title: Dist. 14

title_alt: De gemina processione Spiritus sancti, temporali et aeterna; et an viri sancti possint dare Spiritum sanctum

title_alt: On the twofold procession of the Holy Spirit, temporal and eternal; and whether holy men can give the Holy Spirit

source_text:
<!-- page 242 -->

### DISTINCTIO XIV.

*De gemina processione Spiritus sancti, temporali et aeterna.*

Praeterea diligenter adnotandum[^1] est, quod gemina est processio Spiritus sancti, *aeterna* videlicet, quae ineffabilis est, qua a Patre et Filio aeternaliter et sine tempore processit, et *temporalis*, qua a Patre et Filio ad sanctificandam creaturam procedit. Et sicut ab aeterno communiter ac simul procedit a Patre et Filio, ita et in tempore communiter et simul ab utroque procedit ad creaturam, non divisim a Patre in Filium et a Filio ad creaturam. Unde Augustinus in decimo quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^2] ait: «Spiritus sanctus non de Patre procedit in Filium et de Filio procedit ad sanctificandam creaturam, sed simul de utroque procedit; quamvis hoc Filio Pater dederit, ut sicut de se, ita etiam de illo procedat».

De temporali autem processione Beda in homilia *Dominicae primae post Ascensionem*[^3] ita loquitur: «Cum Spiritus sancti gratia datur hominibus, profecto mittitur Spiritus a Patre, mittitur et a Filio; procedit a Patre, procedit et a Filio, quia et eius missio est ipsa processio». His verbis aperte ostendit, donationem gratiae Spiritus sancti dici processionem vel missionem eiusdem. Sed cum donatio vel[^4] datio non sit nisi temporalis, constat, quia et haec processio sive missio temporalis est. Hanc quoque temporalem Spiritus sancti processionem Augustinus in decimo quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^5] insinuat dicens, Spiritum sanctum processisse a Christo, quando post resurrectionem insufflavit in discipulos, his verbis: «Cum resurrexisset Christus a mortuis et apparuisset discipulis, *insufflavit et ait*[^6]: *Accipite Spiritum sanctum*, ut eum etiam de se procedere ostenderet. *Et ipse est virtus, quae de illo exibat*, ut legitur in Evangelio, *et sanabat omnes*». Et ut ostenderet, hanc processionem Spiritus sancti non esse aliud quam donationem vel dationem ipsius Spiritus sancti, addidit[^7]: «Post resurrectionem Dominus Iesus bis dedit Spiritum sanctum: semel in terra propter dilectionem proximi, et iterum de caelo propter dilectionem Dei; quia per ipsum Donum diffunditur caritas in cordibus nostris, qua diligimus Deum et proximum».

### *Quod non solum dona Spiritus sancti, sed etiam ipse Spiritus sanctus datur hominibus et mittitur.*

Sunt autem aliqui[^8], qui dicunt, Spiritum sanctum, ipsum Deum, non dari, sed dona eius, quae non sunt ipse Spiritus. Et ut aiunt, Spiritus sanctus dicitur dari, cum eius gratia, quae tamen non est ipse[^9], datur hominibus. Et hoc dicunt, Bedam sensisse in superioribus verbis, quibus dicit, Spiritum sanctum procedere, cum ipsius gratia datur hominibus, tanquam non ipsemet detur, sed gratia eius. Sed quod ipse Spiritus sanctus, qui Deus est et tertia in Trinitate persona, detur, aperte ostendit Augustinus in decimo quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^10] ita dicens: «*Eundem Spiritum sanctum datum, cum insufflasset Iesus*, de quo mox ait: *Ite, baptizate omnes gentes in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti*, ambigere non debemus. Ipse est igitur, qui etiam de caelo datus est die Pentecostes[^11]. Quomodo ergo Deus non est qui dat Spiritum sanctum? immo quantus est Deus qui dat Deum?» Ecce his verbis aperte dicit, Spiritum sanctum, ipsum scilicet Deum, dari hominibus a Patre et[^12] Filio.

Et quod ipse Spiritus sanctus, qui Deus est ac tertia in Trinitate persona, nobis detur nostrisque infundatur atque illabatur mentibus, aperte ostendit Ambrosius in primo libro *de Spiritu sancto*[^13] dicens: «Licet multi dicantur spiritus, quia legitur: *Qui facit angelos suos spiritus*, unus tamen est Dei Spiritus. Ipsum igitur unum Spiritum et Apostoli et Prophetae sunt consecuti; sicut etiam vas electionis dicit[^14], quia *unum Spiritum potavimus*, quasi eum, qui non queat scindi, sed infundatur animis et sensibus illabatur, ut saecularis sitis restringat ardorem; qui Spiritus sanctus non est de substantia[^15] corporalium nec de substantia invisibilium creaturarum». His verbis aperte dicit, Spiritum sanctum ipsum, qui creatura non est, infundi mentibus nostris. Item in eodem[^16]: «Omnis mutabilis est creatura, sed non mutabilis Spiritus sanctus».

<!-- page 243 -->

«Quid autem dubitem dicere, quia datus est et Spiritus sanctus, cum scriptum sit[^17]: *Caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per Spiritum sanctum, qui datus est nobis*?» «Qui cum sit inaccessibilis natura, receptibilis tamen propter bonitatem suam nobis est, complens virtute omnia, sed qui solis participetur iustis, simplex substantia, opulens virtutibus, unicuique praesens, dividens de suo singulis[^18] et ubique totus». «Incircumscriptus igitur et infinitus[^19] Spiritus sanctus, qui discipulorum sensus separatorum infundit, quem nihil potest fallere. Angeli ad paucos mittebantur, Spiritus autem sanctus populis infundebatur. Quis ergo dubitet, quin divinum sit quod infunditur simul pluribus nec videtur? Unus est Spiritus sanctus, qui datus est omnibus licet separatis Apostolis». Et hic aperte dicit Ambrosius, quod Spiritus sanctus, qui est substantia simplex, cum sit unus, datur pluribus.

Alia quoque auctoritate hoc idem astruitur, scilicet quod Spiritus sanctus, qui est aequalis Filio, hominibus detur. Ait enim Augustinus[^20] de verbis Apostoli: «Si *caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per Spiritum sanctum, qui datus est nobis*; a quo datur? Ab illo, qui *dedit dona hominibus*. Quae dona? Spiritum sanctum, qui tale dat donum, qualis est ipse. Magna est misericordia eius: donum dat aequale sibi, quia donum eius Spiritus sanctus est». Praemissis[^21] et aliis pluribus auctoritatibus aperte monstratur, quod Spiritus sanctus aequalis Patri et Filio nobis datur; nec ideo tamen minor est Patre et Filio. Unde Augustinus in quarto libro *de Trinitate*[^22]: «Non ideo, inquit, minorem Spiritum sanctum, quia et eum Pater misit et Filius, arbitrandum est».

### Cap. III.

*An viri sancti possint dare Spiritum sanctum.*

Hic quaeritur, utrum et viri sancti dent vel dare possint aliis Spiritum sanctum. Quem si aliis dant, cum eius donatio supra sit dicta processio, videtur ab eis procedere Spiritus sanctus vel mitti; sed Creator a creatura non procedit vel mittitur. Restat ergo, ut ipsi nec dent Spiritum sanctum nec dare possint. Unde Augustinus in decimo quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^23]: «*Non aliquis discipulorum Christi dedit Spiritum sanctum.* Orabant quippe, ut veniret in eos, quibus manum imponebant, non ipsi eum dabant. Quem morem in suis praepositis etiam nunc servat Ecclesia. Denique et Simon magus, offerens Apostolis pecuniam, non ait: *Date et mihi hanc potestatem, ut dem Spiritum sanctum*; sed, *cuicumque*, inquit, *imposuero manus, accipiat Spiritum sanctum*; quia nec Scriptura superius dixerat: *videns autem Simon, quia Apostoli darent Spiritum sanctum*, sed dixerat: *videns autem Simon, quia per impositionem manuum Apostolorum daretur Spiritus sanctus*». Ecce his verbis ostendit Augustinus, nec Apostolos nec alios Ecclesiae praelatos dedisse vel dare Spiritum sanctum.

Et quod plus est, non posse etiam dare, dicit in eodem libro[^24] subdens: «*De Christo scriptum est, quod acceperit a Patre promissionem Spiritus sancti et effuderit*; in quo utraque natura monstrata est, humana scilicet et divina. Accepit quippe ut homo, effudit ut Deus. Nos autem accipere quidem hoc Donum possumus pro modulo nostro, effundere vero super alios non utique possumus, sed ut hoc fiat, Deum super eos, a quo id efficitur, invocamus». His verbis expresse dicit[^25], nos Spiritum sanctum non posse super alios effundere, id est aliis dare.

Sed huic videtur contrarium quod Apostolus ad Galatas[^26] de se loquens ait: *Qui tribuit vobis Spiritum, et operatur virtutes in vobis*. Ecce evidenter dicit, se tribuisse Spiritum. Sed intelligendum est, Apostolum dixisse hoc, non quia haberet potestatem et auctoritatem dandi Spiritum sanctum, sed quia ministerium habuerit, in quo dabatur a Deo Spiritus sanctus. Ut enim ait Augustinus super eundem locum, exponens illud Apostoli verbum[^27]: «*Ab Apostolo praedicata est eis fides*, in qua praedicatione adventum et praesentiam sancti Spiritus senserant, sicut illo tempore in novitate invitationis ad fidem etiam sensibilibus miraculis praesentia Spiritus sancti apparebat, ut in *Actibus Apostolorum* legitur». Aperte hic ostendit, quomodo illis Spiritum sanctum Apostolus tribuerit, non utique ipsum mittendo in eos, sed praedicando eis fidem Christi, quam illis recipientibus, quod Spiritus sanctus in eis esset, aliquibus signis visibilibus monstrabatur. Non ergo homines quantumcumque sancti dare possunt Spiritum sanctum.

---

english:
<!-- page 242 -->

### Distinction XIV.

*On the twofold procession of the Holy Spirit, temporal and eternal.*

Moreover, it must be carefully noted[^1] that the procession of the Holy Spirit is twofold: the *eternal*, namely, which is ineffable, by which he proceeded from the Father and the Son eternally and outside of time; and the *temporal*, by which he proceeds from the Father and the Son to sanctify the creature. And just as from eternity he proceeds from the Father and the Son commonly and at once, so also in time he proceeds from both commonly and at once to the creature, not dividedly — from the Father into the Son, and from the Son to the creature. Hence Augustine in book XV *On the Trinity*[^2] says: "The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son and from the Son to sanctify the creature, but proceeds at once from both; although the Father has given this to the Son, that, just as [the Spirit proceeds] from himself, so also he might proceed from him."

Concerning the temporal procession Bede in the homily *for the first Sunday after the Ascension*[^3] speaks thus: "When the grace of the Holy Spirit is given to men, indeed the Spirit is sent by the Father, and is sent also by the Son; he proceeds from the Father, and proceeds also from the Son, since his mission is itself the procession." By these words he plainly shows that the bestowal of the grace of the Holy Spirit is called procession or mission of the same. But since bestowal or[^4] giving is only temporal, it is plain that this procession or mission is also temporal. This temporal procession of the Holy Spirit Augustine likewise hints at in book XV *On the Trinity*[^5], saying that the Holy Spirit proceeded from Christ when after the resurrection he breathed on his disciples, in these words: "When Christ rose from the dead and appeared to the disciples, *he breathed and said*[^6]: *Receive the Holy Spirit*, that he might show that [the Spirit] also proceeds from himself. *And he is the power which went out from him*, as we read in the Gospel, *and healed all*." And in order to show that this procession of the Holy Spirit is nothing other than the bestowal or giving of the Holy Spirit himself, he added[^7]: "After the resurrection the Lord Jesus gave the Holy Spirit twice: once on earth for the love of neighbor, and again from heaven for the love of God; since through that very Gift charity is poured out in our hearts, by which we love God and neighbor."

### *That not only the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit himself is given to men and is sent.*

But there are some[^8] who say that the Holy Spirit, God himself, is not given, but his gifts — which are not the Spirit himself. And, as they say, the Holy Spirit is said to be given when his grace, which however is not himself[^9], is given to men. And they say that Bede meant this in the foregoing words, where he says that the Holy Spirit proceeds when his grace is given to men — as if not he himself were given but his grace. But that the Holy Spirit himself, who is God and the third person in the Trinity, is given, Augustine plainly shows in book XV *On the Trinity*[^10], saying: "*That the same Holy Spirit was given when Jesus breathed on them*, of whom shortly afterwards he says: *Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit*, we ought not to doubt. He is therefore [the same one] who was also given from heaven on the day of Pentecost[^11]. How then is he not God who gives the Holy Spirit? — nay, how great is the God who gives God?" Behold, in these words he plainly says that the Holy Spirit, namely God himself, is given to men by the Father and[^12] the Son.

And that the Holy Spirit himself, who is God and the third person in the Trinity, is given to us and is poured into and glides into our minds, Ambrose plainly shows in book I *On the Holy Spirit*[^13], saying: "Although many things are called *spirits*, since it is read: *Who makes his angels spirits*, yet there is one Spirit of God. This one Spirit therefore both the Apostles and Prophets received; as also the vessel of election says[^14], that *we have drunk one Spirit* — as it were one who cannot be split, but is poured into souls and glides into the senses, that he may quench the burning of worldly thirst; which Holy Spirit is not of the substance[^15] of bodily things nor of the substance of invisible creatures." By these words he plainly says that the Holy Spirit himself, who is not a creature, is poured into our minds. Likewise in the same [book][^16]: "Every creature is mutable, but the Holy Spirit is not mutable."

<!-- page 243 -->

"What should I doubt to say that the Holy Spirit also has been given, since it is written[^17]: *The charity of God is poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who is given to us*?" "Who, although he is by nature inaccessible, yet on account of his goodness is receivable by us, filling all things by [his] power — though he is participated only by the just — a simple substance, abounding in virtues, present to each, dividing of his own to each one[^18], and everywhere whole." "Uncircumscribed therefore and infinite[^19] is the Holy Spirit, who pours into the senses of the disciples [though they are] separated, whom nothing can deceive. Angels were sent to a few; but the Holy Spirit was poured out into peoples. Who then would doubt that what is poured out into many at once and is not seen is divine? One is the Holy Spirit, who is given to all the Apostles though they are separated." And here Ambrose plainly says that the Holy Spirit, who is a simple substance, although he is one, is given to many.

By another authority also this same [point] is established, namely that the Holy Spirit, who is equal to the Son, is given to men. For Augustine[^20] says, on the words of the Apostle: "*If the charity of God is poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who is given to us*; by whom is he given? By him who *gave gifts to men*. What gifts? The Holy Spirit, who gives such a gift as he himself is. Great is his mercy: he gives a gift equal to himself, since his gift is the Holy Spirit." From the foregoing[^21] and many other authorities it is plainly shown that the Holy Spirit equal to the Father and the Son is given to us; nor is he therefore less than the Father and the Son. Hence Augustine in book IV *On the Trinity*[^22]: "Not therefore," he says, "is the Holy Spirit to be judged less because both the Father sent him and the Son [sent him]."

### Chapter III.

*Whether holy men can give the Holy Spirit.*

Here it is asked, whether holy men also give or can give the Holy Spirit to others. For if they give him to others, since the bestowal of him was said above to be his procession, the Holy Spirit appears to proceed from them or to be sent [by them]; but the Creator does not proceed from the creature nor is sent [by him]. It remains, therefore, that they neither give nor can give the Holy Spirit. Hence Augustine in book XV *On the Trinity*[^23]: "*No disciple of Christ gave the Holy Spirit.* For they prayed that he might come upon those on whom they laid their hands; they themselves did not give him. Which custom the Church even now keeps in those set over her. Finally Simon Magus too, offering the Apostles money, did not say: *Give me also this power, that I may give the Holy Spirit*; but, *on whomsoever*, he says, *I shall lay hands, let him receive the Holy Spirit*; for Scripture had not said above: *seeing then Simon that the Apostles gave the Holy Spirit*, but had said: *seeing then Simon that by the laying-on of hands of the Apostles the Holy Spirit was given*." Behold, by these words Augustine shows that neither the Apostles nor any other prelates of the Church gave or give the Holy Spirit.

And what is more, [Augustine] says that they cannot even give him, in the same book[^24] adding: "*Of Christ it is written that he received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit and poured him out*; in which both natures, namely human and divine, are shown. For he received as man, [and] poured out as God. We, however, can indeed receive this Gift according to our small measure, but we certainly cannot pour him out upon others; rather, that this may happen, we call upon God upon them, by whom it is effected." By these words he expressly says[^25] that we cannot pour the Holy Spirit upon others — that is, give him to others.

But to this it appears contrary that the Apostle, speaking of himself to the Galatians[^26], says: *He who bestows on you the Spirit, and works mighty deeds in you*. Behold, evidently he says that he himself bestowed the Spirit. But it is to be understood that the Apostle said this not because he had the power and authority of giving the Holy Spirit, but because he had the ministry in which the Holy Spirit was given by God. For as Augustine says on the same place, expounding that word of the Apostle[^27]: "*Faith was preached to them by the Apostle*, in which preaching they had felt the coming and presence of the Holy Spirit; just as in that time, in the newness of the invitation to the faith, the presence of the Holy Spirit even by sensible miracles appeared, as is read in the *Acts of the Apostles*." Here he plainly shows in what way the Apostle bestowed the Holy Spirit on them — not, indeed, by sending him into them, but by preaching to them the faith of Christ, which when they received it, that the Holy Spirit was in them was shown by some visible signs. Therefore men, however holy, cannot give the Holy Spirit.

---

la: Ed. 2 *notandum*.

en: Ed. 2 reads *notandum* ("to be noted") [for *adnotandum*].

la: Cap. 27. n. 48. — Paulo ante cod. D post *Filio ad creaturam* addit *sanctificandam*.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* XV,] c. 27, n. 48. — A little earlier, codex D after *Filio ad creaturam* adds *sanctificandam* ("to be sanctified").

la: Libr. II. homil. 10.

en: [Bede,] book II, homily 10.

la: Edd. 1, 8 *sive*; et mox post *constat* ed. 2 *quod* loco *quia*.

en: Editions 1 and 8 read *sive* ("or"); and shortly after, after *constat*, ed. 2 reads *quod* in place of *quia*.

la: Cap. 26. n. 45. — Vat. et edd. 4, 6 post *dicens* habent: *Spiritus sanctus processit* pro *Spiritum sanctum processisse*.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* XV,] c. 26, n. 45. — The Vatican edition and edd. 4, 6 after *dicens* have "*the Holy Spirit proceeded*" [indicative] for "*that the Holy Spirit proceeded*" [accusative + infinitive].

la: Ioan. 20, 22. — Textus sequens sacrae Scripturae est Luc. 6, 19.

en: John 20:22. — The following Scripture text is Luke 6:19.

la: Loc. cit. n. 46; sed non paucis transpositis vel omissis. — Edd. 1, 3, 7, 8 *addit* pro *addidit*; et immediate ante codd. omittunt *sancti*. Quae omissio, quia saepe in nostris mss. occurrit, deinceps non notatur.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* XV] loc. cit., n. 46; but with not a few [phrases] transposed or omitted. — Edd. 1, 3, 7, 8 read *addit* ("he adds") for *addidit* ("he added"); and immediately before, the codices omit *sancti* ("of the Holy [Spirit]"). Since this omission occurs frequently in our manuscripts, henceforth it is not noted.

la: Codd. ACDE *alii*; cod. B nec unum nec alterum vocabulum ponit. Mox codd. A D omittunt *sanctum ipsum Deum*.

en: Codices A, C, D, E [read] *alii* ("others"); codex B sets down neither word [*aliqui* nor *alii*]. Shortly after, codices A, D omit *sanctum ipsum Deum* ("the Holy [Spirit] himself, God").

la: Solummodo Vat. et ed. 4 addunt *qui* et sic constructionem mutant. Deinde codd. A D et ed. 8 *homini* pro *hominibus*. — In sequenti propositione Vat. et edd. 4, 6, 9 *ipse* pro *ipsemet*.

en: Only the Vatican edition and ed. 4 add *qui* and so change the construction. Then codices A, D and ed. 8 [read] *homini* ("to a man") for *hominibus* ("to men"). — In the following proposition the Vatican edition and edd. 4, 6, 9 read *ipse* for *ipsemet* ("his very self").

la: Cap. 26. n. 46. — Immediate ante, contra codd. et edd. 1, 8, Vat. cum aliis edd. *dicit* pro *ostendit*. — Textus Scripturae est Matth. 28, 19. Vulgata: *Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes, baptizantes* etc.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* XV,] c. 26, n. 46. — Immediately before, against the codices and edd. 1, 8, the Vatican edition with the other editions reads *dicit* ("says") for *ostendit* ("shows"). — The Scripture text is Matthew 28:19. Vulgate: *Going therefore teach all nations, baptizing* etc.

la: Act. 2.

en: Acts 2.

la: Vat. cum nonnullis edd. et codd. CD repetit *a*.

en: The Vatican edition with several editions and with codices C, D repeats *a* [reading "*a Patre et a Filio*"].

la: Cap. 4. n. 60-62. — Locus proximus Scripturae est Psalm. 103, 4.

en: [Ambrose, *De Spiritu sancto* I,] c. 4, nn. 60–62. — The closest Scripture place is Psalm 103:4.

la: I. Cor. 12, 13: *Et omnes in uno Spiritu potati sumus*. — Paulo post pro *restringat* in originali legitur *restinguat* contra nostros mss. et edd.

en: 1 Corinthians 12:13: *And we have all been given to drink in one Spirit*. — A little after, in place of *restringat* ("may restrain") the original [Ambrose] reads *restinguat* ("may extinguish"), against our manuscripts and editions.

la: Vat. et aliae edd. contra codd. et originale addunt *rerum*; edd. 1, 8 pro *substantia* habent *natura*.

en: The Vatican edition and other editions, against the codices and the original [Ambrose], add *rerum* ("of things"); editions 1 and 8 in place of *substantia* ("substance") have *natura* ("nature").

la: Ibid. n. 64; secundus locus Ambrosii est ibid. n. 66; tertius n. 72; quartus c. 7. n. 82. et 81.

en: [Ambrose, *De Spiritu sancto* I,] ibid. n. 64; the second Ambrosian place is ibid. n. 66; the third, n. 72; the fourth, c. 7, nn. 82 and 81.

la: Rom. 5, 5. — Paulo ante Vat. et edd. 8, 9 omittunt *et* ante *Spiritus*.

en: Romans 5:5. — A little earlier, the Vatican edition and edd. 8, 9 omit *et* before *Spiritus*.

la: Respicitur illud I. Cor. 12, 11. — In principio huius loci Ambrosiani codd. et ed. 6 legunt *receptabilis* pro *receptibilis*. Paulo post Vat. sola *complectens* pro *complens*. Deinde ed. 8 pro *opulens* habet *opulentus*.

en: Reference is to 1 Corinthians 12:11 [*dividing to each as he wills*]. — At the start of this Ambrosian place the codices and ed. 6 read *receptabilis* for *receptibilis* ("receivable"). A little after, the Vatican edition alone [reads] *complectens* ("embracing") for *complens* ("filling"). Then ed. 8 in place of *opulens* has *opulentus* ("opulent").

la: Vat. et edd. 1, 4, 5, 6, 9 addunt *est*. — Circa finem huius loci cod. D *dividitur* pro *videtur*, quae lectio, licet in se bona sit, tamen est contra litteram et contextum Ambrosii et contra edd. et alios codd. — Immediate post cod. D, Vat. et edd. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 verbis *unus est* addunt *ergo*.

en: The Vatican edition and edd. 1, 4, 5, 6, 9 add *est*. — Near the end of this place codex D [reads] *dividitur* ("is divided") for *videtur* ("is seen") — which reading, although in itself good, is nevertheless against the *littera* and context of Ambrose and against the editions and other codices. — Immediately after, codex D, the Vatican edition, and edd. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 to the words *unus est* add *ergo*.

la: Serm. 128. n. 4 (olim 43); sed Magister varia transponit et omittit. — Vat. et edd. 1, 5, 6, 8, 9 male et contra codd. in textu pro *verbis Apostoli* posuerunt *verbis Domini*, cum Magister hic non citet librum Augustini, sed verba Apostoli indicet; insuper contra edd. 1, 8 Vat. aliaeque edd. pro *si* legunt *sic*. Verba Scripturae sunt Rom. 5, 5 et Eph. 4, 8.

en: [Augustine,] sermon 128, n. 4 (formerly 43); but the Master transposes and omits various things. — The Vatican edition and edd. 1, 5, 6, 8, 9 wrongly and against the codices have set down in the text *verbis Domini* ("the words of the Lord") for *verbis Apostoli* ("the words of the Apostle"), since the Master here does not cite a book of Augustine but indicates the words of the Apostle; furthermore, against edd. 1, 8, the Vatican and other editions read *sic* in place of *si*. The Scripture words are Romans 5:5 and Ephesians 4:8.

la: Vat. et edd. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 addunt *his*.

en: The Vatican edition and edd. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 add *his* [reading "*these foregoing*"].

la: Cap. 21. n. 32. — Mox Vat. et edd. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 superflue adiciunt *ait* post *Trinitate*. Deinde post *minorem* solummodo edd. 1, 8 addunt *esse*.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* IV,] c. 21, n. 32. — Shortly after, the Vatican edition and edd. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 superfluously add *ait* ("he says") after *Trinitate*. Then after *minorem*, only editions 1 and 8 add *esse* ("to be").

la: Cap. 26. n. 46. — Ab Augustino respicitur ad Act. 8, 13–19.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* XV,] c. 26, n. 46. — Augustine refers to Acts 8:13–19.

la: Ibid. parum infra. Citatur ab Augustino Act. 2, 33.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* XV] ibid., a little below. Augustine cites Acts 2:33.

la: Cod. D addit *Augustinus*.

en: Codex D adds *Augustinus* [reading "*he*, Augustine, *expressly says*"].

en: [Galatians] c. 3, 5.

la: Exposit. Epist. ad Gal. n. 20. — Sola Vat. hic addit reliqua verba Apostoli ex eodem versu 5: *Ex operibus legis Spiritum accepistis, an ex auditu fidei?* ad quae verba Augustini immediate sequentia referuntur. — De visibili missione Spiritus sancti legitur Act. 2.

en: [Augustine,] *Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians*, n. 20. — The Vatican edition alone here adds the remaining words of the Apostle from the same verse 5: *Was it from the works of the law that you received the Spirit, or from the hearing of faith?* — to which words the immediately following [words] of Augustine refer. — On the visible mission of the Holy Spirit see Acts 2.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 14, Divisio Textus

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 242 -->

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Terminata parte, quae est de processione aeterna, hic incipit secunda pars, quae est de processione temporali. Et quoniam in hac processione est tria considerare, scilicet *principium a quo* procedit Spiritus sanctus, et *modus secundum quem*, et *proprietas* per[^1] quam aptus natus est procedere: ideo haec pars habet tres partes.

In quarum *prima* agit Magister de processione temporali per comparationem ad *principium a quo*; in *secunda* agit de ipsa in comparatione ad *modum secundum quem*, infra distinctione decima quinta circa medium, ibi: «*Hic quaeritur, utrum semel tantum missus sit*»[^2]; in *tertia* per comparationem ad *proprietatem* per quam natus est temporaliter procedere, et hoc est *donum* sive *donabilitas*, infra distinctione decima octava in principio: «*Hic quaeritur, cum Spiritus sanctus, per quem dividuntur dona*».

*Prima* pars iterum habet duas: in *prima* parte ostendit[^3] quod Spiritus sanctus temporaliter mittatur sive procedat a Patre et Filio; *secundo* quaeritur, utrum mittatur sive procedat a se, infra distinctione decima quinta in principio: «*Hic considerandum est, cum Spiritus sanctus detur hominibus a Patre et Filio*».

*Prima* pars est praesentis distinctionis et habet duas partes: in *prima* ostendit, quod procedit temporaliter a Patre et Filio; in *secunda* quaerit[^4], utrum Spiritus sanctus detur a sanctis hominibus, ibi: «*Hic quaeritur, utrum et sancti viri dent vel possint dare*» etc.

In *prima* iterum parte tria facit secundum tria capitula[^5]. In *prima* ostendit, quod gemina est processio Spiritus sancti; in *secunda*, quod utraque processio est a Patre et Filio, ibi: «*De temporali autem processione Beda in homilia*» etc.; in *tertia*, quia Spiritus sancti temporalis processio eius est *donatio*, ostendit, quod ipse Spiritus sanctus in propria persona donetur, non tantum in effectu, ibi: «*Sunt autem aliqui, qui dicunt, Spiritum sanctum*» etc.

«*Hic quaeritur, utrum et sancti viri dent vel possint dare*»[^6]. Haec est secunda pars praesentis distinctionis, in qua, ostenso quod Spiritus sanctus procedat temporaliter sive donetur a Patre et Filio, quaerit Magister, utrum detur ab aliquo sancto viro. Et haec pars habet tres partes secundum tria quae ostendit. *Primo* namque declarat et probat, quod Spiritus sanctus non detur ab aliquo sancto viro. *Secundo* vero ostendit auctoritate Augustini, quod non potest dari, ibi: «*Et quod plus est, non posse etiam dare dicit*» etc. In *tertia* opponit ad contrarium, quia videtur datus a Paulo, ibi: «*Sed huic videtur contrarium quod Apostolus*» etc., ubi solvit, quod non est datus ab ipso, sed ab eius ministerio[^7].

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam eorum, quae dicuntur in praesenti distinctione, duo principaliter quaeruntur.

*Primo* quaeritur de *processione temporali* Spiritus sancti.

*Secundo* de eius *donatione*.

Quantum ad primum quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur[^8], utrum sit ponere processionem temporalem Spiritus sancti.

Secundo, utrum processio temporalis ponat in numerum cum aeterna.

---

english:
<!-- page 242 -->

### Division of the text.

With the part on the *eternal procession* finished, here begins the second part, which is on the *temporal procession*. And since in this procession three things are to be considered — namely the *principle from which* the Holy Spirit proceeds, the *mode according to which*, and the *property* by[^1] which he is naturally apt to proceed — therefore this [larger] part has three parts.

In the *first* the Master deals with the temporal procession by comparison to the *principle from which*; in the *second* he treats of it in comparison to the *mode according to which*, below at d. 15 around the middle, at: "*Here it is asked, whether he has been sent only once*"[^2]; in the *third* by comparison to the *property* by which he is naturally apt to proceed temporally — and this is *gift* or *donability* — below at d. 18 in its opening, at: "*Here it is asked, since the Holy Spirit, by whom the gifts are divided…*".

The *first* part again has two: in the *first* part he shows[^3] that the Holy Spirit is temporally sent or proceeds from the Father and the Son; in the *second* it is asked whether he is sent or proceeds from himself, below at d. 15 in its opening, at: "*Here it must be considered, since the Holy Spirit is given to men by the Father and the Son*".

The *first* part is [the matter] of the present distinction and has two parts: in the *first* he shows that he proceeds temporally from the Father and the Son; in the *second* he asks[^4] whether the Holy Spirit is given by holy men, at: "*Here it is asked, whether holy men also give or can give*" etc.

In the *first* part again he does three things, in three chapters[^5]. In the *first* he shows that the procession of the Holy Spirit is *twofold* [eternal and temporal]; in the *second*, that each procession is from the Father and the Son, at: "*But concerning the temporal procession, Bede in his Homily*" etc.; in the *third*, since the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit is his *bestowal*, he shows that the Holy Spirit himself in his own person is given, not only in his *effect*, at: "*But there are some who say that the Holy Spirit*" etc.

"*Here it is asked, whether holy men also give or can give*"[^6]. This is the second part of the present distinction, in which, having shown that the Holy Spirit proceeds temporally — that is, is given — from the Father and the Son, the Master asks whether he is given by any holy man. And this part has three parts according to the three things which he shows. For *first* he declares and proves that the Holy Spirit is not given by any holy man. *Secondly* he shows by the authority of Augustine that he cannot be given, at: "*And what is more, he says he cannot even give him*" etc. In the *third* he opposes [the previous claim] to the contrary, since [the Spirit] appears to have been given by Paul, at: "*But to this it appears contrary that the Apostle*" etc. — where he solves it [by saying] that he was not given *by him* but by his *ministry*[^7].

### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of the things said in the present distinction, two principal questions are asked.

*First*, it is asked about the *temporal procession* of the Holy Spirit.

*Second*, about his *bestowal*.

As to the first, two questions are asked.

First it is asked[^8], whether a temporal procession of the Holy Spirit is to be posited.

Second, whether the temporal procession adds up to a number with the eternal.

---

la: Aliqui codd. ut W X Z *secundum*.

en: Some codices — W, X, Z — [read] *secundum* ("according to") [in place of *per*, "by"].

la: Vat., mss. et ed. 1 obnitentibus, ponit falso principium [scil.]: *Nunc de Spiritu sancto videndum est* etc.

en: The Vatican edition, despite the resistance of the manuscripts and ed. 1, falsely sets down [as the opening, namely]: "*Now we must consider concerning the Holy Spirit*" etc.

la: Ed. 1 *ostenditur*.

en: Ed. 1 [reads] *ostenditur* ("is shown") [for *ostendit*, "he shows"].

la: Vat. *quaeritur*, sed contra mss. et ed. 1.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *quaeritur* ("it is asked"), but against the manuscripts and ed. 1.

la: Ex mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *tria capitula* loco *tres partes*.

en: From the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted *tria capitula* ("three chapters") for *tres partes* ("three parts").

la: Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 praecedentem propositionem ita exhibet: *Similiter secunda pars, quae incipit ibi: «Hic quaeritur utrum et sancti viri dent» etc.*

en: The Vatican edition, against the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, presents the preceding proposition thus: "*Likewise the second part, which begins there: «Here it is asked whether holy men also give»* etc."

la: Cod. K *per eius ministerium*; cod. Y *in* loco *ab*.

en: Codex K [reads] *per eius ministerium* ("through his ministry"); codex Y [reads] *in* in place of *ab* ("by").

la: Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus *Primo quaeritur*; aliqui codd. tamen omittunt *quaeritur*.

en: From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied *Primo quaeritur* ("First it is asked"); some codices, however, omit *quaeritur*.

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. 14, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 245 -->

### Articulus I. *De processione temporali Spiritus sancti.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum processio temporalis Spiritus sancti ponenda sit.*

Quod sit ponenda processio temporalis, videtur:

1. Per Bedam, qui dicit in homilia, et habetur in littera[^1]: «Spiritus sancti missio est eius processio»; sed missio est temporalis: ergo est ponere processionem Spiritus sancti temporalem.

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione sic: procedere est ab uno in alium; cum ergo Spiritus sanctus sit a Deo et sit in creatura et in creatura sit a Deo[^2], a Deo procedit in creaturam; hoc autem non est, antequam creatura sit, sed hoc est ex tempore: ergo etc.

3. Item, donum sive datum a dante procedit in accipientem, cum datur; sed Spiritus sanctus ex tempore datur: ergo ex tempore procedit a dante in recipientem[^3]: ergo est ponere processionem temporalem.

**Contra:**

1. Spiritus sancti processio idem est quod eius spiratio; sed non dicitur eius spiratio aliqua temporalis: ergo nec processio.

2. Item, sicut processio se habet ad Spiritum sanctum, sic generatio ad Filium, et quemadmodum Spiritus sanctus mittitur in mentem, ita[^4] Filius, et utrumque ex tempore; sed generatio Filii ratione talis missionis nullo modo dicitur temporalis: ergo nec processio Spiritus sancti.

3. Item, processio Spiritus sancti non dicitur temporalis, nisi secundum quod est processio ab aliquo in aliquid, utpote in creaturam; sed processio ab aliquo in aliquid non est nisi dupliciter: aut secundum processum ab agente in suscipiens, aut secundum processum a loco in locum. Sed primo modo non est temporalis processio, quia Spiritus sanctus est persona in se fixa et stans: ergo non producitur in suscipiente[^5]. Secundo modo non, quia quod tali modo procedit, a principio recedit et ad terminum accedit; hoc autem non convenit Spiritui sancto.

4. Item, omne quod temporaliter procedit ab alio, habet initium essendi ex tempore; si ergo Spiritus sanctus temporaliter procedit, ergo eius[^6] esse incipit.

5. Item, processio temporalis aut dicitur temporalis ratione Spiritus sancti aut[^7] gratiae: non ratione Spiritus sancti, quia persona aeterna est; similiter videtur, quod nec ratione gratiae, quia Augustinus dicit quarto de Trinitate[^8]: «Secundum quod aliquid aeternum mente capimus, non sumus in hoc mundo»: ergo si gratia elevat ad capiendum aeternum esse eius, et processio non est temporalis, ergo nec processio Spiritus sancti ratione gratiae.

6. Item, in processione Spiritus sancti in creaturam est processio Doni increati, quod est Spiritus sanctus, et doni creati, quod est gratia; sed Donum increatum est nobilius; ergo cum a nobiliori debeat fieri denominatio[^9], processio Spiritus sancti in creaturam debet dici processio increata; sed omnis talis non temporalis: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** *Ponenda est processio Spiritus sancti temporalis non ratione eius, a quo procedit, sed ratione eius, in quod procedit sicut in susceptivum, in quo recipitur.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod processio, secundum quod communiter accipitur de Filio et de Spiritu sancto, dicitur emanatio ab hoc, scilicet a Patre; secundum quod dicitur de Spiritu sancto, dicitur processio ab uno in alium. Sed procedere ab uno in alium est dupliciter: aut sicut in obiectum, in quod protenditur, aut sicut in susceptivum, in quo recipitur. Et primus quidem modus est in processione aeterna[^11]; quia enim Spiritus sanctus procedit ut amor mutuus, ideo procedit a duobus, ita quod ab uno in alium. «Spiritus enim sanctus, ut dicit Hieronymus[^10] et Augustinus, amor est, quo Pater amat Filium et Filius amat Patrem».

<!-- page 246 -->

Secundus modus in illa esse non potuit, quamvis ita intellexerint Graeci, quod in Filio recipitur Spiritus sanctus et a Patre producitur. Sed penes secundum modum — cum receptio Spiritus sancti sit per influentiam doni[^12] gratuiti, quod ex tempore est — attenditur processio temporalis, secundum quam Spiritus sanctus dicitur procedere ab aliquo in aliquem non tantum sicut in obiectum, sed sicut in habitaculum. Et sic concedendum est, quod est processio temporalis Spiritus sancti, non ratione eius a quo, sed ratione eius in quod procedit.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de spiratione et generatione, iam patet responsio, quia neutrum praedictorum nominum respectum dicit ad[^13] terminum, in quem fit processio.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod processio Spiritus sancti non potest esse ab aliquo in aliquid[^14] ut in susceptivum; dicendum, quod verum est ratione ipsius personae; sed tamen ratione connotati, quod est gratia, in qua datur Spiritus sanctus, suscipitur, quia gratia est in aliquo sicut in susceptivo.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur: quod temporaliter procedit incipit esse; dicendum, quod hoc est dupliciter[^15], quia haec determinatio *temporaliter* potest poni circa actum procedendi per comparationem ad principium a quo, vel in comparatione ad terminum in quem. Primo modo vera est propositio; sed sic non dicitur Spiritus sanctus[^16] procedere temporaliter, eo quod ex tempore producatur. Alio modo per comparationem ad terminum in quem; sic[^17] non habet veritatem, si procedit in hoc ex tempore, quod habeat initium, sed solum, quod incipiat esse in hoc.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod gratia non procedit temporaliter, quia elevat ad aeternum; dicendum, quod *temporale* dicitur tripliciter. Uno modo dicitur temporale quod habet initium et variationem et actum in tempore; et hoc modo dicitur temporale quod subiacet tempori et est corruptibile et variabile. Secundo modo dicitur temporale quod habet initium essendi in tempore[^18], sed non variationem, ut anima. Tertio modo dicitur temporale quod habet initium in tempore, sed actum extra tempus et supra tempus elevatum; et hoc tertio modo dicitur temporalis processio vel gratiae donatio.

Potest tamen dici, quod gratia habet esse temporale ratione eius in quo est, scilicet liberi arbitrii[^19], quod mutatur et variatur; et verbum Augustini, quod dicit, quod non sumus in hoc mundo, est intelligendum quantum ad conformitatem.

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod denominatio debet esse a digniori; dicendum, quod totum copulatum, quia destruitur destructione cuiuslibet partis, habet denominationem a parte imperfectiori. Unde si una pars copulationis est falsa, totum copulatum dicitur esse falsum; si una contingens, totum iudicatur contingens; si una temporalis, et totum temporale[^20]. Quia ergo processio temporalis includit emanationem aeternam personae et emanationem gratiae, quae temporalis est, ideo dicitur temporalis et non aeterna.

Et quod[^21] dicitur, quod denominatio debet fieri a digniori; dicendum, quod non est verum nisi in eo, in quo illud quod minus dignum est, conformatur digniori.

english:
### Article I. *On the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit.*
### Question I. *Whether a temporal procession of the Holy Spirit is to be posited.*

That a temporal procession is to be posited seems [to be the case]:

1. Through Bede, who says in the homily, and is held in the [Master's] text[^1]: "The mission of the Holy Spirit is His procession"; but mission is temporal: therefore a temporal procession of the Holy Spirit is to be posited.

2. Likewise, this same is shown by reason thus: to proceed is from one into another; since therefore the Holy Spirit is from God and is in the creature and in the creature is from God[^2], He proceeds from God into the creature; but this is not before the creature exists, but is from time: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, a gift or thing-given proceeds from the giver into the receiver, when it is given; but the Holy Spirit is given from time: therefore from time He proceeds from the giver into the receiver[^3]: therefore a temporal procession is to be posited.

**On the contrary:**

1. The procession of the Holy Spirit is the same as His spiration; but no spiration of His is called temporal: therefore neither [is His] procession.

2. Likewise, just as procession stands toward the Holy Spirit, so generation toward the Son; and just as the Holy Spirit is sent into the mind, so likewise[^4] is the Son, both from time; but the generation of the Son by reason of such a mission is in no way called temporal: therefore neither [is] the procession of the Holy Spirit.

3. Likewise, the procession of the Holy Spirit is not called temporal except insofar as it is a procession from something into something, namely into a creature; but procession from something into something occurs only in two ways: either according to procession from the agent into the recipient, or according to procession from place to place. But in the first way it is not a temporal procession, since the Holy Spirit is a person fixed and standing in Himself: therefore He is not produced in a recipient[^5]. In the second way [also] not, since what proceeds in such a way recedes from a starting-point and approaches a terminus; but this does not befit the Holy Spirit.

4. Likewise, everything that temporally proceeds from another has a beginning of being from time; if therefore the Holy Spirit temporally proceeds, therefore His[^6] being begins.

5. Likewise, a temporal procession is so called either by reason of the Holy Spirit or[^7] of grace: not by reason of the Holy Spirit, since [He is] an eternal person; likewise it seems that not by reason of grace, since Augustine says in the fourth [book] of *On the Trinity*[^8]: "Insofar as we grasp something eternal with the mind, we are not in this world": therefore if grace elevates [us] to grasping His eternal being, [grace's] procession is not temporal, therefore neither [is] the procession of the Holy Spirit by reason of grace.

6. Likewise, in the procession of the Holy Spirit into the creature there is the procession of an uncreated Gift, which is the Holy Spirit, and of a created gift, which is grace; but the uncreated Gift is more noble; therefore since denomination ought to be made from the more noble[^9], the procession of the Holy Spirit into the creature ought to be called an uncreated procession; but every such [procession is] not temporal: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** *A temporal procession of the Holy Spirit must be posited, not by reason of Him from whom He proceeds, but by reason of that into which He proceeds as into a recipient, in which He is received.*

**I respond:** It must be said that *procession*, insofar as it is taken in common of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, is called *emanation from* this one, namely from the Father; insofar as it is said of the Holy Spirit [specifically], it is called *procession from one into another*. But to proceed from one into another is in two ways: either as into an object, into which it is extended, or as into a recipient, in which it is received. And the first way indeed is in the eternal procession[^11]; for since the Holy Spirit proceeds as mutual love, He proceeds from two, in such a way that from one into another. "For the Holy Spirit, as Jerome[^10] and Augustine say, is the love by which the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father."

The second mode could not be in that [eternal procession], although the Greeks so understood [it], that the Holy Spirit is received in the Son and produced from the Father. But under the second mode — since the reception of the Holy Spirit is through the influence of a gratuitous gift[^12], which is from time — is considered the temporal procession, according to which the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from someone into someone not only as into an object, but as into a habitation. And thus it must be conceded that there is a temporal procession of the Holy Spirit, not by reason of Him from whom, but by reason of that into which He proceeds.

**Replies to the arguments:**

*To 1 and 2.* To that which is objected concerning spiration and generation, the response is now apparent, since neither of the aforesaid names expresses a relation to[^13] the terminus into which the procession is made.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that the procession of the Holy Spirit cannot be from something into something[^14] as into a recipient; it must be said that this is true by reason of the person itself; but yet by reason of what is connoted, which is grace, in which the Holy Spirit is given, He is received, since grace is in something as in a recipient.

*To 4.* To that which is objected: that what proceeds temporally begins to be; it must be said that this is in two ways[^15], since this determination *temporally* can be placed around the act of proceeding either by comparison to the principle from which, or by comparison to the terminus into which. In the first way the proposition is true; but the Holy Spirit[^16] is not so called to proceed temporally — that He would be produced from time. In the other way, by comparison to the terminus into which: thus[^17] it does not have truth, [namely] if He proceeds in this from time, [in such a way] that He has a beginning, but only that He begins to be in this [terminus].

*To 5.* To that which is objected, that grace does not proceed temporally because it elevates to the eternal; it must be said that *temporal* is said in three ways. In one way that is called temporal which has its beginning and variation and act in time; and in this way that is called temporal which is subject to time and is corruptible and variable. In a second way that is called temporal which has a beginning of being in time[^18], but not variation, like the soul. In a third way that is called temporal which has its beginning in time, but its act outside of time and elevated above time; and in this third way the temporal procession or the giving of grace is so called.

It can however be said that grace has temporal being by reason of that in which it is, namely free choice[^19], which is changed and varies; and Augustine's word, where he says that we are not in this world, is to be understood as regards conformity.

*To 6.* To that which is objected, that denomination ought to be from the more worthy; it must be said that the whole conjoined [thing], since it is destroyed by the destruction of any [one] of its parts, takes its denomination from the more imperfect part. Whence if one part of a conjunction is false, the whole conjoined [whole] is called false; if one [is] contingent, the whole is judged contingent; if one [is] temporal, the whole [is] temporal[^20]. Therefore since the temporal procession includes the eternal emanation of the person and the temporal emanation of grace, [the latter] which is temporal, therefore it is called temporal and not eternal.

And as to what[^21] is said, that denomination ought to be made from the more worthy; it must be said that this is not true except in that [case] in which what is less worthy is conformed to the more worthy.

la: Hic, c. 1, in quo textu fide mss. et ed. 1 adiunximus *eius*.

en: Here [in the *Sentences*], c. 1, in which text on the authority of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have added *eius*.

la: Ita codd. cum ed. 1, dum Vat. perperam omittit *et in creatura sit a Deo*. Paulo ante cod. K post *alium* addit *tendere vel ab uno in alio esse*.

en: Thus the codices with ed. 1, while the Vatican [edition] wrongly omits *et in creatura sit a Deo*. Shortly before, codex K after *alium* adds *tendere vel ab uno in alio esse*.

la: Plures codd. ut FGH cum ed. 1 *accipientem*.

en: Several codices, as FGH, with ed. 1 [read] *accipientem*.

la: In nonnullis mss. ut R bb ff et ed. 1 adiungitur *et*.

en: In several manuscripts, such as R bb ff, and in ed. 1, *et* is added.

la: Auctoritate mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 expunximus hic in Vat. additum *sed in se*. Paulo ante cod. W post *processio* legit *respectu Spiritus sancti; est enim persona*; cod. Y autem nomini *persona* praemittit *tali modo*, quod refertur ad *primo modo*.

en: On the authority of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3 we have here deleted, in the Vatican [edition], the added *sed in se*. Shortly before, codex W after *processio* reads *respectu Spiritus sancti; est enim persona*; codex Y, however, prefixes *tali modo* to the noun *persona*, which is referred to *primo modo*.

la: In Vat. et cod. cc desideratur *eius*, quod in aliis mss. et ed. 1 habetur.

en: In the Vatican [edition] and codex cc *eius* is missing, which is held in the other manuscripts and ed. 1.

la: Cod. M hic repetit *ratione*.

en: Codex M here repeats *ratione*.

en: Chapter 20, n. 28.

la: Cfr. supra Prooem. q. 4. arg. 2. ad opp.

en: Cf. above, the Prooemium, q. 4, arg. 2 ad oppositum.

la: Comment. in Psalm. 17. — August., VI. de Trin. c. 5. n. 7. Vide supra d. X. lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Verba praecedentia: *ab uno in alium procedit*, intelligenda sunt secundum ea quae dicta sunt d. 13. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1.

en: Commentary on Psalm 17. — Augustine, *On the Trinity* VI, c. 5, n. 7. See above d. X, the Master's text, c. 2. — The preceding words, *ab uno in alium procedit*, are to be understood according to what was said at d. 13. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1.

la: In ed. 1 explicative additur *aeterna emanatione*, in qua et paulo infra cum aliquibus mss. ut aa bb *recipiatur* pro *recipitur* et *producatur* loco *producitur* habetur. In fine huius propositionis Vat., omisso puncto, prosequitur propositionem.

en: In ed. 1 *aeterna emanatione* is added by way of explanation, in which [edition] also a little further on, with some manuscripts such as aa bb, *recipiatur* is held in place of *recipitur* and *producatur* in place of *producitur*. At the end of this proposition the Vatican [edition], with the period omitted, continues the proposition.

la: Sequimur plures codd. ut H I aa bb ee cum ed. 1 loco *boni* ponendo *doni*, quod tertio argumento in princ. huius quaestionis respondet. Paulo infra ex mss. antiquioribus et ed. 1 substituimus *secundum quam* loco *secundum quod*.

en: We follow several codices such as H I aa bb ee, with ed. 1, putting *doni* in place of *boni*, which corresponds to the third argument at the beginning of this question. A little further on, from the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted *secundum quam* for *secundum quod*.

la: Ex cod. Z et ed. 1 substituimus *ad* pro minus apta praepositione *in*, quae et immediate post recurrens forte occasionem praebuit unum pro altero ponendi.

en: From codex Z and ed. 1 we have substituted *ad* for the less apt preposition *in*, which, recurring also immediately afterwards, perhaps offered the occasion for putting the one in place of the other.

la: Supplevimus *in aliquid*, quod et contextu exigitur et ipsa obiectione supra posita nec non auctoritate cod. Z comprobatur. Mox fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 *susceptivum* posuimus pro *receptivum*.

en: We have supplied *in aliquid*, which is both demanded by the context and confirmed by the objection itself posed above as well as by the authority of codex Z. Shortly afterwards, on the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have put *susceptivum* for *receptivum*.

la: Lectio Vat. *haec est duplex* emendatur ope mss. et ed. 1.

en: The reading of the Vatican [edition], *haec est duplex*, is corrected with the help of the manuscripts and ed. 1.

la: Vetustiores codd. cum ed. 1 exhibent *sanctus*, omissum a Vat. et cod. cc.

en: The older codices, with ed. 1, present *sanctus*, omitted by the Vatican [edition] and codex cc.

la: Ed. 1 *et sic*, quae et paulo post cum aliquibus mss. ut A aa cc ponit *procedat* loco *procedit*.

en: Ed. 1 [reads] *et sic*, which [edition] also a little afterwards, with some manuscripts such as A aa cc, puts *procedat* in place of *procedit*.

la: Vat. contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 minus bene, verbis transpositis, *in tempore essendi*.

en: The Vatican [edition], against the older codices and ed. 1, less well, with the words transposed, [reads] *in tempore essendi*.

la: Substituimus fide mss. (propter abbreviationem plures sunt dubiae lectionis) et ed. 1, nec non constructione grammaticali exigente, *liberi arbitrii* pro *liberum arbitrium*. — Explicationem verborum Augustini vide etiam infra d. 15. p. II. dub. 5.

en: We have substituted, on the authority of the manuscripts (on account of the abbreviation, several are of doubtful reading) and of ed. 1, and also as the grammatical construction demands, *liberi arbitrii* for *liberum arbitrium*. — For the explanation of Augustine's words, see also below, d. 15. p. II. dub. 5.

la: Pro syllogismo exprimitur hoc idem sequenti regula: *Peiorem sequitur semper conclusio partem*, i. e. si una praemissarum fuerit particularis aut negativa, conclusio erit particularis aut negativa. — Paulo ante post *dicitur* exhibemus lectionem plurimorum mss. addendo *esse*, quod Vat. omittit cum ed. 1 et uno alterove codice. Ed. 1 cum cod. aa *iudicatur* loco *dicitur*, pro quo cod. V *erit* et cod. Y *est*.

en: In place of a syllogism, the same is expressed by the following rule: *Peiorem sequitur semper conclusio partem*, that is, if one of the premises is particular or negative, the conclusion will be particular or negative. — A little before, after *dicitur*, we present the reading of most manuscripts by adding *esse*, which the Vatican [edition] omits along with ed. 1 and one or two codices. Ed. 1, with codex aa, [reads] *iudicatur* in place of *dicitur*; in place of which codex V [reads] *erit* and codex Y [reads] *est*.

la: Cod. Y *si* pro *quod*.

en: Codex Y [reads] *si* for *quod*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Posito hoc principio, quod in processione amoris praeter principium *a quo* sit etiam terminus *ad quem*, quia amor tendit in alium, unde est in amante ut in subiecto, in amato vero ut in obiecto seu termino, ipse terminus processionis iterum distinguitur. Aut enim est simpliciter obiectum sive terminus, aut est aliquod susceptivum, i. e. tale subiectum, quod aliquid recipit. Hic secundus modus propter suam imperfectionem non convenit divinis personis in se spectatis, invenitur tamen in missione temporali, quatenus creatura rationalis per gratiam fit habitaculum Spiritus sancti.

<!-- page 247 -->

Tunc enim Spiritus sanctus in hac creatura de novo incipit esse vel alio modo esse, quam antea erat; per quod, ut dicit Richard. a Med. (hic q. 1.), «importatur nova realis habitudo ipsius termini ad Spiritum sanctum, cui respondet nova habitudo secundum dici in Spiritu sancto ad ipsum terminum. Sic cum talis habitudo sit ex tempore, dico, quod secundum hanc habitudinem vel ratione huius habitudinis Spiritus sanctus procedit ex tempore».

**II.** Ut solut. ad 2. melius intelligatur, supponendum est, quod idem Richard. (loc. cit. ad 1.) dicit: «Non est simile de generatione et processione, quia generatio importat tantum habitudinem ad principium *a quo*, sed processio Spiritus sancti non tantum importat habitudinem ad principium *a quo*, sed etiam ad terminum *ad quem*. Divina autem persona non potest importare habitudinem ad aliquid temporale sicut ad principium *a quo*; ergo non potest esse aliqua generatio divinae personae nisi ratione humanae naturae, quae non sit aeterna etc.».

**III.** Pro ampliore huius quaestionis dilucidatione serviunt quae sequuntur in hac et duabus seqq. qq. Cfr. etiam *Breviloq.* p. I. c. 5; *Comment. in S. Ioan.* c. 1. 34. (in Suppl. Bonelli tom. I.). Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 71. m. 2; et q. 73. m. 1. — Scot., de hac et seq. in utroque scripto hic q. unic. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2; S. I. q. 43. a. 1. 2. 6. 7. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 10; S. I. tr. 7. q. 32. m. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 1. — Henr. Gand., de hac et seq. S. a. 61. q. 2. n. 6; et q. 10. n. 6. seq. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et seq. hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Once this principle is posited — that in the procession of love, besides the principle *from which* there is also a terminus *to which*, since love tends into another, whence it is in the lover as in a subject, but in the beloved as in an object or terminus — that very terminus of procession is again distinguished. For either it is simply an object or terminus, or it is some recipient, that is, such a subject as receives something. This second mode, on account of its imperfection, does not befit the divine persons considered in themselves; yet it is found in the temporal mission, insofar as the rational creature through grace is made the habitation of the Holy Spirit. For then the Holy Spirit in this creature begins to be anew, or to be in another way than He was before; through which, as Richard of Mediavilla says (here q. 1.), "a new real relation of the terminus itself to the Holy Spirit is imported, to which corresponds a new relation according to manner of expression in the Holy Spirit to the terminus itself. Thus, since such a relation is from time, I say that according to this relation, or by reason of this relation, the Holy Spirit proceeds from time."

**II.** That the solution to [obj.] 2 may be better understood, it must be supposed what the same Richard (loc. cit. ad 1.) says: "Generation and procession are not alike, since generation imports only a relation to the principle *from which*, but the procession of the Holy Spirit imports not only a relation to the principle *from which*, but also to the terminus *to which*. But a divine person cannot import a relation to anything temporal as to a principle *from which*; therefore there cannot be any generation of a divine person except by reason of the human nature, which is not eternal etc."

**III.** For a fuller elucidation of this question, what follows in this and the two following questions serves. Cf. also *Breviloquium* p. I. c. 5; *Commentary on St. John* c. 1. 34. (in Bonelli's Supplement, tom. I.). Alex. of Hales, *Summa* p. I. q. 71. m. 2; and q. 73. m. 1. — Scotus, on this and the following [question] in both writings here q. unic. — S. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1. 2; *Summa* I. q. 43. a. 1. 2. 6. 7. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. 10; *Summa* I. tr. 7. q. 32. m. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here lect. 1. princ. q. 1. — Henry of Ghent, on this and the following *Summa* a. 61. q. 2. n. 6; and q. 10. n. 6. seq. — Durand[us], here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the following here q. 1.

---


title: Dist. 14, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 247 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum processio Spiritus sancti aeterna et temporalis numerentur ut duae processiones.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum processio temporalis ponat in numerum cum aeterna. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per hoc, quod dicit Magister[^1]: «quod gemina est processio Spiritus sancti, aeterna et temporalis».

2. Item, ratione videtur similiter, quia plus distat[^2] temporale ab aeterno quam aeternum ab aeterno; illud constat; sed processio aeterna facit numerum cum aeterna, quia processio Filii et processio Spiritus sancti sunt duae: ergo etc.

3. Item, quaecumque habent ordinem, habent numerum et distinctionem; sed processio aeterna et temporalis habent ordinem, quia aeterna[^3] ante temporalem: ergo habent distinctionem; ergo faciunt numerum: ergo processio temporalis et aeterna sunt duae.

**Contra:**

1. Numerata processione, numeratur procedens, quia unum et idem non procedit bis; ergo si sunt duae processiones, sunt duo procedentes: ergo Spiritus sancti sunt duo[^4]; sed hoc est falsum, quia unus est Spiritus sanctus procedens: ergo et primum.

2. Item, processio temporalis et aeterna si differunt, aut hoc est ex hoc, quod sunt diversae emanationes, aut quia diversus modus emanandi. Non quia diversae emanationes, quia tunc essent diversi emanantes; nec quia diversus modus, quia Pater et Filius semper uno modo spirant: ergo Spiritus sanctus semper[^5] uno modo procedit: ergo etc.

3. Item, homo pictus et homo verus non sunt duo homines; non enim numerantur nisi univoca, et quod dicitur de duobus secundum unam naturam[^6]; sed temporale et aeternum minus communicant quam homo pictus et homo verus: ergo processio temporalis et aeterna non est dicenda gemina.

4. Item, processio temporalis non addit super aeternam nisi respectum vel effectum in creatura[^7]; sed respectus vel effectus, causae additus, ipsam non numerat: unde sol lucens et sol illustrans sive illuminans non sunt duo, similiter Deus ens et Deus creans: ergo nec processio aeterna et temporalis erit duplex[^8].

> **Conclusio.** *Secundum modum dicendi analogum non inconvenienter processio Spiritus sancti aeterna et temporalis dicitur duplex processio.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod processio dicitur geminari aut ratione procedentium, ut puta, cum procedunt duo filii; aut ratione modi procedendi[^9], ut amor et verbum dupliciter procedunt; vel ratione modi dicendi, ut dicatur processio gemina, id est dupliciter dicta.

Sed attendendum, quod modus dicendi est triplex, scilicet aequivocus, univocus et analogus[^10]. Cum est modus dicendi aequivocus, ibi est geminatio circa dici et non circa esse. Unde homo pictus et homo verus dupliciter dicitur homo, sed non est duplex homo vel duo homines. Cum est modus dicendi univocus, est geminatio circa esse et non

<!-- page 248 -->

circa dici[^11]. Unde homo verus in Socrate et Platone numeratur, quia sunt duo homines, sed non multipliciter dicitur. Ubi est modus dicendi analogus, quia partem tenet de natura univoci, partem de natura aequivoci, ibi est numeratio et[^12] in essendo et in dicendo.

Secundum hunc igitur modum dicendum, quod processio, secundum quod dicta est de processione temporali et aeterna, non est dicta[^13] univoce nec aequivoce, sed analogice, quia unus modus clauditur in alio. Procedere enim ab hoc in hoc ut in obiectum est aeternum, sed procedere ab hoc in hoc ut in habitaculum est temporale. Quoniam igitur analogum est sic dictum et sic[^14], ideo est ibi dupliciter dici, et una processio dicitur dupliciter, et ita per consequens duplex esse, ut non inconvenienter dicatur processio Spiritus sancti esse duplex.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod, multiplicata processione, multiplicatur procedens; dicendum, quod verum est, si accipiatur de multiplicatione secundum unum modum dicendi. Unde si gemina esset processio, secundum quod processio dicitur exitus ab aliquo, utique duo essent procedentes; nunc autem[^15] non sic: sed est gemina, quia uno modo est ab aliquo in aliquem ut in obiectum, alio modo ab aliquo in aliquem ut in habitaculum.

*Ad 2 et 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur secundo: aut est duplex processio, quia duplex emanatio vel duplex modus[^16]; dicendum, quod non sufficienter dividit; debet enim tertium membrum addere, scilicet, aut quia duplex modus dicendi, non aequivocus. Et per hoc patet sequens de homine picto et vero, quia ibi non est analogia, sed aequivocatio pura.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod respectus additus non numerat etc.; dicendum, quod respectus additus *subiecto* non numerat subiectum; unde non dicitur Spiritus sanctus duplex[^17], quia spiratur et inspiratur. Sed quando respectus additur significationi termini, tunc necesse est, illum aliter et aliter dici; et si sit respectus non distrahens — ita quod non faciat omnino diversam significationem — sed ad illam ordinatus, facit analogiam in termino[^18] et numerum secundum dici et etiam numerum secundum esse. Unde si hoc nomen *illuminatio* significaret actum lucendi absolutum et actum lucendi comparatum, sol dupliciter diceretur illuminare, et esset illuminatio solis gemina; sed tamen magis proprie ibi esset geminatio in dicendo quam in essendo. Unde Magister[^19] magis proprie loqueretur, si diceret: processio Spiritus sancti dicitur dupliciter, quam cum dicit, quod est gemina, quia non cadit ibi proprie geminatio.

english:
### Question II. *Whether the eternal and the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit are numbered as two processions.*

Secondly it is asked, whether the temporal procession is to be numbered together with the eternal. And that it is so, seems [the case]:

1. Through the fact that the Master says[^1]: "that the procession of the Holy Spirit is twofold, eternal and temporal."

2. Likewise, by reason it seems similar, since the temporal differs more[^2] from the eternal than the eternal from the eternal; that [latter] is established; but the eternal procession makes a number with the eternal, since the procession of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit are two: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, whatever things have an order, have number and distinction; but the eternal and temporal procession have an order, since the eternal[^3] [is] before the temporal: therefore they have a distinction; therefore they make a number: therefore the temporal and eternal procession are two.

**On the contrary:**

1. With the procession numbered, the proceeder is numbered, since one and the same does not proceed twice; therefore if there are two processions, there are two proceeders: therefore there are two Holy Spirits[^4]; but this is false, since one is the Holy Spirit who proceeds: therefore [the first is also false].

2. Likewise, if temporal and eternal procession differ, either it is from this — that they are diverse emanations — or because [there is] a diverse mode of emanating. Not because [they are] diverse emanations, since then there would be diverse emanators; nor because [there is] a diverse mode, since the Father and the Son always spirate in one mode: therefore the Holy Spirit always[^5] proceeds in one mode: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, a painted man and a real man are not two men; for things are not numbered except [as] univocals, and what is said of two according to one nature[^6]; but the temporal and the eternal share less than a painted man and a real man: therefore the temporal and eternal procession should not be called twofold.

4. Likewise, the temporal procession adds nothing over the eternal except a relation or an effect in the creature[^7]; but a relation or effect, added to a cause, does not number it: whence "the shining sun" and "the illustrating or illuminating sun" are not two, similarly "God who is" and "God who creates": therefore neither will the eternal and temporal procession be twofold[^8].

> **Conclusion.** *According to the analogous mode of speaking it is not unfitting that the eternal and temporal procession of the Holy Spirit be called a twofold procession.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, for the understanding of what has been stated, it must be noted that procession is said to be doubled either by reason of the proceeders — for instance, when two sons proceed; or by reason of the mode of proceeding[^9], as love and word proceed in two ways; or by reason of the mode of being-said, so that procession be called twofold, that is, said in two ways.

But it must be observed that the mode of being-said is threefold, namely equivocal, univocal, and analogous[^10]. When the mode of being-said is equivocal, there [is] a doubling with respect to being-said and not with respect to being. Whence "a painted man" and "a real man" is called *man* in two ways, but is not a twofold man or two men. When the mode of being-said is univocal, there is a doubling with respect to being and not

with respect to being-said[^11]. Whence "real man" is numbered in Socrates and in Plato, since they are two men, but is not said in multiple ways. Where the mode of being-said is analogous, since it holds part of the nature of the univocal, part of the nature of the equivocal, there is a numbering both[^12] in being and in being-said.

According to this mode therefore it must be said that procession, insofar as it has been said[^13] of the temporal and eternal procession, is not said univocally nor equivocally, but analogously, since the one mode is enclosed in the other. For to proceed from this into this as into an object is eternal, but to proceed from this into this as into a habitation is temporal. Therefore since the analogous is said in this way and in that[^14], there is therefore a being-said-in-two-ways here, and one procession is said in two ways, and so consequently a twofold being [as well], so that it is not unfitting that the procession of the Holy Spirit be called twofold.

**Replies to the arguments:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected on the contrary, that, with the procession multiplied, the proceeder is multiplied; it must be said that this is true, if it is taken about multiplication according to one mode of being-said. Whence if the procession were twofold, insofar as procession is called an "exit from something," there would indeed be two proceeders; now however[^15] [it is] not so: but it is twofold, since in one way it is from someone into someone as into an object, in another way from someone into someone as into a habitation.

*To 2 and 3.* To that which is objected secondly: either there is a twofold procession because [there is] a twofold emanation or a twofold mode[^16]; it must be said that he does not divide sufficiently; for he ought to add a third member, namely, or because [there is] a twofold mode of being-said, [yet] not equivocal. And through this what follows about the painted man and the real [man] is clear, since there [is] not analogy, but pure equivocation.

*To 4.* To that which is objected lastly, that an added relation does not number etc.; it must be said that a relation added *to a subject* does not number the subject; whence the Holy Spirit is not called twofold[^17] because He is spirated and breathed-in. But when a relation is added to the signification of a term, then it is necessary that the [term] be said in one way and in another; and if it be a relation that is not distracting — such that it does not produce an altogether diverse signification — but ordered to it [the original signification], it makes an analogy in the term[^18] and a number according to being-said and also a number according to being. Whence if this name *illumination* signified the absolute act of shining and the act of shining as compared, the sun would be called to illuminate in two ways, and the illumination of the sun would be twofold; but yet more properly there would be a doubling there in being-said than in being. Whence the Master[^19] would speak more properly, if he said: "the procession of the Holy Spirit is said in two ways," than when he says that it is twofold, since "doubling" does not properly fall there.

la: Hic, c. 1.

en: Here [in the *Sentences*], c. 1.

la: Cod. M differt.

en: Codex M [reads] *differt*.

la: In cod. V additur *est*.

en: In codex V *est* is added.

la: Ed. 1 *ergo duo Spiritus*.

en: Ed. 1 [reads] *ergo duo Spiritus*.

la: Ex mss. et ed. 1 restituimus male omissum *semper*. Paulo ante ed. Veneta cum Lugdunensi post *modus* adiungit [*dicendi* — OCR cuts off][?].

en: From the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have restored *semper*, wrongly omitted. Shortly before, the Venice edition together with the Lyons [edition] adds, after *modus*, [*dicendi* — the OCR truncates the word][?].

la: Vide Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 133. (c. ult.) et V. Metaph. text. 11. et 20. (IV. c. 6. et 15.).

en: See Aristotle, *Physics* IV, text 133 (last chapter), and *Metaphysics* V, texts 11 and 20 (= IV, c. 6 and 15).

la: Plurimi cum ed. 1 *creaturam*, quod refertur ad [respectum vel effectum].

en: Most [codices] with ed. 1 [read] *creaturam*, which is referred to [*respectum vel effectum*].

la: Consentientibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1, substituimus *duplex* loco *dupliciter*.

en: With the older manuscripts and ed. 1 in agreement, we have substituted *duplex* for *dupliciter*.

la: In Vat. et cod. cc perperam deest *procedendi*, quod tamen habetur in aliis codd. et ed. 1.

en: In the Vatican [edition] and codex cc *procedendi* is wrongly missing, which however is held in the other codices and in ed. 1.

la: Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. in princ. — Mox post *modus* fide vetustiorum mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus incongrue omissum *dicendi*. Dein ed. 1 *Ut* loco *Unde*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Categories*, at the beginning. — Soon after, after *modus*, on the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have added *dicendi*, which had been incongruously omitted. Then ed. 1 [reads] *Ut* in place of *Unde*.

la: Lectio Vat. *dicere* pro *dici* castigatur ope mss. et ed. 1. Paulo ante cod. W *sed non* loco *et non*.

en: The Vatican [edition's] reading of *dicere* in place of *dici* is corrected with the help of the manuscripts and ed. 1. Shortly before, codex W [reads] *sed non* in place of *et non*.

la: Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 omittit *et*. Codd. LO *geminatio* loco *numeratio*.

en: The Vatican [edition], against the manuscripts and ed. 1, omits *et*. Codices LO [read] *geminatio* in place of *numeratio*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc praeter fidem antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 male omittit *dicta*.

en: The Vatican [edition], with codex cc, contrary to the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, wrongly omits *dicta*.

la: Ita cum ed. 1 omnes codd., licet aliqui ut K O V X falso prima vice pro *sic* legant *sicut*, sed Vat. omnino perturbate *sicut dictum est* pro *sic dictum et sic* — i. e. *procedere uno modo dictum et altero modo*. Mox codd. et edd. non conveniunt inter se ponendo *duplex* loco *dupliciter* et vice versa.

en: Thus, together with ed. 1, all the codices [read], although some — like K O V X — falsely on the first occurrence read *sicut* in place of *sic*; but the Vatican [edition], altogether confusedly, [reads] *sicut dictum est* in place of *sic dictum et sic* — that is, *to proceed, said in one way and in the other way*. Soon after, the codices and editions do not agree among themselves in placing *duplex* for *dupliciter* and vice versa.

la: In Vat. et cod. cc minus apte omittitur *autem*, quod in aliis codd. et ed. 1 habetur. Mox in plurimis codd. et sex primis edd. post *sed* desideratur verbum *est*.

en: In the Vatican [edition] and codex cc, *autem* is less aptly omitted, which is held in the other codices and in ed. 1. Soon after, in most codices and the first six editions, after *sed* the verb *est* is missing.

la: Praecedens propositio clarius exhiberetur sic: *obiicitur secundo: est duplex processio, quia aut duplex emanatio aut duplex modus*; consentientibus tamen cum Vat. editionibus et codicibus (excepto cod. H, qui post *vel* repetit *quia*) nihil mutavimus.

en: The preceding proposition would be more clearly displayed thus: "it is objected secondly: there is a twofold procession, since either a twofold emanation or a twofold mode"; with the editions and codices nevertheless agreeing with the Vatican [edition] (except codex H, which after *vel* repeats *quia*), we have changed nothing.

la: Vat. contra plures codd. ut F TX Y *dupliciter*. Paulo infra in margine cod. T a posteriore manu post *termini* glossando ponitur ut videlicet quia *terminus in una sui significatione est absolutus, in alia respectivus*.

en: The Vatican [edition], against several codices such as F TX Y, [reads] *dupliciter*. A little below, in the margin of codex T, by a later hand, [a gloss] is placed after *termini* by way of explanation, namely [reading] that "the term in one of its significations is absolute, in another relative."

la: Multi codd. ut ABCDEFGIPQRSTU etc. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 loco *in termino* ponunt *in tertio*, de quo cfr. supra d. 1. a. 3. q. 1. ad 1, et infra d. 35. q. 1. in corp. Paulo ante ed. 1 *illum* pro *illam*.

en: Many codices, such as ABCDEFGIPQRSTU etc., with editions 1, 2, 3, place *in tertio* in place of *in termino*; on which cf. above d. 1. a. 3. q. 1. ad 1, and below d. 35. q. 1. in the body. Shortly before, ed. 1 [reads] *illum* for *illam*.

la: Cfr. lit. Magistri, hic c. 1. in initio.

en: Cf. the Master's text, here c. 1, at the beginning.

latin_scholion:
**I.** *Ponere in numerum* cum alio idem est ac distingui ut res a re. Notandum autem, quod haec utriusque processionis distinctio sane est intelligenda. Nam temporalis processio includit aeternam et addit super eam in Spiritu sancto novam habitudinem (secundum rationem intelligendi) ad creaturam, connotando aliquem realem effectum in ipsa, per quem est nova relatio realis in creatura ad Spiritum sanctum. Inde sequitur, quod *termini* istarum processionum essentialiter differunt, quia aeterna processio non respicit nisi terminum aeternum, temporalis vero importat respectum ad terminum temporalem. Sed in *essentia* istarum processionum non alia est differentia nisi secundum rationem intelligendi, ut bene explicat Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — De triplici modo dicendi, univoco, aequivoco et analogo cfr. supra d. 1. a. 3. q. 1. et Scholion. — Ad intelligentiam conclusionis multum iuvat solut. ad 1; cfr. etiam infra d. 15. p. II, et d. 16.

**II.** Omnes antiqui Scholastici in conclusione concordant, excepto Aegid. R., qui negat, dici posse processionem esse geminam vel duplicem. S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2; S. I. q. 43. a. 2. ad 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. 9; S. p. I. tr. 7. q. 32. m. 2. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. post med.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** *To put into number* with another is the same as to be distinguished as a thing from a thing. It must be noted, however, that this distinction of either procession is to be understood soundly. For the temporal procession includes the eternal and adds over it, in the Holy Spirit, a new relation (according to the manner of understanding) toward the creature, by connoting some real effect in it, through which there is a new real relation in the creature toward the Holy Spirit. From this it follows that the *termini* of these processions essentially differ, since the eternal procession does not regard anything except an eternal terminus, but the temporal imports a relation to a temporal terminus. But in the *essence* of these processions there is no other difference except according to the manner of understanding, as Richard of Mediavilla well explains, here a. 1. q. 2. — On the threefold mode of being-said — univocal, equivocal, and analogous — cf. above d. 1. a. 3. q. 1. and the Scholion. — For the understanding of the conclusion, the solution to [obj.] 1 is very helpful; cf. also below d. 15. p. II, and d. 16.

**II.** All the older Scholastics agree in the conclusion, except Aegidius Romanus, who denies that procession can be called twofold or double. S. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 2; *Summa* I. q. 43. a. 2. ad 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 7, 9; *Summa* p. I. tr. 7. q. 32. m. 2. a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here lect. 1. princ. q. 2. — Durand[us], here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1. after the middle.

---


title: Dist. 14, Art. 2, Q. 1

title_alt: Utrum Spiritus sanctus detur in propria persona an tantum in effectu

source_text:
<!-- page 279 -->

### Articulus II. *De datione Spiritus sancti.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum Spiritus sanctus detur in propria persona, an tantum in effectu.*

Quod detur in propria persona, sic ostenditur:

1. Ad Romanos quinto[^1]: *Caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per Spiritum sanctum, qui datus est nobis*; sed nihil diffundit caritatem nisi Spiritus increatus: ergo etc.

2. Item, Augustinus quinto de Trinitate[^2] dicit, quod Spiritus sanctus est donum, et eo dicitur donum, quia datur: ergo si personaliter est donum, personaliter datur.

3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione. Spiritus sanctus est amor et primus amor; sed amor est donum primum, in quo omnia[^3] alia dona donantur: ergo si non est ponere posterius sine priori, non est ponere dona Spiritus sancti dari, quin detur ipse Spiritus sanctus.

4. Item, Spiritus sanctus datur ad uniendum[^4] et colligandum membra corporis mystici; sed membra corporis mystici sunt membra invicem unita, sicut ipse Dominus petit, Ioannis decimo septimo[^5]: *Ut sint consummati in unum*; sed perfecta unio non est nisi in uno simplici: ergo membra uniuntur per aliquid, quod est unum et idem in omnibus; hoc autem non potest esse donum creatum, sed increatum: ergo necesse est cum dono creato dari increatum.

**Contra:**

1. Virtus[^6] est ars recte vivendi, et gratia est donum sufficienter dirigens animam in finem: ergo videtur, quod aliud donum quam donum gratiae creatae non sit animae opportunum: ergo si non est in operibus Dei ponendum superfluum[^7], patet quod non est necesse dari Spiritum sanctum.

2. Item, cum aliquis sanctificatur per gratiam, nihil est in eo praeter gratiam[^8], quod non esset prius: ergo cum dare sit facere, quod aliquid sit in isto, quod non erat prius, non datur nisi gratia. Si dicas, quod Spiritus sanctus est in eo ut sanctus, prius erat ut Spiritus: ergo nihil aliud est quam Spiritum sanctum facere[^9] gratiam sanctificantem in hoc.

3. Item, quod datur post donationem est in potestate accipientis; sed Spiritus sanctus sub nullius[^10] potest redigi potestate: ergo non potest dari.

4. Item, quod datur alicui differenti per essentiam aut de novo creatur, aut multiplicatur, aut eius possessio transfertur, ut patet, cum do alicui cappam; sed persona Spiritus sancti nec creatur nec multiplicatur nec possessio eius transfertur, quia Deus semper habet Spiritum sanctum: ergo Spiritus sanctus non datur.

> **Conclusio.** *Spiritus sanctus datur tum in propria persona, tum in dono creato, quod est gratia.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *dare* est ad aliquid habendum vel possidendum; *habere* autem aliquid vel *possidere* est, cum aliquid est in facultate habentis vel possidentis. Esse autem in facultate habentis vel possidentis est *esse praesto ad fruendum vel utendum*. Perfecta autem possessio est, cum homo habet illud, quo possit uti et quo possit frui[^11]. Sed recte frui non est nisi Deo, et recte uti non contingit nisi per gratiam gratum facientem:

<!-- page 280 -->

ergo perfecta possessio est, in qua Deus habetur et eius gratia. Sed perfectum donum est ad perfectam possessionem: ergo non est *datum optimum et donum perfectum*, nisi detur Donum increatum, quod est Spiritus sanctus, et donum creatum, quod est gratia. Concedendum ergo est utrumque dari.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de gratia, quod est *ars bene vivendi*: patet responsio: quamvis enim sit ars, qua utimur, non tamen est possessio, qua fruimur ut obiecto: et ideo non est perfectum donum sine illo.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur: nihil plus est in isto quam prius; dicendum, quod *dari* non ordinatur ad esse, sed ad habere. Licet enim Spiritus sanctus esset prius in peccatore, non tamen habebatur ab eo, quia peccator non habebat facultatem fruendi ipso.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod datum est in potestate accipientis; dicendum, quod aliquid datur alicui *ut finiens*, sicut praemium merenti; aliquid *ut perficiens*, ut gratia consentienti; aliquid *ut subserviens*, ut equus militi. Quod autem dicitur, quod datum est in potestate accipientis, verum est de datione tertio modo dicta, non primo et secundo, quia illi sunt duo modi habendi, in quibus habens habetur. Unde homo habetur a gratia et habetur a Dono, quo fruitur.

*Ad 4.* Ex hoc patet ultimum: quia illud verum est de eo quod datur ut possessio limitata; sed de eo quod datur ut finiens, non, quia tale simul potest dari multis et haberi a multis, quia ad idem tendunt: et ideo, cum datur, non transfertur.

english:
### Article II. *On the giving of the Holy Spirit.*
### Question I. *Whether the Holy Spirit is given in his proper person, or only in his effect.*

That He is given in his proper person is shown thus:

1. To the Romans, in the fifth [chapter][^1]: *The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who is given to us*; but nothing pours forth charity except the uncreated Spirit: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Augustine in the fifth [book] of *On the Trinity*[^2] says that the Holy Spirit is a gift, and is called a gift because He is given: therefore if He is personally a gift, He is personally given.

3. Likewise, this same is shown by reason. The Holy Spirit is love and the first love; but love is the first gift, in which all[^3] other gifts are given: therefore if the posterior is not to be posited without the prior, [it is] not [to be posited] that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are given, without the Holy Spirit Himself being given.

4. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is given for uniting[^4] and binding together the members of the mystical body; but the members of the mystical body are members united with each other, just as the Lord Himself asks, John seventeen[^5]: *That they be made perfect into one*; but perfect union is only in one simple [thing]: therefore the members are united through something which is one and the same in all; this however cannot be a created gift, but an uncreated [one]: therefore it is necessary that with the created gift the uncreated be given.

**On the contrary:**

1. Virtue[^6] is "the art of right living," and grace is "a gift sufficiently directing the soul to its end": therefore it seems that no gift other than the gift of created grace is needful for the soul: therefore if nothing superfluous[^7] is to be posited in the works of God, it is clear that it is not necessary that the Holy Spirit be given.

2. Likewise, when someone is sanctified through grace, there is nothing in him besides grace[^8] which was not [there] before: therefore since "to give" is to make that something be in him which was not [there] before, nothing is given except grace. If you say that the Holy Spirit is in him as holy [whereas] before [He was] as Spirit: therefore [to give the Holy Spirit] is nothing other than to make[^9] the Holy Spirit a sanctifying grace in him.

3. Likewise, what is given after the giving is in the power of the recipient; but the Holy Spirit cannot be reduced under the power of anyone[^10]: therefore He cannot be given.

4. Likewise, what is given to one differing essentially is either created anew, or multiplied, or its possession is transferred — as is clear when I give someone a cape; but the person of the Holy Spirit is neither created nor multiplied, nor is His possession transferred, since God always has the Holy Spirit: therefore the Holy Spirit is not given.

> **Conclusion.** *The Holy Spirit is given both in his proper person, and in the created gift, which is grace.*

**I respond:** It must be said that *to give* is for [the sake of] something to be had or possessed; but *to have* something or *to possess* [it] is, when something is in the faculty of the haver or possessor. But to be in the faculty of the haver or possessor is *to be ready for fruition or use*. But perfect possession is when a man has that which he can both use and enjoy[^11]. But to enjoy rightly is only of God, and to use rightly does not occur except through sanctifying grace:

therefore perfect possession is [that] in which God is had, and his grace. But a perfect gift is for [the sake of] perfect possession: therefore there is not "the best given thing and the perfect gift," unless the uncreated Gift, which is the Holy Spirit, be given, and the created gift, which is grace. It must therefore be conceded that both are given.

**Replies to the arguments:**

*To 1.* To that therefore which is objected concerning grace, that it is "the art of living well": the response is clear: although it is an art which we use, nevertheless it is not the possession by which we enjoy [it] as an object: and therefore it is not a perfect gift without that [other gift].

*To 2.* To that which is objected: there is no more in him than before; it must be said that *being given* is not ordered to being, but to having. For although the Holy Spirit was prior in the sinner, He was not however had by him, since the sinner did not have the faculty for fruition of Him.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that what is given is in the power of the recipient; it must be said that something is given to someone *as terminating* [his pursuit], like a reward to one who merits; something *as perfecting*, like grace to one who consents; something *as serving under*, like a horse to a soldier. But what is said — that what is given is in the power of the recipient — is true of giving said in the third mode, not [in] the first and second, since those are two modes of having in which the haver is had. Whence a man is had by grace and is had by the Gift, by which he enjoys.

*To 4.* From this the last [objection] is clear: since that [point] is true of what is given as a limited possession; but not of what is given as terminating, since such a [thing] can be given simultaneously to many and had by many, since they tend to the same [end]: and therefore, when it is given, it is not transferred.

la: Vers. 5.

en: Verse 5.

la: Cap. 15. n. 16: *Spiritus sanctus eo quo datur, habet non tantum ut donum sit, sed omnino ut sit*. Cfr. etiam infra d. XVIII. lit. Magistri. — Mox post *ergo si* cod. bb *personae haec* loco *personaliter*.

en: Chapter 15, n. 16: "The Holy Spirit, by the very fact that He is given, has not only that He be a gift, but altogether that He be." Cf. also below d. XVIII, the Master's text. — Soon after *ergo si*, codex bb [reads] *personae haec* in place of *personaliter*.

la: Fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus hic *omnia* et paulo post *ponere*. Circa finem argumenti ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 loco *proprie* substituimus *ipse*. Plura de hoc argumento vide infra d. 18. q. 1.

en: On the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have here supplied *omnia* and a little later *ponere*. Toward the end of the argument, from the older manuscripts and ed. 1, in place of *proprie* we have substituted *ipse*. For more on this argument see below d. 18. q. 1.

la: Codd. L O *vivificandum* pro *uniendum*.

en: Codices L and O [read] *vivificandum* in place of *uniendum*.

la: Vers. 23.

en: Verse 23.

la: Ita recte omnes codd. cum ed. 1, dum Vat. habet *Gratia*.

en: Thus rightly all the codices [read], with ed. 1, while the Vatican [edition] has *Gratia*.

la: Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 11. (c. 1.): *Deus autem et natura nihil frustra faciunt*.

en: Aristotle, *On the Heaven* I, text 11 (c. 1): "But God and nature do nothing in vain."

la: Sequimur cod. T ponendo *praeter gratiam* loco *nisi gratia*, quod multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 male omittunt.

en: We follow codex T, putting *praeter gratiam* in place of *nisi gratia*, which many codices, together with editions 1, 2, 3, wrongly omit.

la: Sequimur plures codd., licet aliqui ut A S T V etc. minus bene *facientem*; Vat. *Spiritus sanctus faciens*.

en: We follow several codices, although some — such as A S T V etc. — less well [read] *facientem*; the Vatican [edition] [reads] *Spiritus sanctus faciens*.

la: Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 restituimus *nullius* pro *nulla*. Mox cod. bb *nec* loco *non*.

en: From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have restored *nullius* in place of *nulla*. Soon after, codex bb [reads] *nec* in place of *non*.

la: Praeter fidem vetustiorum mss. et ed. 1 minus bene Vat. bis *posset* loco *possit*. Mox cod. K *alio quam* et cod. T *in alio a* pro *primo nisi*.

en: Contrary to the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, the Vatican [edition], less well, [reads] twice *posset* in place of *possit*. Soon after, codex K [reads] *alio quam* and codex T [reads] *in alio a* for the first *nisi*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Mira brevitate et claritate haec quaestio sex propositionibus solvitur et probatur. — In quarta propositione dicitur: «Recte uti non contingit nisi per gratiam»; hic vocabulum *recte* significat *meritorie*. Non enim negat S. Doctor, quod etiam peccator aliqua re possit recte uti, i. e. honesto modo, immo contrarium asserit *II. Sent.* d. 28. a. 2. q. 3.

**II.** In solutione ad 2. recte dicitur, quod «licet Spiritus sanctus esset prius in peccatore, non tamen habebatur ab eo». Solummodo enim per caritatem creatura intellectualis et habetur speciali modo a Spiritu sancto et habet ipsum ad fruendum. Hoc explicat Richard. a Med. (hic a. 2. q. 1.) hac similitudine: «Si homo pauper haberet alicuius divitis pecuniam in sua domo, non propter hoc diceremus, quod haberet illam pecuniam sicut rem suam. Unde non obstante, quod illa pecunia praesens erat in domo pauperis, posset sibi dari de novo a divite; quo facto non tantummodo haberet eam per solam pecuniae praesentiam in domo, sed haberet eam sicut rem suam. A simili aliqualiter dico, quod quamvis Spiritus sanctus sit per essentiam praesens omni rei, quia tamen peccator non habet facultatem ad fruendum eo, ideo, non obstante illa praesentia, potest a Deo vere dari persona Spiritus sancti etc.» — Attentione digna est etiam doctrina in solut. ad 3, qua declaratur, nec donum increatum ullatenus transferri in potestatem accipientis ut aliquid ipsi subiectum, nec ipsam animam corpori datam per hoc proprie subiici eiusdem potestati.

**III.** Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 73. m. 1. a. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; S. I. q. 42. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 13; et d. 15. a. 2. ad 1; de hac et seq. q. 5. p. I. tr. 7. q. 32. m. 1. q. 1. et 2. incidens. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 5. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 1. — Durand., hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic quaestiunc. 2. — Biel, hic l. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** With wonderful brevity and clarity this question is resolved and proved by six propositions. — In the fourth proposition it is said: "To use rightly does not happen except through grace"; here the word *recte* signifies *meritoriously*. For the holy Doctor does not deny that even a sinner can rightly use something, that is, in an honorable way; indeed he asserts the contrary [in] *II Sent.* d. 28. a. 2. q. 3.

**II.** In the solution to [obj.] 2 it is rightly said that "although the Holy Spirit was prior in the sinner, nevertheless He was not had by him." For only through charity is the intellectual creature both had in a special way by the Holy Spirit and has Him for fruition. Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 2. q. 1.) explains this with the following similitude: "If a poor man had the money of some rich man in his house, we would not say on this account that he had that money as his own. Whence, notwithstanding that the money was present in the poor man's house, it could be given to him anew by the rich man; which done, he would not only have it through the mere presence of the money in the house, but he would have it as his own. By a similar [argument], in some way I say that, although the Holy Spirit is by essence present to every thing, since nevertheless the sinner does not have the faculty for fruition of Him, therefore, notwithstanding that presence, the person of the Holy Spirit can be truly given by God, etc." — Worthy of attention also is the doctrine in the solution to [obj.] 3, by which it is declared that neither is the uncreated Gift in any way transferred into the power of the recipient as something subjected to him, nor is the soul itself, given to the body, through this properly subjected to the body's power.

**III.** Cf. Alex. of Hales, *Summa* p. I. q. 73. m. 1. a. 1. — S. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1; *Summa* I. q. 42. a. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 13; and d. 15. a. 2. ad 1; on this and the following question q. 5. p. I. tr. 7. q. 32. m. 1. q. 1. and 2. *incidens*. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 5. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here lect. 2. princ. q. 1. — Durand[us], here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here *quaestiuncula* 2. — Biel, here lect. 2.

---