) provides the structural key to the whole question. The first two modes preserve a real human role in the giving of grace — sacramental administration, preaching, prayer, and good works are all genuine "givings" — while reserving the productive principle to God alone. This safeguards both the visible priesthood (against the spiritualizing critics named in Scholion I) and divine sovereignty (against the productive reading the *pro* arguments push toward).

The crucial metaphysical move is in *Ad 1*: not every substantial form lies within a created agent's productive range. Forms that are *deiform* — the rational soul, and *a fortiori* grace — escape it. Cf. d. 8 on God's non-genus and d. 7 on the twofold ground (corruptibility + perfection) of creaturely generative power, both invoked here.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 14, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Distinctio XIV)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the Letter of the Master (Distinction XIV)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 233 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

#### Dub. I.

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

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quia processio temporalis et aeterna ab eodem principio sunt, sicut dicit Magister[^1], et iterum est ibi quodam modo modus procedendi conformis, ideo una facit ad declarationem[^2] alterius: et ideo incidenter ponitur hic tractatus de processione temporali ad manifestationem processionis aeternae. Sed non sic est de generatione Filii temporali, quia non est ab eodem principio, immo a Matre tantum, et respicit duas naturas, scilicet divinam et humanam. Ideo debuit de ea determinari post divinam, de qua agitur in primo, et post humanam naturam, de qua in secundo.

#### Dub. II.

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

**Respondeo:** Potest ad hoc dici, quod Magister non generaliter definit hic processionem temporalem, sed specialiter, prout est idem quod missio invisibilis, in qua datur Spiritus sanctus et sanctificatur creatura. Vel potest dici, quod generaliter accipit *sanctificationem*. Tripliciter enim accipitur sanctificatio: uno modo, secundum quod est de non sancto sanctum facere; secundo modo, iam sanctum in sanctitate confirmare; tertio modo, iam sanctum et confirmatum manifestare. Et secundum aliquem trium[^3] istorum modorum reperitur sanctificatio in omni Spiritus sancti missione ratione termini *ad quem*; et sic accipit Magister.[^4]

#### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Magister de Spiritu sancto: *Et ipse est virtus, quae de illo exibat*[^5]. Videtur enim male dicere, quia aut virtus accipitur proprie, aut appropriate. Primo modo non, constat; secundo modo non, videtur, quia primae ad Corinthios primo[^6] dicimus *Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam* etc.

**Ad hoc** potest dici, quod Spiritui sancto non appropriatur virtus simpliciter, sed virtus sanativa, et hoc, quia *gratia sanitatum* est donum Spiritus sancti[^7], et gratia eius est medicina ipsius animae; sed Filio appropriatur virtus operandi, quia *omnia per ipsum facta sunt*[^8].

Aliter potest dici, quod virtus habet comparationem ad illud ad[^9] quod est, et sic tenet rationem *principii*; vel ad id cuius est, et sic tenet rationem *complementi*; vel ad utrumque, et sic tenet rationem *medii*. Sicut ergo *ex ipso* appropriatur Patri, *per ipsum* Filio, *in ipso* Spiritui sancto: ita virtus, in quantum tenet rationem principii, appropriatur Patri, in quantum[^10] rationem medii, Filio, in quantum rationem completionis, Spiritui sancto; quia completio est in bonitate et delectatione Spiritus sancti; sed hoc infra melius dicetur.[^11]

<!-- page 234 -->

#### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod post resurrectionem Dominus Iesus *bis* dedit Spiritum sanctum. Videtur enim, quod *ter* dederit: quia primo dedit eis ante passionem, cum dedit eis potestatem eiiciendi daemonia et curare languores, Matthaei decimo[^12]. Item post resurrectionem, Ioannis vigesimo[^13]: *Accipite Spiritum sanctum*. Item post ascensionem, Actuum secundo[^14]. Ergo insufficienter enumerat Augustinus.

**Respondeo:** Ad praesens dicendum, quod possunt numerari dationes Spiritus sancti quantum *ad actum et effectum*; et sic enumerat Rabanus[^15], et fuerunt tres, quia ter dedit et quia ad tria dedit: primo ad miraculorum operationem; secundo ad peccatorum absolutionem; tertio ad infidelium conversionem. Possunt etiam alio modo numerari quantum *ad locum et significatum*; et sic dedit bis, scilicet in terra et in caelo; item[^16] in terra ad commendandum praeceptum dilectionis ad proximum, in caelo ad commendandum affectum dilectionis ad Deum; et sic patet controversia.[^17]

#### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de illo verbo Apostoli: *Unum Spiritum potavimus*; quo tropo dictum est hoc? Et videtur, quod conveniat magis Filio, quia Ecclesiastici decimo quinto[^18] dicitur: *Aqua sapientiae salutaris*, et Proverbiorum nono[^19]: *Venite, bibite vinum*; et hoc dicit ipsa Sapientia, scilicet Dei Filius: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Spiritus sanctus dicitur potus, in quantum saecularis sitis restringit[^20] ardorem. Hoc autem appropriatur Spiritui sancto, quia, sicut dicit Gregorius[^21], «gustato Spiritu, desipit omnis caro». In quantum autem per potum est delegatio nutrimenti ad singula membra, sic appropriatur Filio, cuius est prudentia et sapientia appropriatum, quae quodam modo habent vim regitivam et ordinativam pastus omnibus viribus animae.[^22]

#### Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de alio verbo[^23]: *Caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris*. Videtur enim impro-

<!-- page 235 -->

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

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *infundi* et *diffundi* proprie dicitur humoris. Ipsa autem caritas humori comparatur, quia sicut arbor fomentum et vitam et viriditatem habet ab humore, sic tota spiritualis machina ab amore. Iste autem amor infunditur, in quantum intra[^24] recipitur; diffunditur vero, in quantum ex intimis procedens dilatat affectum ad dilectionem multorum et movet omnes animae vires ad bonas operationes. «Operatur enim magna, si est; si vero operari renuit, amor non est», sicut dicit Gregorius.[^25] Et ideo Dominus dicit Ioannis septimo[^26]: *Flumina de ventre eius fluent aquae vivae*. — Quod ergo dicitur quod minuitur; dicendum, quod verum est in his quae habent ortum ab origine deficiente[^27], sicut est in puteis, in quibus non vivit aqua. Sed caritas habet originem indeficientem, sicut fluvius.[^28]

---

english:
### Doubts concerning the Letter of the Master.

#### Doubt I.

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

**I respond:** It must be said that, because the temporal and eternal procession are from the same principle, as the Master says[^1], and again because there is in some manner a conformable mode of proceeding there, therefore the one serves to clarify[^2] the other: and therefore a treatise on temporal procession is incidentally placed here for the manifestation of the eternal procession. But it is not so concerning the temporal generation of the Son, because it is not from the same principle — rather from the Mother only — and regards two natures, namely the divine and the human. Therefore the determination concerning it had to be made after the divine, of which one treats in the first [book], and after [the treatment of] human nature, of which in the second.

#### Doubt II.

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

**I respond:** To this it can be said that the Master is not here defining temporal procession generally, but specially, insofar as it is the same as invisible mission, in which the Holy Spirit is given and a creature is sanctified. Or it can be said that he takes *sanctification* generally. For sanctification is taken in three ways: in one way, as it is to make holy out of what is not holy; in the second way, to confirm in holiness what is already holy; in the third way, to manifest what is already holy and confirmed. And according to some one of these three[^3] modes a sanctification is found in every mission of the Holy Spirit by reason of the term *to which*; and so the Master takes it.[^4]

#### Doubt III.

Likewise, it is asked concerning what the Master says of the Holy Spirit: *And He is the power that went out from Him*[^5]. For he seems to speak ill, since *power* is taken either properly or by appropriation. In the first way it is not so, as is plain; in the second way it is not so either, it seems, since in the first letter to the Corinthians, chapter one[^6], we say *Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God* etc.

**To this** it can be said that *power simpliciter* is not appropriated to the Holy Spirit, but *healing power*; and this because the *grace of healings* is a gift of the Holy Spirit[^7], and His grace is the medicine of the soul itself; but to the Son is appropriated the *power of operating*, since *all things were made through Him*[^8].

Otherwise it can be said that power has a relation to that for which[^9] it is, and so it holds the account of *principle*; or to that whose it is, and so it holds the account of *complement*; or to both, and so it holds the account of *middle*. Therefore just as *from Him* is appropriated to the Father, *through Him* to the Son, *in Him* to the Holy Spirit: so power, insofar as it holds the account of principle, is appropriated to the Father; insofar as[^10] [it holds] the account of middle, to the Son; insofar as the account of completion, to the Holy Spirit; because completion is in the goodness and delight of the Holy Spirit. But this will be better said below.[^11]

#### Doubt IV.

Likewise, it is asked concerning what he says, that after the resurrection the Lord Jesus gave the Holy Spirit *twice*. For it seems He gave Him *thrice*: since He first gave Him to them before the Passion, when He gave them the power of casting out demons and healing infirmities, in Matthew chapter ten[^12]. Likewise after the resurrection, in John chapter twenty[^13]: *Receive the Holy Spirit*. Likewise after the ascension, in Acts chapter two[^14]. Therefore Augustine enumerates insufficiently.

**I respond:** For the present it must be said that the givings of the Holy Spirit can be numbered as to *act and effect*; and so Rabanus enumerates[^15], and they were three, since He gave thrice and since He gave for three things: first for the working of miracles; second for the absolution of sins; third for the conversion of unbelievers. They can also be numbered in another mode, as to *place and signified meaning*; and so He gave twice, namely on earth and in heaven; likewise[^16] on earth for the commending of the precept of love toward the neighbor, in heaven for the commending of the affection of love toward God; and so the controversy is plain.[^17]

#### Doubt V.

Likewise, it is asked concerning that word of the Apostle: *We have drunk one Spirit*; by what trope is this said? And it seems that it would rather befit the Son, since in Ecclesiasticus chapter fifteen[^18] it is said: *Water of saving wisdom*, and in Proverbs chapter nine[^19]: *Come, drink the wine*; and this Wisdom Herself says, namely the Son of God: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Holy Spirit is called *drink*, insofar as He restrains[^20] the heat of worldly thirst. But this is appropriated to the Holy Spirit because, as Gregory says[^21], «when the Spirit has been tasted, all flesh becomes insipid». But insofar as through drink there is the dispatching of nourishment to the individual members, so it is appropriated to the Son, to whom prudence and wisdom are appropriated, which in some manner have a power of governing and ordering nourishment for all the powers of the soul.[^22]

#### Doubt VI.

Likewise, it is asked concerning another word[^23]: *The charity of God has been diffused in our hearts*. For it seems improperly said, since what is diffused is dispersed, and a power dispersed is lessened: if therefore charity is mighty, it ought not therefore to be called diffused.

**I respond:** It must be said that *to be infused* and *to be diffused* are properly said of a liquid. But charity itself is compared to a liquid, because just as a tree has its sap and life and greenness from a liquid, so the whole spiritual fabric [has these] from love. But this love is *infused* insofar as it is received within[^24]; and it is *diffused* insofar as, proceeding from the inmost parts, it dilates the affection to the love of many and moves all the powers of the soul to good operations. «For it works great things if it is; but if it refuses to work, it is not love», as Gregory says.[^25] And therefore the Lord says in John chapter seven[^26]: *Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water*. — As to what is said, that it is lessened; it must be said that this is true of those things which have their origin from a deficient source[^27], as is the case in wells, in which water does not live. But charity has an unfailing origin, like a river.[^28]

---

la: Hic, c. 1. — Mox ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *procedendi* pro minus apto *producendi*, deinde post *conformis* delevimus particulam *et*, ac paulo infra loco *incidentaliter* posuimus *incidenter*.

en: [Lombard] here, chapter 1. — Next, from the older manuscripts and the first edition we substitute *procedendi* for the less apt *producendi*; then after *conformis* we have deleted the particle *et*; and a little below in place of *incidentaliter* we have placed *incidenter*.

la: Cod. dd *declarationem*.

en: Codex dd has *declarationem*.

la: Fide mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus *trium*.

en: On the trust of the manuscripts and the first edition we have supplied *trium*.

la: Cod. dd solutionem huius dubii ita exhibet: *Respondeo, dicendum, quod sanctificare est tripliciter intelligere: primo modo est de non sancto sanctum facere, taliter fit in iustificatione impii; secundo modo sanctificare hoc est sanctum in sanctitate confirmare, et hoc factum fuit in Apostolis; tertio modo iam sanctum et confirmatum manifestare, et sic est intelligendum de Christo; et sic accipit Magister. Et secundum aliquem trium etc. usque ad quem.*

en: Codex dd presents the solution of this doubt thus: *I respond, it must be said that to sanctify is to be understood in three ways: in the first mode it is to make holy out of what is not holy — so it is done in the justifying of the impious; in the second mode to sanctify is to confirm in holiness what is holy, and this was done in the Apostles; in the third mode to manifest what is already holy and confirmed, and so it must be understood concerning Christ; and so the Master takes it. And according to some one of the three* etc., up to *to which*.

la: Vers. 24. (Lc. 6, 19; cfr. lit. Magistri, c. 1.)

en: Verse 24. (Luke 6:19; cf. the *Letter* of the Master, c. 1.)

en: 1 Corinthians 1:24.

en: 1 Corinthians 12:9.

en: John 1:3.

la: Ex plurimis mss. et ed. 1 restituimus *ad*, quod male omittit Vat., quae et paulo ante post *cuius* addit *vel*.

en: From very many manuscripts and the first edition we restore *ad*, which the Vatican edition wrongly omits — the same edition also a little before, after *cuius*, adds *vel*.

la: Codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt *tenet*, quod Vat. hic repetit, et paulo infra unus alterque codex ut OV cum ed. 1 ponit *dilectione* pro *delectatione*.

en: The codices with the first edition omit *tenet*, which the Vatican edition here repeats; and a little below, one or two codices such as O and V with the first edition place *dilectione* for *delectatione*.

la: Dist. 34. q. 3, ubi de nominum appropriatione in communi, et d. 32. a. 2. q. 2. ad ult., ubi de huius nominis *virtutis* appropriatione in speciali. — Plura de appropriatione verbi Apostoli *ex ipso* etc. vide infra d. 36. dub. 1. et Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 67. m. 4.

en: Distinction 34, q. 3, where on the appropriation of names in common, and d. 32, a. 2, q. 2, *ad ult.*, where on the appropriation of this name *power* in particular. — More on the appropriation of the Apostle's word *from Him* etc. see below d. 36, dub. 1, and Alex. of Hales, *S.* p. I, q. 67, m. 4.

la: Vers. 1.

en: Verse 1. (Matt 10:1.)

la: Vers. 22.

la: Vers. 4. — Verba Augustini vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Verse 4. (Acts 2:4.) — For the words of Augustine see here in the *Letter* of the Master, c. 1.

la: In *Glossa ordinaria* ad Act. 2, 2. haec leguntur: «Ante passionem datus est Apostolis Spiritus ad gratiam doctrinae et sanitatum; post resurrectionem insufflavit Iesus Spiritum et ait: *Accipite Spiritum sanctum, quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis* etc... In Pentecoste de caelo missus est Spiritus, ut qui in proximo debebant dividi acciperent linguarum notitiam, ne per mundum euntes interpretibus indigerent. Et quia Deus simplex est natura, semel de caelo datur Spiritus; propter homines vero, qui duplici constant substantia, corpore scil. et anima, dupliciter est diligendus. In terra bis datur, prius in efficacia signorum ad sanitates corporum, postea indulgentia peccatorum ad remedia animarum». Haec verba in ed. operum Lyrani (Venet. 1488), loc. cit., Rabano attribuuntur. — Idem textus Rabani occurrit infra d. 15. p. II. q. 1. et *Comment. in Ioan.* c. 20, 22. (Supplem. Bonelli, t. I.).

en: In the *Glossa ordinaria* on Acts 2:2 these words are read: «Before the Passion the Spirit was given to the Apostles for the grace of teaching and of healings; after the resurrection Jesus breathed the Spirit and said: *Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them*, etc.... At Pentecost the Spirit was sent from heaven, so that those who were soon to be divided might receive knowledge of tongues, lest going through the world they should be in need of interpreters. And because God is simple in nature, the Spirit is given once from heaven; but on account of men, who consist of a twofold substance — body and soul — He is to be loved in two ways. On earth He is given twice: first in the efficacy of signs for the healing of bodies, afterwards in the indulgence of sins for the remedy of souls». These words in the edition of Lyra's works (Venice 1488), at the cited place, are attributed to Rabanus. — The same text of Rabanus occurs below at d. 15, p. II, q. 1, and in the *Commentary on John* c. 20:22 (Bonelli's *Supplementum*, t. I).

la: Aliqui codd. ut H aa bb V cum ed. 1 omittunt *Item*, pro quo cod. K ponit *ratio significationis*. Mox ed. 1 pro *in caelo* ponit *de caelo*, quod magis correspondet verbis Augustini a Magistro hic c. 1. relatis; et *Glossae ordinariae*, Act. 2, 2: «*De caelo datur Spiritus, ut diligatur Deus; in terra, ut diligatur proximus. Bis enim post resurrectionem est datus ad duo praecepta caritatis commendanda*»; (cfr. paulo supra alium textum Glossae citatum).

en: Some codices such as H, aa, bb, V with the first edition omit *Item*, in place of which codex K places *ratio significationis*. Next, the first edition for *in caelo* places *de caelo*, which more closely corresponds to the words of Augustine reported here by the Master in c. 1, and to the *Glossa ordinaria* on Acts 2:2: «*From heaven the Spirit is given, that God may be loved; on earth, that one's neighbor may be loved. For twice after the resurrection He was given for the commending of the two precepts of charity*»; (cf. a little above the other text of the Gloss cited).

la: Hoc dubium solvit B. Albert., hic a. 12.

en: Bl. Albert resolves this doubt, here a. 12.

en: Verse 3. (Sirach 15:3.)

en: Verse 5. (Proverbs 9:5.)

la: Vat. contra fere omnes codd. et ed. 1 *restringit*, mox falso *Hic* loco *Hoc*.

en: The Vatican edition, against nearly all the codices and the first edition, [reads] *restringit*; next, falsely [reads] *Hic* in place of *Hoc*.

la: Verba ista non sunt Gregorii, sed Bernardi, qui *Epistol.* III. ad parentes suos ait: *Gustato spiritu necesse est desipere carnem*.

en: These words are not of Gregory, but of Bernard, who in *Letter* III to his parents says: *When the Spirit has been tasted, the flesh must necessarily become insipid.*

la: De hoc dubio vide B. Albert., hic a. 14.

en: On this doubt see Bl. Albert, here a. 14.

la: Supple cum cod. dd *Apostoli*. (Rom. 5, 5.)

en: Supply with codex dd *of the Apostle*. (Romans 5:5.)

la: Nonnulli codd. ut T V W X *intus*.

en: Some codices such as T, V, W, X [read] *intus* ("within") [in place of *intra*].

la: Homil. 30. in Evang. n. 2.

en: [Gregory the Great,] *Homilies on the Gospels* 30, n. 2.

la: Vers. 38.

la: Praeferimus lectionem codd. L O *deficiente* loco *deficiendi*, quia et in se verior est et cum subnexis conformior.

en: We prefer the reading of codices L and O *deficiente* ("deficient" [ablative]) in place of *deficiendi* ("of/for being deficient" [gerund]), since it is both truer in itself and more conformable with what follows.

la: Egregie de hoc loquitur S. Doctor in *Comment. in Ioan.* c. 8, 39 (Supplem. Bonelli, tom. I. col. 735.).

en: The Holy Doctor [Bonaventure] speaks excellently on this in his *Commentary on John* c. 8, 39 (Bonelli's *Supplementum*, vol. I, col. 735).

translators_notes: The six dubia walk through the Lombardian *littera* of d.14 in order, addressing: (I) the placement of temporal procession in Bk I rather than Bk III; (II) the threefold sense of *sanctificatio* required to make sense of the Master's claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds *to sanctify* a creature even when sent in dove or fiery tongues; (III) why "power" can be predicated of the Spirit despite 1 Cor 1:24's appropriation of *virtus Dei* to the Son — the answer turns on the *ex ipso / per ipsum / in ipso* triad and on appropriating *virtus sanativa* (not *virtus simpliciter*) to the Spirit; (IV) reconciling Augustine's "twofold giving" with the threefold scheme of Rabanus by distinguishing *act/effect* numeration from *place/significatum* numeration; (V) why drink language (1 Cor 12:13) befits the Spirit despite Wisdom literature's water/wine imagery — the Spirit *quenches worldly thirst*, the Son *governs the distribution of nourishment*; (VI) why diffusion-language for charity (Rom 5:5) does not entail diminution — caritas is compared to a *river* (indeficient source) rather than a *well* (deficient source).

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. 15

title_alt: Distinction XV — The Letter of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 256 -->

### DISTINCTIO XV.

#### Cap. I.
*Quod Spiritus sanctus a se ipso datur, et Filius a se ipso mittitur.*

Hic considerandum est, cum Spiritus sanctus detur hominibus a Patre et Filio, quod est ipsum temporaliter procedere ab utroque vel mitti, utrum etiam a se ipso detur. Si datur a se, et procedit vel mittitur a se. Ad quod dicimus, quia Spiritus sanctus et Deus est et donum sive datum: et ideo[^1] dat et datur. Dat quidem in quantum Deus, et datur in quantum donum. Cum autem donatio sive datio Spiritus sancti sit operatio Dei et communis sit et indivisa operatio trium personarum, donatur[^2] itaque Spiritus sanctus non tantum a Patre et Filio, sed etiam a se ipso. Unde Augustinus in decimo quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^3] dicit, quod *se ipsum dat*. «Sicut, inquit, corpus carnis nihil est aliud quam caro, sic donum Spiritus sancti nihil est aliud quam Spiritus sanctus. In tantum ergo donum Dei est, in quantum datur eis quibus datur. Apud se autem Deus est, etsi nemini datur, quia Deus erat Patri et Filio coaeternus, antequam cuiquam daretur. Nec quia illi dant et ipse datur, ideo minor est illis. Ita enim datur, sicut Dei donum, ut etiam se ipsum det, sicut Deus. Non enim dici potest, non esse suae potestatis, de quo dictum est[^4]: *Spiritus ubi vult spirat*». Ecce aperte dicit, quod Spiritus sanctus se ipsum dat. Si enim Spiritus sanctus se ipsum dare non potest, et eum Pater dare potest et Filius, potest itaque[^5] Pater dare aliquid et Filius, quod non potest Spiritus sanctus. Item, si Pater et Filius dant Spiritum sanctum, nec ipse dat: aliquid ergo Pater operatur et Filius, quod non operatur Spiritus sanctus. Dat ergo Spiritus sanctus se ipsum. Si autem se ipsum dat, tunc et[^6] a se ipso procedit et mittitur; quod utique verum est. Nam processio temporalis Spiritus sancti vel missio ipsius est donatio, et ipsa est Dei operatio. Procedit ergo Spiritus sanctus temporaliter a se et mittitur a se, quia datur a se.

Ne autem mireris, quod Spiritus sanctus dicitur mitti vel procedere a se. Nam et de Filio Dei dicit Augustinus in secundo libro *de Trinitate*[^7], quod non tantum a Patre missus est, sed etiam a se ipso et a Spiritu sancto, quaerens, quo modo Filius vel Spiritus sanctus sit missus, cum uterque sit ubique tanquam Deus. Nam uterque, inquit Augustinus, legitur missus. De Spiritu enim sancto legitur[^8]: *Quem mittet Pater in nomine meo*. Et iterum: *Si abiero, mittam eum ad vos*. Et Filius de se dicit: *Exivi a Patre et veni in mundum*. Et Apostolus dicit[^9]: *Misit Deus Filium suum*. In Propheta autem scriptum est ex persona Dei: *Caelum et terram ego impleo*. Itaque ubique Deus est, ubique ergo est Filius, ubique etiam est Spiritus sanctus. Illuc ergo missus est Filius et Spiritus sanctus, ubi erant.

#### Cap. II.
*Quomodo intelligenda sit missio utriusque.*

«Quocirca quaerendum est, quomodo intelligatur missio Filii vel Spiritus sancti. Pater enim solus, inquit Augustinus in eodem[^10], nusquam legitur missus».

<!-- page 257 -->

Sed Filius et Spiritus sanctus. Et de Filio primum videamus, quomodo missus? «Apostolus dicit[^11]: *Misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere*, ubi satis ostendit, eo ipso missum Filium, quo factum ex muliere. Proinde mitti a Patre sine Spiritu sancto non potuit, quia Pater intelligitur misisse eum, cum fecit ex femina; quod utique non fecit sine Spiritu sancto». Ecce hic dicit, Filium missum a Patre et Spiritu sancto.

#### Cap. III.
*Quod a Spiritu sancto etiam Filius sit missus.*

Et quod a Spiritu sancto Filius sit missus, ut ait Augustinus in eodem[^12], auctoritatibus confirmatur. Ipse Christus dicit per Isaiam: *Nunc misit me Dominus et Spiritus eius*. De hoc Ambrosius in libro tertio *de Spiritu sancto*[^13] ita ait: «Quis est, qui dicit: *Misit me Dominus et Spiritus eius*, nisi qui venit a Patre, ut salvos faceret peccatores», id est Christus? «Ergo et Pater Filium misit et Spiritus». Idem in eodem: «Datus est a Patre, ut Isaias dicit[^14]: *Puer natus est nobis, et Filius datus est nobis*. Datus est, audeo dicere, et a Spiritu, quia et a Spiritu missus est». «Dicit enim Filius Dei[^15]: *Spiritus Domini super me, propter quod unxit me: evangelizare pauperibus misit me, praedicare captivis remissionem* etc. Quod cum de libro Isaiae legeret, ait in Evangelio: *Hodie completa est haec Scriptura in auribus vestris*, ut de se dictum esse significaret. Bene autem dixit, *super me*; quia quasi filius hominis et unctus est et missus ad praedicandum. Nam secundum divinitatem non super Christum est Spiritus, sed in Christo». Ecce his verbis ostendit Ambrosius, Filium esse missum et datum nobis non tantum a Patre, sed etiam a Spiritu sancto.

#### Cap. IV.
*Quod Filius etiam sit datus a se ipso.*

Deinde ostendit, esse datum etiam a se ipso, ita dicens in eodem libro[^16]: «Cum non definitum fuerit per Prophetam, a quo datus sit Filius, ostenditur datus gratia Trinitatis, ut etiam ipse Filius se dederit». Ecce hic dicit, quod Filius se dedit, quia Trinitas[^17] eum dedit. Si autem Filius a se datus est, a se ergo missus est et a se processit. Et hoc utique verum est et concedi oportet, cum eius missio sit divina operatio.

#### Cap. V.
*Quod a se mittatur Filius.*

Quod autem a se mittatur Augustinus astruit in libro secundo *de Trinitate*[^18] dicens: «Forte aliquis cogat, ut dicamus, etiam a se ipso missum esse Filium; quia Mariae conceptus et partus operatio Trinitatis est. Sed, inquit aliquis, quomodo Pater eum misit, si ipse se misit? Cui respondeo quaerens, ut dicat, quomodo eum Pater sanctificavit, si ipse se sanctificavit? Utrumque enim Dominus ait[^19]: *Quem Pater*, inquit, *sanctificavit et misit in hunc mundum*. Et alibi: *Ego pro eis sanctifico me ipsum*. Item quaero, quomodo Pater eum tradidit, si ipse se tradidit? Utrumque enim legitur[^20]. Credo, respondebit, si probe sapit, quia una voluntas est Patris et Filii et inseparabilis operatio. Sic ergo intelligat, illam incarnationem et ex Virgine nativitatem, in qua Filius intelligitur missus, una eademque operatione Patris et Filii inseparabiliter esse factam, non inde separato Spiritu sancto. Ergo a Patre et Filio missus est idem Filius, quia a Patre et[^21] Verbo eius factum est, ut mitteretur, id est, incarnatus hominibus appareret. Non enim missus est mutando locum, quia in mundo erat. Quapropter Pater invisibilis una cum Filio secum invisibili, eundem Filium visibilem faciendo, misisse eum dictus est: qui si ita visibilis fieret, ut cum Patre invisibilis esse desisteret, id est, si substantia[^22] invisibilis Verbi in creaturam visibilem mutata et transiens verteretur, ita missus a Patre intelligeretur Filius, ut tantum missus, non etiam cum Patre mittens inveniretur. Cum vero sic accepta est forma servi, ut maneret incommutabilis forma Dei[^23], manifestum est, quod a Patre et Filio non apparentibus factum sit, quod appareret in Filio, id est, ab invisibili Patre cum invisibili Filio idem ipse Filius visibilis mitteretur».

##### *Epilogus.*

Ex praedictis aperte monstratur, quod Filius missus est a Patre et a[^24] Spiritu sancto et a se ipso, et quae sit ipsa missio, scilicet incarnatio, id est, quod factus est homo, per quod visibilis apparuit, quod est opus commune Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti.

#### Cap. VI.
*Quomodo intelligendum sit illud: A me ipso non veni.*

Sed ad hoc opponitur: si Filius a se ipso missus est, cur ergo ait[^25]: *A me ipso non veni*? Ad hoc Augustinus respondet in secundo libro *de Trinitate*[^26] dicens: «Hoc dictum esse secundum formam servi, secundum quam non fecit, ut mitteretur», id est, non est operatus incarnationem, sed secundum formam Dei.

##### *Utrum semel tantum sit missus Filius, an saepe.*

Hic quaeritur, utrum semel tantum missus sit Filius, an saepe mittatur. Si enim missio Filii ipsius tantum Incarnatio est, cum semel tantum incarnatus sit, et semel tantum videtur missus. At si saepe mittitur, est et alia eius missio quam incarnatio. Sed quae est illa? Nunquid aeterna genitura missio eius dicenda est, an etiam alia missio quaerenda est?

#### Cap. VII.
*De duobus modis missionis Filii.*

Ad quod dicimus, quod duobus modis dicitur Filius mitti[^27] praeter illam aeternam genituram, quae ineffabilis est, secundum quam etiam missus posset dici, ut videtur quibusdam, sed melius ac verius secundum eam dicitur genitus. Praeter eam igitur duobus modis dicitur mitti, scilicet vel cum visibiliter mundo apparuit carne indutus, vel cum se in animas pias sic transfert[^28], ut ab eis percipiatur ac cognoscatur. Hos duos missionis modos Augustinus aperte distinguit in quarto libro *de Trinitate*[^29] dicens: «Non eo ipso quod de Patre natus est, missus dicitur Filius, sed vel eo quod apparuit huic mundo Verbum caro factum; unde dicit[^30]: *A Patre exivi et veni in mundum*; vel eo quod ex tempore cuiusquam mente percipitur, sicut dictum est de Sapientia[^31]: *Emitte illam de caelis sanctis tuis et a sede magnitudinis tuae, ut mecum sit et mecum laboret*, id est, doceat me laborare. Et tunc unicuique mittitur, cum a quoquam cognoscitur atque percipitur, quantum cognosci et percipi potest pro captu vel proficientis in Deum, vel perfectae in Deo animae rationalis.»

#### Cap. VIII.
*Quod secundum alterum modum sit missus semel, secundum alterum saepe; et secundum alterum modum dicitur missus in mundum, secundum alterum non.*

Ecce distincti sunt duo modi missionis Filii[^32], et secundum alterum semel tantum missus est Dei Filius, secundum alterum saepe missus est et mittitur quotidie. Nam secundum alterum missus est, ut sit homo, quod semel tantum factum est; secundum alterum vero mittitur, ut sit cum homine, quo modo[^33] quotidie mittitur ad Sanctos et missus est etiam ante incarnationem et ad omnes Sanctos, qui ante fuerunt, et etiam ad Angelos. Unde Augustinus de Filio, id est de Sapientia Patris loquens in quarto libro *de Trinitate*[^34] ait: «Aliter mittitur Sapientia, ut sit cum homine; aliter missa est, ut sit homo. In animas enim sanctas se transfert, et amicos Dei et Prophetas constituit; sicut etiam implet sanctos Angelos. Sed cum venit plenitudo temporis, missa est, non ut impleret Angelos nec ut esset Angelus nec ut esset cum hominibus vel in hominibus[^35], ut antea in Patribus erat et in Prophetis, sed ut ipsum Verbum fieret caro, id est homo».

Praeterea notandum est, quod cum his duobus modis mittatur Filius, secundum alterum dicitur missus *in mundum*, secundum alterum vero non. Eo enim modo missus *in mundum* dicitur, quo visibilis mundo apparuit. Unde Augustinus in eodem libro[^36] ait: «Cum ex tempore cuiusquam mente percipitur, mitti quidem dicitur, sed non *in hunc mundum*. Non enim sensibiliter apparet, id est, corporeis sensibus praesto est. Nam et nos, secundum quod mente aliquid aeternum capimus, non in hoc mundo sumus, et omnium iustorum spiritus etiam in carne viventium, in quantum di-

<!-- page 258 -->

vina sapiunt, non sunt in hoc mundo». Ex praedictis liquet, quod praeter ineffabilem genituram duobus modis mittitur Filius, scilicet cum visibiliter apparuit, vel invisibiliter percipitur mente.

#### Cap. IX.
*Quare Pater non dicitur missus.*

Hic quaeritur, cur Pater non dicitur missus, cum ex tempore a quoquam cognoscitur, sicut Filius. Ad quod dicimus, quia in eo est principii auctoritas, qui[^37] non habet, de quo sit, a quo Filius est et Spiritus sanctus. «Pater enim est, ut ait Augustinus in eodem libro[^38], principium totius divinitatis, vel si melius dicitur, deitatis», quia principium est Filii et Spiritus sancti. Nam, ut ait Augustinus in eodem[^39], «si voluisset etiam Deus Pater per subiectam creaturam visibiliter apparere, absurdissime tamen aut a Filio, quem genuit, aut a Spiritu sancto, qui de illo procedit, missus diceretur». Congruenter autem ille missus dicitur, qui in carne apparuit; misisse autem ille, qui in ea non apparuit.

#### Cap. X.
*Quod Filius et Spiritus sanctus non sunt quasi minores Patre, quia missi.*

Ideoque putaverunt quidam haeretici, cum Pater non sit missus, sed Filius et Spiritus sanctus, Patrem esse maiorem ac Filium minorem[^40] et Spiritum sanctum; atque Patrem quasi maiorem misisse utrumque quasi minorem. Quod Augustinus improbat in quarto libro *de Trinitate*[^41] illis contradicens: «Non ideo, inquit, arbitrandum est, minorem esse Filium, quod missus est a Patre, nec ideo minorem Spiritum sanctum, quia et Pater eum misit et Filius; sive enim propter visibilem creaturam, sive potius propter principii commendationem, non propter inaequalitatem vel imparilitatem vel dissimilitudinem substantiae in Scripturis haec posita intelliguntur». Non ergo ideo dicitur Pater misisse Filium vel Spiritum sanctum, quod ille esset maior et illi minores, sed maxime propter auctoritatem principii commendandam, et quia in visibili creatura non, sicut illi[^42], apparuit. Ecce ostensum est, quae sit missio Filii, et quibus modis mittatur.

---

english:
<!-- page 256 -->

### DISTINCTION XV.

#### Chapter I.
*That the Holy Spirit is given by himself, and the Son is sent by himself.*

Here it must be considered: since the Holy Spirit is given to men by the Father and the Son — which is for him to proceed temporally from both, or to be sent — whether also he is given by himself. If he is given by himself, then he proceeds or is sent by himself. To this we say that the Holy Spirit is both God and gift (or *given*); and therefore[^1] he both gives and is given. He gives indeed insofar as he is God, and is given insofar as he is gift. But since the donation or giving of the Holy Spirit is the operation of God, and is the common and undivided operation of the three persons, the Holy Spirit is given[^2] therefore not only by the Father and the Son, but also by himself. Whence Augustine in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*[^3] says that *he gives himself*. «Just as, he says, the body of the flesh is nothing other than flesh, so the gift of the Holy Spirit is nothing other than the Holy Spirit. To that extent, then, is he the gift of God, in that he is given to those to whom he is given. With himself however he is God, even if he is given to no one — for he was God coeternal with the Father and the Son before he was given to anyone. Nor because they give and he himself is given, is he therefore lesser than they. For he is so given as the gift of God that he also gives himself, as God. For it cannot be said that he is not of his own power, of whom it is said[^4]: *The Spirit breathes where he wills*». Behold, he plainly says that the Holy Spirit gives himself. For if the Holy Spirit cannot give himself, while the Father can give him and the Son [can], the Father can therefore[^5] give something — and the Son [can] — that the Holy Spirit cannot. Likewise, if the Father and the Son give the Holy Spirit, but he does not give [himself]: then the Father and the Son work something which the Holy Spirit does not work. Therefore the Holy Spirit gives himself. But if he gives himself, then also[^6] he proceeds and is sent from himself; which is indeed true. For the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit, or his mission, is donation, and this is the operation of God. Therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds temporally from himself and is sent by himself, since he is given by himself.

But do not be amazed that the Holy Spirit is said to be sent or to proceed from himself. For also of the Son of God Augustine says in the second book *On the Trinity*[^7] that he was sent not only by the Father, but also by himself and by the Holy Spirit, asking how the Son or the Holy Spirit can be *sent*, since each is everywhere as God. For both — Augustine says — are read as having been sent. For of the Holy Spirit it is read[^8]: *Whom the Father will send in my name*. And again: *If I go away, I will send him to you*. And the Son says of himself: *I went forth from the Father and came into the world*. And the Apostle says[^9]: *God sent his Son*. But in the Prophet it is written in the person of God: *I fill heaven and earth*. Therefore God is everywhere — and so the Son is everywhere; the Holy Spirit also is everywhere. They were sent therefore where they were.

#### Chapter II.
*How the mission of each is to be understood.*

«Wherefore it must be asked how the mission of the Son or of the Holy Spirit is to be understood. For the Father alone — Augustine says in the same [book][^10] — is nowhere read as sent».

<!-- page 257 -->

[Sent] rather are the Son and the Holy Spirit. And let us first see, of the Son, in what way [he was] sent. «The Apostle says[^11]: *God sent his Son made of woman*; in which he sufficiently shows the Son to have been sent by that very thing by which he was made of woman. Accordingly he could not be sent by the Father without the Holy Spirit, since the Father is understood to have sent him when he made him from a woman; which indeed he did not do without the Holy Spirit». Behold, here he says that the Son was sent by the Father and by the Holy Spirit.

#### Chapter III.
*That the Son was sent also by the Holy Spirit.*

And that the Son was sent by the Holy Spirit, as Augustine says in the same [book][^12], is confirmed by authorities. Christ himself says through Isaiah: *Now the Lord and his Spirit have sent me*. On this Ambrose in the third book *On the Holy Spirit*[^13] thus says: «Who is he who says, *The Lord and his Spirit have sent me*, except he who came from the Father to save sinners» — that is, Christ? «Therefore both the Father has sent the Son, and the Spirit». The same in the same: «He was given by the Father, as Isaiah says[^14]: *A child is born to us, and a Son is given to us*. He was given — I dare say — also by the Spirit, since he was sent also by the Spirit». «For the Son of God says[^15]: *The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because of which he has anointed me; he has sent me to evangelize the poor, to preach release to captives*, etc. And when he had read this from the book of Isaiah, he said in the Gospel: *Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your ears*, signifying that it had been said of himself. He spoke well in saying *upon me*, since as it were *son of man* he was both anointed and sent to preach. For according to divinity the Spirit is not *upon* Christ, but *in* Christ». Behold, with these words Ambrose shows that the Son was sent and given to us not only by the Father, but also by the Holy Spirit.

#### Chapter IV.
*That the Son was given also by himself.*

Then he shows that he was given also by himself, saying thus in the same book[^16]: «Since it has not been defined by the Prophet by whom the Son was given, he is shown to have been given by the grace of the Trinity — so that the Son himself also gave himself». Behold, here he says that the Son gave himself, since the Trinity[^17] gave him. But if the Son was given by himself, then he was sent by himself and proceeded from himself. And this is indeed true and must be granted, since his mission is a divine operation.

#### Chapter V.
*That the Son is sent by himself.*

But that he is sent by himself, Augustine establishes in the second book *On the Trinity*[^18] saying: «Perhaps someone may compel us to say that the Son was sent also by himself — since Mary's conception and childbirth are an operation of the Trinity. But, says someone, how did the Father send him, if he sent himself? To whom I respond, asking him to say how the Father sanctified him, if he sanctified himself? For the Lord says both[^19]: *Whom the Father*, he says, *sanctified and sent into this world*. And elsewhere: *I sanctify myself for them*. Likewise I ask: how did the Father hand him over, if he handed himself over? For both are read[^20]. He will reply, I trust, if he is well-versed: that there is one will of the Father and the Son, and an inseparable operation. Let him understand thus that the Incarnation and birth from the Virgin — in which the Son is understood to have been sent — were done by one and the same inseparable operation of the Father and the Son, with the Holy Spirit not separated from this. Therefore the same Son was sent by the Father and the Son, since by the Father and his[^21] Word it was brought about that he should be sent — that is, that he should appear incarnate to men. For he was not sent by changing place, since he was in the world. Wherefore the invisible Father, together with the Son invisible with him, by making the same Son visible, is said to have sent him: who if he became visible in such a way that he ceased to be invisible together with the Father — that is, if the substance[^22] of the invisible Word were changed and converted into a visible creature — then the Son would be understood to have been so sent by the Father that he would be found *only sent*, and not *also sending with the Father*. But since the form of a servant was so taken on that the unchangeable form of God[^23] should remain, it is plain that what appeared in the Son was done by the Father and the Son, who do not appear — that is, that by the invisible Father, with the invisible Son, the same Son visible should be sent».

##### *Epilogue.*

From the foregoing it is plainly shown that the Son was sent by the Father and by[^24] the Holy Spirit and by himself; and what the mission itself is — namely, the Incarnation, that is, that he was made man, by which he appeared visible — which is the common work of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

#### Chapter VI.
*How that saying — «From myself I did not come» — is to be understood.*

But against this it is objected: if the Son was sent by himself, why then does he say[^25]: *From myself I did not come*? To this Augustine responds in the second book *On the Trinity*[^26] saying: «This was said according to the form of a servant, according to which he did not act so as to be sent» — that is, he did not bring about the Incarnation [in the form of a servant], but [did so] according to the form of God.

##### *Whether the Son was sent only once, or often.*

Here it is asked whether the Son was sent only once, or is sent often. For if the mission of the Son is only his Incarnation — since he was incarnate only once — he seems to have been sent only once. But if he is often sent, there is also another mission of his besides the Incarnation. But what is that? Should the eternal generation be called his mission? Or is some other mission to be sought?

#### Chapter VII.
*On the two modes of the Son's mission.*

To this we say that the Son is said to be sent in two modes[^27], besides that eternal generation which is ineffable — according to which he could even be said to have been *sent* (as it seems to some) — but according to which he is rather better and more truly said to be *generated*. Setting that aside, then, he is said to be sent in two modes: namely, either when he visibly appeared to the world clothed in flesh, or when he so passes into pious souls[^28] as to be perceived and known by them. These two modes of mission Augustine plainly distinguishes in the fourth book *On the Trinity*[^29] saying: «The Son is not said to be sent by that very thing by which he is born of the Father, but either by his having appeared to this world as the Word made flesh — whence he says[^30]: *I went forth from the Father and came into the world*; or by his being perceived from time in someone's mind, as it is said of Wisdom[^31]: *Send her forth from your holy heavens and from the seat of your majesty, that she may be with me and may labor with me* — that is, that she may teach me to labor. And then he is sent to each one when he is known by anyone and perceived, as far as he can be known and perceived according to the capacity of a rational soul progressing toward God or perfected in God.»

#### Chapter VIII.
*That according to one mode he was sent once, according to the other often; and according to one mode he is said to be sent into the world, according to the other not.*

Behold, two modes of the Son's mission are distinguished[^32]; and according to one the Son of God was sent only once, according to the other he was sent often and is sent daily. For according to the one he was sent in order to be man — which was done only once; according to the other he is sent in order to be with man, in which mode[^33] he is sent daily to the Saints — and was sent even before the Incarnation, both to all the Saints who were before, and even to the Angels. Whence Augustine, speaking of the Son — that is, of the Wisdom of the Father — in the fourth book *On the Trinity*[^34] says: «Wisdom is sent in one way to be *with* man, in another way she was sent to *be* man. For she passes into holy souls and constitutes [them] friends of God and prophets, just as she also fills the holy Angels. But when the fullness of time came, she was sent — not in order to fill the Angels, nor to be an Angel, nor to be with men or in men[^35] (as before she was in the Patriarchs and Prophets) — but in order that the Word himself should become flesh, that is, become man».

Furthermore it must be noted that, since the Son is sent in these two modes, in the one he is said to be sent *into the world*, but in the other not. For he is said to be sent *into the world* in that mode in which he appeared visibly to the world. Whence Augustine in the same book[^36] says: «When he is perceived from time in someone's mind, he is said indeed to be sent — but not *into this world*. For he does not appear sensibly — that is, he is not present to the bodily senses. For we ourselves, insofar as we grasp something eternal in the mind, are not in this world; and the spirits of all the just, even those living in the flesh, insofar as they

<!-- page 258 -->

savor divine [things], are not in this world». From the foregoing it is clear that, besides the ineffable generation, the Son is sent in two modes — namely, when he appeared visibly, or [when] he is invisibly perceived in the mind.

#### Chapter IX.
*Why the Father is not said to be sent.*

Here it is asked why the Father is not said to be sent, since he is from time known by anyone, just as the Son [is]. To this we say that in him is the *authority of the principle*, who[^37] does not have [a person] from which he is — from whom the Son is, and the Holy Spirit. «For the Father — as Augustine says in the same book[^38] — is the principle of the whole divinity, or if better said, of the deity», since he is the principle of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For, as Augustine says in the same [book][^39], «if God the Father had also wished to appear visibly through a subjected creature, it would still be most absurd to say that he was sent either by the Son whom he generated, or by the Holy Spirit who proceeds from him». But fittingly is he said to *have been sent* who appeared in the flesh; and [fittingly] *to have sent* he who did not appear in it.

#### Chapter X.
*That the Son and the Holy Spirit are not as it were lesser than the Father, because sent.*

And so certain heretics have supposed that, since the Father is not sent, but the Son and the Holy Spirit [are], the Father is greater and the Son and the Holy Spirit are lesser[^40] — and that the Father, as it were the greater, has sent both, as it were the lesser. This Augustine refutes in the fourth book *On the Trinity*[^41] contradicting them: «Therefore — he says — it is not to be thought that the Son is lesser because he was sent by the Father, nor that the Holy Spirit is lesser because both the Father sent him and the Son [did]; for whether on account of the visible creature, or rather on account of the commendation of the principle, [these things are] not on account of inequality, or disparity, or dissimilarity of substance — these things are to be understood as set down in the Scriptures». Therefore the Father is not said to have sent the Son or the Holy Spirit because he were greater and they lesser, but chiefly for the commendation of the *authority of the principle*, and because he did not appear in a visible creature as they[^42] [did]. Behold, it has been shown what the mission of the Son is, and in what modes he is sent.

---

la: Codd. ABCE addunt *et*. Paulo post Vat. et edd. 1, 5, 6, 9 adiiciunt *sive datum* post *donum*.

en: Codices A, B, C, E add *et*. A little later the Vatican edition and editions 1, 5, 6, 9 add *sive datum* after *donum*.

la: Vat. et ed. 8 *datur*. Immediate post cod. D *utique* pro *itaque*.

en: The Vatican edition and ed. 8 read *datur*. Immediately after, codex D reads *utique* in place of *itaque*.

la: Cap. 19. n. 36 [de Trin. XV].

en: Chap. 19, n. 36 [of *De Trinitate* XV].

en: John 3:8.

la: Vat. et edd. 3, 4, 6, 8 cum cod. D *utique*; cod. A *igitur*; cod. C *et itaque*; codd. BE et ceterae edd. *itaque*. Statim edd. 1, 2, 7, 8 omittunt *dare* post *Pater*.

en: The Vatican edition and editions 3, 4, 6, 8 with codex D read *utique*; codex A reads *igitur*; codex C reads *et itaque*; codices B, E and the other editions read *itaque*. Soon after, editions 1, 2, 7, 8 omit *dare* after *Pater*.

la: Vat. et edd. 2, 3, 9 cum cod. D omittunt *et*. In sequenti propositione post *ipsa* Vat. cum aliis edd., excepta 6, omittit *est*, contradicentibus omnibus codd.

en: The Vatican edition and editions 2, 3, 9 with codex D omit *et*. In the following proposition, after *ipsa*, the Vatican edition with the other editions (except 6) omits *est*, with all the codices in opposition.

la: Cap. 5. n. 7 [de Trin. II]; sed Magister diffusam doctrinam S. Augustini valde contrahit, verba transponit et de suo addit. — Paulo ante post *Filio* Vat. cum pluribus edd. omittit *Dei*.

en: Chap. 5, n. 7 [of *De Trinitate* II]; but the Master greatly compresses Augustine's diffuse doctrine, transposes the words, and adds something of his own. — A little before, after *Filio*, the Vatican edition with several editions omits *Dei*.

la: Ioan. 14, 26; postea ibid. 16, 7. Vulgata: *Si autem abiero*; ed. 1: *Et ita: si abiero*; ed. 4: *Etsi abiero*, omittendo *iterum*. — Deinde ibid. v. 28.

en: John 14:26; afterwards ibid. 16:7. Vulgate: *But if I go away*; ed. 1: *And so: if I go away*; ed. 4: *Even if I go away*, omitting *iterum*. — Then ibid. v. 28.

la: Gal. 4, 4. — Deinde Ierem. 23, 24. Vulgata: *Numquid non caelum et terram ego impleo, dicit Dominus?* — Edd. 1, 8 pro *scriptum* habent *dictum est*. Mox Vat. et edd. 5, 6, 9 addunt *si* post *Itaque*.

en: Galatians 4:4. — Then Jeremiah 23:24. Vulgate: *Do I not fill heaven and earth, says the Lord?* — Editions 1, 8 read *dictum est* in place of *scriptum*. Soon after, the Vatican edition and editions 5, 6, 9 add *si* after *Itaque*.

la: Loc. cit. n. 8, ubi etiam quae sequuntur. — Paulo ante edd. 5, 9 praemittunt *ut* ante *inquit*.

en: Loc. cit. n. 8 [of *De Trinitate* II], where also what follows is found. — A little before, editions 5, 9 prefix *ut* to *inquit*.

la: Gal. 4, 4. — Paulo ante Vat. contra codd. ABCD et edd. 1, 8 *primo* pro *primum*, et immediate post cum omnibus edd., excepta 2, mutata interpunctione, male legit: *missum eum Apostolus dicat*.

en: Galatians 4:4. — A little before, the Vatican edition, against codices A, B, C, D and editions 1, 8, reads *primo* in place of *primum*; and immediately after, with all the editions (except 2), with the punctuation altered, wrongly reads: *missum eum Apostolus dicat*.

la: Loc. cit. n. 8, secundum sensum. — Locus Isaiae est 48, 16. Vulgata: *Nunc Dominus Deus misit me* etc.

en: Loc. cit. n. 8, according to the sense. — The Isaiah passage is 48:16. Vulgate: *Now the Lord God has sent me*, etc.

la: Cap. 1. n. 7 et 8 [Ambr. de Spiritu sancto III]. — Secundus locus ibid. c. 2. n. 9; tertius a verbis: *Dicit enim* sumtus est passim ibid. c. 1. n. 1, 2, 6.

en: Chap. 1, n. 7 and 8 [of Ambrose, *On the Holy Spirit* III]. — The second passage [is at] ibid., c. 2, n. 9; the third, from the words *Dicit enim*, is taken from various places, ibid. c. 1, nn. 1, 2, 6.

la: Isai. 9, 6. Vulgata: *Parvulus enim natus est* etc.

en: Isaiah 9:6. Vulgate: *For a little child is born*, etc.

la: Luc. 4, 18, ubi Christus in synagoga legit verba Isaiae 61, 1–2, et deinde v. 21 dicit: *Quia hodie impleta est* etc. — Mox pro *significaret* Vat. cum plerisque edd. *signaret*, sed contradicentibus codd. ACD et edd. 1, 8.

en: Luke 4:18, where Christ in the synagogue reads the words of Isaiah 61:1–2, and then in v. 21 says: *Because today it is fulfilled*, etc. — Soon after, in place of *significaret*, the Vatican edition with most editions reads *signaret*, but with codices A, C, D and editions 1, 8 in opposition.

la: Cap. 2. n. 9 [Ambr. de Spiritu s. III]. — In principio huius loci post *Cum* Vat. et edd. 4, 6, 8, 9 addunt *enim*. Mox post *a quo datus* loco *est* posuimus *sit* auctoritate omnium codd. et edd. 1, 5, 6, 8.

en: Chap. 2, n. 9 [of Ambrose, *On the Holy Spirit* III]. — At the beginning of this passage, after *Cum*, the Vatican edition and editions 4, 6, 8, 9 add *enim*. Soon after, after *a quo datus*, in place of *est* we have set *sit* on the authority of all the codices and editions 1, 5, 6, 8.

la: Cod. D praemittit *tota*; ed. 1 adiungit *aequae*.

en: Codex D prefixes *tota*; ed. 1 adds *aequae*.

la: Cap. 5. n. 9 [de Trin. II]. — In hoc textu pro *cogat* ed. 6 *rogat*; et edd. 8, 9 *cogitat*. — Ante *Mariae* Vat. et pleraeque edd. addunt *et* contra codd. et ed. 1, 6; *Augustinus ille* pro *et*. — Paulo infra ante *ipse se sanctificavit* iterum removimus *et* auctoritate codd. et edd. 1, 6, 8.

en: Chap. 5, n. 9 [of *De Trinitate* II]. — In this text, in place of *cogat*, ed. 6 reads *rogat*; and editions 8, 9 read *cogitat*. — Before *Mariae*, the Vatican edition and most editions add *et*, against the codices and editions 1, 6; *Augustinus ille* in place of *et*. — A little further on, before *ipse se sanctificavit*, we have again removed *et* on the authority of the codices and editions 1, 6, 8.

la: Ioan. 10, 36, ubi Vulgata omittit *hunc* ante *mundum*. — Secundus locus est Ioan. 17, 19.

en: John 10:36, where the Vulgate omits *hunc* before *mundum*. — The second passage is John 17:19.

la: Rom. 8, 32, et Gal. 2, 20. — Mox pleraeque edd. post *Credo* adiiciunt *quod*.

en: Romans 8:32, and Galatians 2:20. — Soon after, most editions add *quod* after *Credo*.

la: Codd. AB et edd. 1, 8 repetunt *a*.

en: Codices A, B and editions 1, 8 repeat *a*.

la: Solummodo Vat. et edd. 4, 8, 9 male praemittunt *in*, legendo: *in substantia*.

en: Only the Vatican edition and editions 4, 8, 9 wrongly prefix *in*, reading: *in substantia*.

la: Respicitur Phil. 2, 6. 7.

en: It alludes to Philippians 2:6–7.

la: Vat. et ed. 6 omittunt *a*; paulo ante edd. 1, 8 *supra dictis* loco *praedictis*.

en: The Vatican edition and ed. 6 omit *a*; a little before, editions 1, 8 read *supra dictis* in place of *praedictis*.

la: Ioan. 7, 28 et 8, 42. — Codd. ABCE et ed. 1 *adhuc* pro *Sed ad hoc*.

en: John 7:28 and 8:42. — Codices A, B, C, E and ed. 1 read *adhuc* in place of *Sed ad hoc*.

la: Cap. 5. n. 9 [de Trin. II]. — Cod. D repetit *eius* post *missio*; in cod. C omittit *est*.

en: Chap. 5, n. 9 [of *De Trinitate* II]. — Codex D repeats *eius* after *missio*; in codex C *est* is omitted.

la: Cod. C *minus*.

en: Codex C reads *minus*.

la: Alludit ad Sap. 7, 27, ubi Vulgata: *Et per nationes in animas sanctas se transfert, amicos Dei et Prophetas constituit*.

en: It alludes to Wisdom 7:27, where the Vulgate reads: *And throughout the nations she passes into holy souls, [and] constitutes [them] friends of God and prophets*.

la: Cap. 20. n. 28 et aliqua verba n. 27. — In hoc loco August. et codd. AD legunt *eo ipso quo* loco *eo ipso quod*; deinde Vat. et ed. 4 omittunt *vel* post *sed*.

en: Chap. 20, n. 28, and some words from n. 27 [of *De Trinitate* IV]. — In this passage, Augustine and codices A, D read *eo ipso quo* in place of *eo ipso quod*; then the Vatican edition and ed. 4 omit *vel* after *sed*.

la: Sap. 9, 10. Vulgata: *Mitte illam* etc.

en: Wisdom 9:10. Vulgate: *Send her*, etc.

la: Ed. 6 addit hic *Dei* et deinde omittit *Dei Filius*; post haec verba ultima edd. 2, 3, 8, 9 adiiciunt *et*.

en: Ed. 6 adds *Dei* here, and then omits *Dei Filius*; after these last words, editions 2, 3, 8, 9 add *et*.

la: Cod. C addit *per gratiam*. Infra edd. 1, 4 omittunt *et* post *incarnationem*.

en: Codex C adds *per gratiam*. Below, editions 1, 4 omit *et* after *incarnationem*.

la: Cap. 20. n. 27 [de Trin. IV]. — Rursus citatur Sap. 7, 27. In Vulgata deest *enim*, quod posuimus ex August., codd. omnibus et edd., exceptis Vat. et 3, 8.

en: Chap. 20, n. 27 [of *De Trinitate* IV]. — Again Wisdom 7:27 is cited. In the Vulgate *enim* is missing, which we have set from Augustine, all the codices and editions, except the Vatican edition and 3, 8.

la: Edd. 1, 8 addunt *tantum*, et immediate ante ed. 1 legit *nec* pro *vel*.

en: Editions 1, 8 add *tantum*; and immediately before, ed. 1 reads *nec* in place of *vel*.

la: Cap. 20. n. 28 [de Trin. IV]. — In hoc textu codd. ACD addunt *etiam* post *Nam et nos*.

en: Chap. 20, n. 28 [of *De Trinitate* IV]. — In this text, codices A, C, D add *etiam* after *Nam et nos*.

la: Contra omnes codd. et ed. 6 perperam legit Vat. cum aliis edd. *quae*, cum relativum secundum contextum referendum sit ad *in eo*. Paulo ante codd. DE *quod* pro *quia*. Deinde post *Filius* Vat. sola omittit *est*.

en: Against all the codices and ed. 6, the Vatican edition with the other editions wrongly reads *quae*, since the relative according to the context must be referred to *in eo*. A little before, codices D, E read *quod* in place of *quia*. Then, after *Filius*, the Vatican edition alone omits *est*.

la: Libr. IV. de Trin. c. 20. n. 29.

en: Book IV of *On the Trinity*, c. 20, n. 29.

la: Cap. 21. n. 32 [de Trin. IV]. — Vat. sola: *Quia etiam si voluisset* pro *Si voluisset etiam*. Deinde omnes edd., demptis Vat. et ed. 8, male legunt *appareret* pro *apparere*. Pro nostra lectione faciunt codd. et originale. Denique ante *procedit* codd. ACD bene legunt *ipso* pro *illo*.

en: Chap. 21, n. 32 [of *De Trinitate* IV]. — The Vatican edition alone reads: *Quia etiam si voluisset* in place of *Si voluisset etiam*. Then all the editions, except the Vatican edition and ed. 8, wrongly read *appareret* for *apparere*. The codices and the original [Augustine text] support our reading. Finally, before *procedit*, codices A, C, D rightly read *ipso* in place of *illo*.

la: Vat. et aliae edd., excepta 1, contra codd., excepto E, addunt *esse*.

en: The Vatican edition and the other editions (except 1), against the codices (except E), add *esse*.

la: Cap. 21. n. 32 [de Trin. IV]. — In hoc loco auctoritate codd., edd. 1, 8 et originalis post *Spiritum sanctum* posuimus *quia* loco *quod*, et post *principii* expunximus *auctoritatem, vel*.

en: Chap. 21, n. 32 [of *De Trinitate* IV]. — In this passage, on the authority of the codices and editions 1, 8 and of the original, after *Spiritum sanctum* we have set *quia* in place of *quod*, and after *principii* we have expunged *auctoritatem, vel*.

la: Vat. cum omnibus edd., excepta 1, mendose *ille*, contradicentibus omnibus codd.; *illi* refertur ad Filium et Spiritum sanctum.

en: The Vatican edition with all the editions (except 1) erroneously reads *ille*, with all the codices in opposition; *illi* refers to the Son and the Holy Spirit.