title: Dist. 15, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 264 -->

### QUAESTIO IV.

*Utrum missio, active accepta, sit totius Trinitatis.*

Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, cuius sit missio ut mittentis. Et quod sit totius Trinitatis, ostenditur sic.

1. Missio idem est quod temporalis donatio; sed temporaliter dare convenit toti Trinitati, quia tota Trinitas dat Spiritum sanctum, ut dicit Augustinus[^1]: ergo etc.

2. Item, Augustinus secundo de Trinitate[^2]: «Mitti a Patre Filius sine Spiritu sancto non potuit», ergo missio Filii convenit Spiritui sancto: ergo eadem ratione missio sui. Si dicas, sicut dicunt quidam, quod illud intelligitur de missione secundum humanam naturam, qua missus est ad praedicandum, secundum illud Isaiae sexagesimo primo[^3]: *Ad annuntiandum mansuetis misit me*; non autem de missione secundum divinam naturam; *contra*: missio secundum divinam naturam est missio in mentem, vel in carnem; sed Augustinus intelligit de missione in carnem, unde statim subditur: «Quia Pater intelligitur eum misisse, cum fecit ex femina»: ergo constat, quod loquitur de missione secundum divinam naturam.

3. Item, Magister[^4] facit tale argumentum: si Pater potest dare vel mittere Spiritum sanctum, et Spiritus sanctus non potest, ergo aliquid potest Pater, quod non potest Spiritus sanctus. Item si Pater dat et mittit Spiritum sanctum, et hoc non facit Spiritus sanctus, aliquid facit Pater, quod non facit Spiritus sanctus: ergo divisa sunt opera Trinitatis.

**Contra:**

1. *Datum* dicitur relative ad *dantem*, sicut dicit Augustinus quinto de Trinitate[^5]: ergo Spiritus sanctus non datur nisi ab his, ad quos relative dicitur; sed non dicitur relative ad se: ergo non dat se, ergo nec mittit se.

2. Item, sicut Pater est prima persona in Trinitate, ante quam non est alia, ita Spiritus sanctus, post quam[^6] non est alia; sed Pater, quia non habet personam, ex qua sit, nullo modo dicitur missus: ergo cum Spiritus sanctus non habeat personam ex se emanantem, nullo modo dicitur mittere.

3. Item, ubicumque est missio passiva, ibi est subauctoritas respectu alicuius principii in misso, sicut dicitur ab Augustino et Magistro[^7]: ergo ubi est missio activa, ibi notatur auctoritas respectu personae; sed Spiritus sanctus non habet auctoritatem respectu sui nec alterius personae: ergo etc.

4. Item, ubicumque est missio, ibi vere notatur distinctio, sicut in creaturis separatio; sed persona Spiritus sancti non distinguitur a se: ergo a se non mittitur nec Filium mittit, cum non habeat auctoritatem in ipsum: ergo non mittit.

5. Item, omnis actus, secundum quem persona reflectitur super se, est essentialis et essentialiter dictus; si ergo Filius mittit se, vel Spiritus sanctus[^8] se: ergo *mittere* vel *mitti* essentialiter dicitur; sed omnis talis actus dicitur de tribus; ergo Pater mittit se.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Impropria est locutio, quod sive Pater sive Trinitas mittat se; omnino propria, quod persona producens mittat productam; denique minus propria, sed tamen sustinenda, quod personae procedentes mittant se.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in hac quaestione sapientes opinantur contrarie sapientibus. Nam Magister dicit expresse et nititur probare auctoritate et ratione, quod Spiritus sanctus mittit se et dat se[^9]; nec oportet secundum ipsum, quod inter mittentem et missum cadat personalis distinctio, sed solum quantum ad rationem intelligendi, ut idem[^10] ipse sit mittens in quantum Deus, et idem ipse sit missus in quantum donum.

<!-- page 265 -->

Aliorum magistrorum et antiquorum fuit positio, quod *mittere* et *mitti* de ratione sui nominis important subauctoritatem et auctoritatem[^11] et distinctionem; et ideo nullo modo potest dici, quod una persona mittat se vel mittatur a se. Unde locutiones istae sunt impropriae et exponendae, quae hoc dicere videntur. Et positionem suam confirmant per Augustinum[^12], qui dicit, quod Pater nullo modo mittitur nec legitur missus: hoc non est ob aliud, nisi quia hoc quod est *missus* importat subauctoritatem: ergo per oppositum *mittere* importat auctoritatem, et una persona non habet auctoritatem super se. Et respondent rationibus Magistri, quod non est simile de hoc quod est *dare* et de hoc quod est *mittere*. Quia *dare* uno modo est ex liberalitate sive amore communicare; et sic est essentiale omnino et nullam connotat distinctionem, et sic conceditur, quod tota Trinitas dat se ipsam, et Pater similiter. Alio modo dare est alicui donum communicare, non tantum ex liberalitate, sed etiam ex auctoritate; et sic dare dicit notionem sive tenetur notionaliter, et hoc modo non valent illae rationes: si Pater dat Spiritum sanctum, et Spiritus sanctus non dat se: ergo aliquid facit Pater, quod non[^13] Spiritus sanctus; quia dicit notionem, et in hoc sensu aequipollet ei quod est *mittere*, et similiter donatio passiva ei quod est *procedere*. — Similiter ad simile, quod inducit Magister de Filio, dicunt, quod non est simile, quia in Filio duplex est natura, scilicet divina et humana; et quantum ad humanam potest mitti et mittitur a tota Trinitate, quia minor est Deo et inferior, et non tantum subauctoritatem habet, sed etiam servitutem, quia est servus Dei, quamvis per unionem sit Deus. Quantum ad divinam autem mittitur a solo Patre, quia a solo Patre producitur. Quia ergo Spiritus sanctus producitur et a Patre et a Filio, et non a se ipso, hinc est, quod non mittitur nisi a Patre et a Filio. Et propter hoc rationes Magistri non valent, quia omnes auctoritates, quae dicunt, Filium mitti a Spiritu sancto vel a se, secundum humanam naturam intelliguntur.

Sed licet haec positio rationabilior videatur et facilior ad sustinendum, tamen — quia non debemus auctoritates Sanctorum trahere ad nostram rationem, sed magis e converso rationem nostram auctoritatibus Sanctorum subiicere, ubi non continent expressam absurditatem; et Sancti dicunt, et Magister dicit, et maxime Augustinus, qui plus super hac materia locutus est, Filium mitti a Spiritu sancto et etiam[^14] a se, quod non possunt exponere secundum humanam naturam — ideo alia positio tum ob reverentiam Sanctorum, tum ob reverentiam Magistri videtur magis esse tenenda. Illud enim[^15] verbum Augustini, quod dicit, quod Filius est missus in carnem a Spiritu sancto, secundum humanam naturam nullo modo potest intelligi, ut videtur, quia missio haec fuit ad humanitatis sive carnis assumtionem: ergo secundum rationem intelligendi praecedit humanam naturam ut iam unitam: ergo si Filius hoc modo dicitur missus, oportet quod attribuatur divinae naturae, et ita ratione divinae naturae missus est a Spiritu sancto; multo fortius igitur et[^16] a se, ac per hoc et Spiritus sanctus a se.

Et propterea ad intelligentiam obiectorum in contrarium notandum est, quod missio de se duo importat, scilicet emanationem et manifestationem, et principaliter[^17] de ratione suae significationis importat manifestationem. Et hoc patet per Augustinum in quarto de Trinitate, qui dicit, quod *mitti* est *cognosci esse ab alio*, et habetur in praesenti distinctione[^18], quod «tunc Filius mittitur, cum ex tempore cuiusquam mente percipitur». Quia ergo principaliter importat manifestationem et connotat in misso emanationem, ideo manifestatio significatur per hoc quod est *mittere* per modum actionis, et per hoc quod est *mitti* per modum passionis, sed emanatio utrobique uniformiter. Unde sensus est: *Pater mittit Filium*, id est, declarat sive manifestat Filii emanationem, sive Filium emanare. In passiva vero sensus est: *Filius sive Spiritus sanctus mittitur*, id est, manifestatur ab alio emanare.

Et quoniam ablativus respectu passivi, et nominativus respectu verbi[^19] activi important rationem principii, et significatio huius verbi *mittere* et *mitti* est manifestatio et emanatio; ideo illa est propriissima, quando ablativus vel nominativus importat habitudinem principii respectu utriusque, ut cum dicitur: *Pater mittit Filium*, et *Filius mittitur a Patre*, quia Filius emanat a Patre et manifestatur a Patre.

Quia vero principale significatum horum verborum est manifestatio, non emanatio, quando[^20] nominativus vel ablativus est principium manifestationis, quamvis non emanationis, propria est, sed minus quam praedicta; et in hoc sensu conceduntur

<!-- page 266 -->

istae: *Filius mittit se*, et *Spiritus sanctus mittit se*.

Quia vero tam *mittere* quam *mitti* important emanationem circa missum, et persona Patris non emanat ab aliquo, similiter nec Trinitas: ideo persona Patris nusquam legitur missa nec ipsa Trinitas.

Ex hoc patet, quod haec est simpliciter et omnino propria: *Pater mittit Filium*; haec est minus propria, tamen a proprietate non recedit: *Filius mittit se*; haec autem omnino impropria: *Pater mittit se sive ipsa Trinitas*[^21].

**1.** Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium de *dato*, quod dicitur relative; dicendum, quod verum est, secundum quod *dare* dicit per quandam auctoritatem communicare; hoc modo non accipit Magister, sed in quantum *dare* idem est quod liberaliter et voluntarie communicare.

**2.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Pater non mittitur, quia non est[^22] ab alio; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia tam *mittere* quam *mitti* important emanationem in misso, ut patet exponenti. Sensus enim est: *haec persona mittit illam*, id est, manifestat eius emanationem; et: *haec mittitur ab illa*, id est, eius emanatio manifestatur ab illa. Sed haec emanatio non semper importatur respectu[^23] omnis personae mittentis, quia ab aliquo potest esse manifestatio emanationis, a quo tamen non est ipsa emanatio; et ideo sic non ponitur productio in mittente, sicut emanatio in misso; et ideo non sequitur, quod si Pater non mittitur, quod Spiritus sanctus non mittat[^24].

**3.** Ad illud quod obiicitur: ubi est missio passiva, ibi est subauctoritas; dicendum, quod verum est, non ratione, qua passivum, sed ea ratione, qua tam passivum quam activum notat emanationem in misso, sicut patuit in expositione[^25]. Et quia emanatio non semper est respectu mittentis, ideo non oportet, quod semper importetur auctoritas in mittente; sed ratio ista valeret bene, si ita esset, ut principale significatum eius quod est *missio* esset emanatio sive productio.

**4.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *mittere* importat distinctionem; dicendum, quod *mittere* uno modo importat differentiam substantialem, ut cum importat dominium, ut cum dicitur: *Deus mittit Angelum*; alio modo distinctionem personalem, ut cum importat auctoritatem in mittente et subauctoritatem in misso respectu mittentis, ut cum dicitur: *Pater mittit Filium*. Tertio modo importat distinctionem solum quantum ad modum intelligendi; sicut cum dicitur: *voluntas est instrumentum se ipsum movens* — quia idem est movens et motum — sic[^26], cum dicitur: *Spiritus sanctus mittit se*, idem est mittens et missum, ratione differens: mittens, inquam, secundum quod Deus, sed missum secundum quod donum, sicut praedictum est[^27].

**5.** Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo de reflexione actus, dicendum, quod verum est quoad principale significatum, sed non oportet quantum ad connotatum; et ratione principalis significati est reflexio personae mittentis supra se, ut dicatur: *mittens est missus*.

english:
<!-- page 264 -->

### QUESTION IV.

*Whether mission, taken actively, belongs to the whole Trinity.*

Fourth and last it is asked of whom mission belongs as the one sending. And that it belongs to the whole Trinity is shown thus.

1. Mission is the same as temporal donation; but to give temporally belongs to the whole Trinity, since the whole Trinity gives the Holy Spirit, as Augustine says[^1]: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Augustine, *On the Trinity* II[^2]: «The Son could not be sent by the Father without the Holy Spirit»; therefore the mission of the Son belongs to the Holy Spirit: therefore by the same reason [also] the mission of himself. If you say, as some do, that this is to be understood of mission according to human nature — by which he was sent to preach, according to Isaiah 61[^3]: *He sent me to announce to the meek*; and not of mission according to divine nature; *on the contrary*: mission according to divine nature is mission into the mind, or into the flesh; but Augustine understands of mission into the flesh, whence immediately is added: «Because the Father is understood to have sent him when he made [him] from a woman»: therefore it is plain that he is speaking of mission according to divine nature.

3. Likewise, the Master[^4] makes such an argument: if the Father can give or send the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit cannot, then the Father can do something which the Holy Spirit cannot. Likewise if the Father gives and sends the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit does not do this, then the Father does something which the Holy Spirit does not: therefore the works of the Trinity are divided.

**On the contrary:**

1. *Given* is said relatively to *the giver*, as Augustine says in *On the Trinity* V[^5]: therefore the Holy Spirit is not given except by those to whom he is said relatively; but he is not said relatively to himself: therefore he does not give himself, therefore he does not send himself.

2. Likewise, just as the Father is the first person in the Trinity, before whom there is no other, so the Holy Spirit, after whom[^6] there is no other; but the Father, because he has no person from which he is, is in no way said to be sent: therefore since the Holy Spirit has no person emanating from himself, he is in no way said to send.

3. Likewise, wherever there is passive mission, there is *subauthority* with respect to some principle in the one sent, as is said by Augustine and the Master[^7]: therefore where there is active mission, there authority is noted with respect to a person; but the Holy Spirit has no authority with respect to himself nor to any other person: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, wherever there is mission, there distinction is truly noted, just as separation [is noted] in creatures; but the person of the Holy Spirit is not distinguished from himself: therefore he is not sent by himself, nor does he send the Son, since he has no authority over him: therefore he does not send.

5. Likewise, every act according to which a person is reflected upon himself is essential and essentially predicated; if therefore the Son sends himself, or the Holy Spirit[^8] himself: therefore *to send* or *to be sent* is said essentially; but every such act is said of the three; therefore the Father sends himself.

### CONCLUSION.

> The expression that the Father, or the Trinity, sends himself is improper; that the producing person sends the produced is wholly proper; and finally that the proceeding persons send themselves is less proper, but still to be sustained.

**I respond:** It must be said that on this question wise men hold opposing views to wise men. For the Master says expressly, and tries to prove by authority and reason, that the Holy Spirit sends himself and gives himself[^9]; nor is it necessary, according to him, that personal distinction should fall between the one sending and the one sent, but only [a distinction] with respect to the manner of understanding — so that the same one[^10] is the sender insofar as he is God, and the same one is the one sent insofar as he is gift.

<!-- page 265 -->

The position of other and older masters was that *to send* and *to be sent* import, by the very meaning of their name, *subauthority* and authority[^11] and distinction; and therefore it can in no way be said that one person sends himself or is sent by himself. Whence those expressions which seem to say this are improper and to be expounded otherwise. And they confirm their position from Augustine[^12], who says that the Father is in no way sent, nor is read to have been sent: this is for no other reason than that *to be sent* imports *subauthority*: therefore conversely *to send* imports authority, and one person does not have authority over himself. And they reply to the Master's reasonings that *to give* and *to send* are not alike. For *to give* in one mode is to communicate from liberality or love; and so it is wholly essential and connotes no distinction, and so it is granted that the whole Trinity gives itself, and the Father likewise. In another mode, *to give* is to communicate a gift to someone, not only from liberality, but also from authority; and so *to give* asserts a notion or is held notionally, and in this mode those reasonings do not hold: if the Father gives the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit does not give himself, then the Father does something which the Holy Spirit does not[^13]; for it asserts a notion, and in this sense it is equivalent to *to send*, and similarly passive donation is equivalent to *to proceed*. — Similarly, to the parallel which the Master draws regarding the Son, they say that it is not parallel, because in the Son there is a twofold nature — namely, divine and human — and with respect to the human nature he can be sent and is sent by the whole Trinity, since he is less than God and inferior, and has not only *subauthority* but also servitude, since he is the servant of God, although by union he is God. With respect to the divine nature, however, he is sent only by the Father, because he is produced only by the Father. Therefore since the Holy Spirit is produced both by the Father and by the Son, and not by himself, hence it is that he is sent only by the Father and the Son. And on this account the Master's reasonings do not hold, for all the authorities which say that the Son is sent by the Holy Spirit or by himself are understood according to human nature.

But although this position seems more reasonable and easier to sustain, nevertheless — because we ought not to drag the authorities of the saints into our reasoning, but rather conversely to subject our reasoning to the authorities of the saints, where they do not contain manifest absurdity; and the saints say, and the Master says, and especially Augustine — who has spoken most on this matter — that the Son is sent by the Holy Spirit and even[^14] by himself, which they cannot expound according to human nature — therefore the other position, both out of reverence for the saints and out of reverence for the Master, seems rather to be held. For[^15] that statement of Augustine — who says that the Son is sent into the flesh by the Holy Spirit — cannot in any way, as it seems, be understood according to human nature, because this mission was *for the assumption of humanity* or of flesh: therefore according to the manner of understanding it precedes human nature as already united: therefore if the Son is said to be sent in this mode, he must be attributed to the divine nature, and so by reason of the divine nature he is sent by the Holy Spirit; much more strongly therefore also[^16] by himself, and by this also the Holy Spirit by himself.

And accordingly, for the understanding of the objections to the contrary, it must be noted that mission of itself imports two things — namely, emanation and manifestation — and principally[^17], by the nature of its signification, it imports manifestation. And this is plain through Augustine in *On the Trinity* IV, who says that *to be sent* is *to be known to be from another*, and it is held in the present distinction[^18] that «then the Son is sent when from time he is perceived in someone's mind». Therefore, since it principally imports manifestation and connotes in the one sent emanation, manifestation is signified through *to send* by the mode of action, and through *to be sent* by the mode of passion, but emanation in both uniformly. Whence the sense is: *the Father sends the Son* — that is, declares or manifests the emanation of the Son, or [manifests] the Son to be emanating. In the passive, the sense is: *the Son or the Holy Spirit is sent* — that is, is manifested as emanating from another.

And since the ablative with respect to the passive, and the nominative with respect to the active verb[^19], import the character of *principle*, and the signification of this verb *to send* and *to be sent* is *manifestation* and *emanation*, therefore that [expression] is most proper when the ablative or nominative imports the relation of principle with respect to both — as when it is said: *the Father sends the Son*, and *the Son is sent by the Father*, since the Son emanates from the Father and is manifested by the Father.

But because the principal signification of these verbs is *manifestation*, not *emanation*, when[^20] the nominative or ablative is the principle of manifestation, although not of emanation, [the expression] is proper, but less so than the foregoing; and in this sense the following are conceded:

<!-- page 266 -->

*The Son sends himself*, and *the Holy Spirit sends himself*.

But because both *to send* and *to be sent* import emanation regarding the one sent, and the person of the Father does not emanate from anyone, similarly neither does the Trinity: therefore the person of the Father is nowhere read to have been sent, nor is the Trinity itself.

From this it is plain that this is simply and wholly proper: *the Father sends the Son*; this is less proper, yet does not depart from propriety: *the Son sends himself*; but this is wholly improper: *the Father sends himself, or the Trinity itself*[^21].

**1.** To what is objected to the contrary about *given*, that it is said relatively; it must be said that this is true insofar as *to give* asserts to communicate by a certain authority; the Master does not take it in this mode, but insofar as *to give* is the same as to communicate liberally and voluntarily.

**2.** To what is objected — that the Father is not sent because he is not[^22] from another — it must be said that it is not parallel, since both *to send* and *to be sent* import emanation in the one sent, as is plain to one who expounds. For the sense is: *this person sends that one* — that is, manifests his emanation; and: *this one is sent by that one* — that is, his emanation is manifested by that one. But this emanation is not always imported with respect[^23] to every person sending, since manifestation of emanation can be from someone from whom nevertheless the emanation itself is not; and therefore production is not posited in the one sending in the same way as emanation [is posited] in the one sent; and therefore it does not follow that, if the Father is not sent, the Holy Spirit does not send[^24].

**3.** To what is objected — where there is passive mission, there is *subauthority* — it must be said that this is true, not by reason that it is passive, but by that reason by which both passive and active note emanation in the one sent, as appeared in the exposition[^25]. And because emanation is not always with respect to the one sending, therefore it is not necessary that authority always be imported in the one sending; but that reasoning would hold well, if it were the case that the principal signification of *mission* were emanation or production.

**4.** To what is objected — that *to send* imports distinction — it must be said that *to send* in one mode imports substantial difference, as when it imports lordship, as when it is said: *God sends an angel*; in another mode personal distinction, as when it imports authority in the one sending and *subauthority* in the one sent with respect to the one sending, as when it is said: *the Father sends the Son*. In the third mode it imports distinction only as far as the manner of understanding — just as when it is said: *the will is an instrument moving itself* — since the same is mover and moved — so[^26], when it is said: *the Holy Spirit sends himself*, the same is the one sending and the one sent, differing in account: the one sending, I say, insofar as he is God, but the one sent insofar as he is gift, as has been said before[^27].

**5.** To what is objected last about the reflection of the act, it must be said that it is true with respect to the principal signification, but not necessarily with respect to what is connoted; and by reason of the principal signification there is reflection of the person sending upon himself, so that it may be said: *the one sending is the one sent*.

la: Libr. XV. de Trin. c. 19. n. 36; vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Book XV of *On the Trinity*, c. 19, n. 36; see here the *Letter of the Master*, c. 1.

en: Chap. 5, n. 8 [of *De Trinitate* II].

la: Vers. 1.

la: Hic, c. 4. — Argumentum hoc Vat. cum cod. cc, sed contra ceteros codd. et ed. 1 nec non lit. Magistri, corrupte exhibet omittendo verba *et Spiritus sanctus* usque *et hoc non facit*.

en: Here, c. 4 [of the Master's letter]. — This argument the Vatican edition with codex *cc*, but against the other codices and ed. 1 as well as the *Letter of the Master*, displays corruptly, omitting the words *et Spiritus sanctus* down to *et hoc non facit*.

la: Cap. 14. n. 15: *Quod autem datum est, et ad eum qui dedit refertur* etc. Vide infra d. XVIII. lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: Chap. 14, n. 15 [of *De Trinitate* V]: *But what is given is referred also to him who has given it*, etc. See below d. 18, *Letter of the Master*, c. 4.

la: Subaudi: *personam*. Ex mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *quam* loco *quem*, quod Vat. minus bene habet.

en: Understand: *person*. From the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted *quam* (referring to *personam*) for *quem*, which the Vatican edition reads less well.

la: Hic, c. 9, ubi et verba Augustini reperies. — Paulo infra post *personae* in cod. O explicative additur *missae*.

en: Here, c. 9 [of the Master's letter], where you will also find Augustine's words. — A little further on, after *personae*, codex O adds *missae* by way of explanation.

la: Cod. I hic repetit *mittit*.

en: Codex I here repeats *mittit*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc *mittat se et det se*.

en: The Vatican edition with codex *cc* reads *mittat se et det se*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc minus bene et contra alios codd. ac ed. 1 omittit *idem*.

en: The Vatican edition with codex *cc* less well, and against the other codices and ed. 1, omits *idem*.

la: Ed. 1, transpositis verbis, *auctoritatem et subauctoritatem*.

en: Ed. 1, with the words transposed, reads *auctoritatem et subauctoritatem*.

la: Libr. II. de Trin. c. 5. n. 8. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Book II of *On the Trinity*, c. 5, n. 8. See here the *Letter of the Master*, c. 2.

la: In cod. T hic repetitur *facit*. Mox post *mittere* adiecimus ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 particulam *et*.

en: In codex T *facit* is here repeated. Soon after *mittere* we have added the particle *et* from the older manuscripts and ed. 1.

la: In Vat. et cod. cc perperam deest *etiam*, quod tamen in aliis codd. et ed. 1 habetur. Paulo ante ed. 1 *hanc materiam* pro *hac materia*.

en: In the Vatican edition and codex *cc* *etiam* is wrongly absent, which is nevertheless held by the other codices and ed. 1. A little before, ed. 1 reads *hanc materiam* for *hac materia*.

la: In cod. T pro particula *enim* a secunda manu positum est *tamen*.

en: In codex T, in place of the particle *enim*, *tamen* has been put by a second hand.

la: Ex multis mss. ut A G I K P Q T V X Y aa ee ff et ed. 1 adiunximus non bene omissum *et*.

en: From many manuscripts (A, G, I, K, P, Q, T, V, X, Y, aa, ee, ff) and ed. 1 we have added *et*, which had been wrongly omitted.

la: Cod. Y *principalius*.

en: Codex Y reads *principalius*.

la: Cap. 7-9. — Mox fide vetustiorum mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *quod* pro *quia*.

en: Chaps. 7–9 [of the Master's letter on this distinction]. — Soon after, on the testimony of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted *quod* for *quia*.

la: Vat., antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 obnitentibus, omittit *verbi*, quod et ed. 1 paulo ante voci *passivi* praefigit. Paulo infra cod. O *ista locutio* loco *illa*.

en: The Vatican edition, with the older manuscripts and ed. 1 against it, omits *verbi*, which ed. 1 also a little before prefixes to the word *passivi*. A little further on, codex O reads *ista locutio* in place of *illa*.

la: Vat. cum aliquibus codd. perperam *quoniam* loco *quando*. Paulo infra post *minus* ex aliquibus tantum codd. ut G H Z et ed. 1 adiecimus *quam* ambiguitatis tollendae gratia.

en: The Vatican edition with some codices wrongly reads *quoniam* in place of *quando*. A little further on, after *minus*, from a few codices only (G, H, Z) and ed. 1, we have added *quam* for the sake of removing ambiguity.

la: Vat. ultimas propositiones corrupte et praeter fidem mss. ita exhibet: *patet, quod haec est simpliciter et omnino impropria: Pater mittit se sive ipsa Trinitas: quia receditur a proprietate personarum et Trinitatis. Illa vero est simpliciter et omnino propria: Pater mittit Filium, cum a nullius proprietate recedatur.* Ed. 1 in eo a codd. discordat, quod post *Filium* ita prosequitur: *et ista similiter: Pater et Filius mittunt Spiritum sanctum; et haec est minus propria: Filius vel Spiritus sanctus mittit se, vel Spiritus sanctus mittit Filium; haec autem omnino impropria* etc.

en: The Vatican edition displays the final propositions corruptly and against the testimony of the manuscripts thus: *it is plain that this is simply and wholly improper: the Father sends himself, or the Trinity itself: because there is a departure from the property of the persons and of the Trinity. That, however, is simply and wholly proper: the Father sends the Son, since there is no departure from anyone's property.* Ed. 1 differs from the codices in this, that after *Filium* it continues thus: *and this likewise: the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit; and this is less proper: the Son or the Holy Spirit sends himself, or the Holy Spirit sends the Son; but this is wholly improper*, etc.

la: Multis mss. ut A G H I K N T V X Y Z aa ee ff et ed. 1 postulantibus, adiunximus *est*.

en: With many manuscripts demanding it (A, G, H, I, K, N, T, V, X, Y, Z, aa, ee, ff) and ed. 1, we have added *est*.

la: Vat. contra fere omnes codd. et ed. 1 *non ita distincte importat respectum*. Paulo infra post *manifestatio* loco *emanationis* plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 ponunt *missionis*, quod tamen contextui minus respondet.

en: The Vatican edition, against nearly all the codices and ed. 1, reads *non ita distincte importat respectum* ("it does not so distinctly import a respect"). A little further on, after *manifestatio*, in place of *emanationis*, most codices with editions 1, 2, 3 put *missionis*, which, however, corresponds less to the context.

la: Vat. cum ed. 1 et uno alterove codice *mittatur*, sed male, utpote non correspondens obiectioni.

en: The Vatican edition with ed. 1 and one or another codex reads *mittatur*, but wrongly, since it does not correspond to the objection.

la: Hic circa finem responsionis.

en: Here, near the end of the response.

la: Praeferimus lectionem nonnullorum mss. ut R T X Y et ed. 1 pro *similiter* ponendo *sic*, loco cuius multi codd. ut A C F G H I K L O S U W Z etc. minus apte habent *sicut*.

en: We prefer the reading of certain manuscripts (R, T, X, Y) and ed. 1 in putting *sic* in place of *similiter*; where many codices (A, C, F, G, H, I, K, L, O, S, U, W, Z, etc.) less aptly have *sicut*.

la: Hic, in corp.

en: Here, in the corpus [of the response].

latin_scholion:
**I.** Secunda opinio in corp. recensita est Gulielmi Antissiodorensis. Solutio huius quaestionis, ut bene observat S. Doctor (hic ad 3.), dependet a solutione alterius quaestionis (supra q. 1. in Scholio), scilicet quid sit principale significatum missionis divinae, utrum processio, an processionis manifestatio. Haec enim manifestatio est actio tribus personis communis, et si hoc, tunc consequenter *mittere* secundum principale significatum est aliquid essentiale, non notionale, sicut e contra est *mitti*. Ex his principiis sequuntur alia corollaria.

**II.** Notabile est principium Seraphici in corp. expressum, quod tanquam inviolabilem regulam semper observat, scilicet: «Non debemus auctoritates Sanctorum ad nostram trahere rationem, sed magis e converso rationem nostram auctoritatibus Sanctorum subiicere, ubi non continent expressam absurditatem».

**III.** S. Thomas et in Comment. et in Summa concordat; item Petr. a Tar. «etiam in verbis», ut dicit Dionys. Carth. Ceteri magistri saltem in principali conclusione consentiunt; tamen Aegid. R. rationes S. Thomae impugnat. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 72. m. 1. a. 1. 2. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1. 2; S. I. q. 43. a. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. 9. 11. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1; q. 3. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The second opinion reviewed in the corpus is that of William of Auxerre. The solution of this question, as the Holy Doctor [Bonaventure] well observes (here, *ad* 3), depends on the solution of another question (above, q. 1, in the Scholion) — namely, what is the principal signification of divine mission, whether it is procession or the manifestation of procession. For this manifestation is an action common to the three persons; and if so, then consequently *to send* according to its principal signification is something essential, not notional, while conversely *to be sent* [is notional]. From these principles other corollaries follow.

**II.** Notable is the principle expressed by the Seraphic [Doctor] in the corpus, which he always observes as an inviolable rule — namely: «We ought not to drag the authorities of the saints to our reasoning, but rather conversely to subject our reasoning to the authorities of the saints, where they do not contain manifest absurdity».

**III.** St. Thomas concords both in the *Commentary* and in the *Summa*; likewise Peter of Tarentaise «even in his very words», as Dionysius the Carthusian says. The other masters consent at least in the principal conclusion; nevertheless Giles of Rome attacks St. Thomas's reasonings. — Alex. Hal., *Summa* p. I, q. 72, m. 1, a. 1, 2, 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 1, 2; *S.* I, q. 43, a. 8. — Bl. Albert, here a. 5, 9, 11. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1; q. 3, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 1, 2. — Giles of Rome, here, second principal q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1, 2.

---


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 15, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 270 -->

### ARTICULUS UNICUS.

*De missione invisibili tum Filii tum Spiritus sancti.*

### QUAESTIO I.

*Utrum missio invisibilis sit secundum dona gratiae gratis datae, vel gratum facientis.*

Circa primum, quod haec missio sit secundum dona gratiae gratis datae, ostenditur sic.

1. Rabanus[^1] dicit de Spiritu sancto, quod ter datus est Spiritus sanctus. Et primo dicit, ipsum esse datum ad miraculorum operationem; constat autem, quod miraculorum operatio est gratia gratis data: ergo etc.

2. Item, Spiritus sanctus datur, cum datur donum prophetiae. Unde primo Regum decimo[^2]: *Factus est spiritus Domini super Saul, et prophetabat*; sed donum prophetiae datur frequenter his qui non habent gratiam gratum facientem, sicut patet de Saul per textum: ergo etc.

3. Item, quod Filius mittatur secundum dona gratiae gratis datae, videtur. Tunc enim Filius dicitur mitti, quando fit revelatio occultorum; sed revelatio occultorum potest fieri sine dono gratiae gratum facientis: ergo etc.

4. Item, Augustinus dicit et habetur in praesenti distinctione[^3], quod «tunc Sapientia mittitur, cum a cuiusquam mente percipitur», sive cum alicui innotescit; si ergo percipitur et innotescit per dona gratiae gratis datae, ut per fidem informem: ergo videtur in illis dari: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. Augustinus[^4] dicit, quod tunc datur Spiritus sanctus alicui, cum sic datur, ut eum faciat Dei et proximi dilectorem, hoc est dicere, quando datur homini caritas; sed caritas non est nisi gratiae gratum facientis: ergo etc.

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur de Filio, quia dicitur Sapientiae septimo[^5]: *In animas sanctas se transfert, et amicos Dei constituit*; sed amici Dei non dicuntur sine gratia gratum faciente: ergo etc.

3. Item, ratione ostenditur sic[^6]: tunc datur vel mittitur Spiritus sanctus, quando habitat in homine; sed non dicitur habitare in homine sine gratia gratum faciente: ergo etc.

4. Item, cum mittitur Filius vel Spiritus sanctus ad aliquem, non mittitur, ut sit[^7] ubi prius non erat, sed ut sit in eo aliter quam prius; sed novus modus essendi, addens supra esse per naturam, non est nisi per gratiam gratum facientem: ergo etc.

### CONCLUSIO.

> In missione invisibili utraque persona non datur simpliciter, nisi dono gratiae gratum facientis, secundum quid vero datur etiam per gratiam gratis datam.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc distinguunt aliqui, quod Spiritum sanctum dari vel mitti invisibiliter, hoc[^8] potest esse vel in quantum *Spiritus*, vel in quantum *sanctus*. In quantum *Spiritus*, datur per donum gratiae gratis datae; in quantum *sanctus* vel[^9] sanctificans, datur per dona gratiae gratum facientis. Similiter Sapientia vel Filius potest mitti vel prout faciens *sapere*, et sic per dona gratiae gratis datae; vel prout *sapientia* dicta est a *sapore*, et sic per dona gratiae gratum facientis. Sed istud non videtur solvere, quia dantem oppositum istius solutionis est possibile adhuc solvere[^10] et quaerere de Spiritu et Verbo, quomodo dicatur dari et non inhabitare.

Propter hoc aliter dicendum tam de Filio quam de Spiritu sancto, quod[^11] dari vel mitti est dupliciter: vel simpliciter, vel ad hoc. Tunc datur simpliciter, quando simpliciter habetur, videlicet non tantum ad usum, sed ad fructum; hoc autem est solum per dona gratiae gratum facientis, et ideo solum in illa datur simpliciter vel Filius vel Spiritus sanctus. Alio modo dicitur dari ad hoc, quando non ad fructum, sed ad auxilium sive ad aliquem usum aliqua dona donantur; et hoc quidem[^12] cum dantur aliqua dona gratiae gratis datae, in quibus

<!-- page 271 -->

manifestatur Filius vel Spiritus sanctus; et sic procedunt rationes ad primam partem.

**1.** Nam[^13] sic intelligendum est verbum Rabani; ipse enim communiter loquitur de missione; unde dicit, Spiritum sanctum ter datum. Augustinus autem solum loquitur de datione vel missione, quae est ad inhabitandum vel simpliciter habendum.

**2.** Ad illud quod obiicitur de prophetia, dicendum, quod uno modo datur in ea Spiritus sanctus simpliciter, prout ipsa dicit cognitionem secundum idoneitatem suscipientis et secundum pietatem[^14] exsequentis. Alio modo, prout est revelatio[^15], non datur in ea Spiritus simpliciter sive non mittitur nisi ad hoc. Unde non dicitur in libro Regum, quod Spiritus sanctus sit missus ad Saul vel factus *in* Saul, sed *super* Saul.

**3.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod mittitur Filius, cum est revelatio occultorum; dicendum, quod hoc non est in quacumque revelatione; nam aliqua fit[^16] revelatio, non per missionem Filii, sed per missionem Angeli; — multa enim revelantur ab Angelis[^17]; — sed intelligitur de illa revelatione, in qua est animae illustratio per gratiam; et si per gratis datam, non simpliciter mittitur, sed si per gratum facientem, tunc simpliciter mittitur et habetur.

**4.** Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod tunc mittitur, quando percipitur; dicendum, quod non sufficit cognoscere Filium, quod sit ab alio, immo oportet, quod cognoscat, quod sit in ipso ut in suo habitaculo. Hoc autem dico non cognitione necessitatis, sed coniecturae[^18], nec de cognitione actuali, sed de habituali.

english:
<!-- page 270 -->

### THE SOLE ARTICLE.

*On the invisible mission, both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.*

### QUESTION I.

*Whether the invisible mission is according to the gifts of grace freely given, or of the grace that makes pleasing.*

Concerning the first [question] — that this mission is according to the gifts of grace freely given — it is shown thus.

1. Rabanus[^1] says of the Holy Spirit that the Holy Spirit was given three times. And first he says that he was given for the working of miracles; but it is plain that the working of miracles is grace freely given: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is given when the gift of prophecy is given. Whence 1 Kings 10[^2]: *The Spirit of the Lord came upon Saul, and he prophesied*; but the gift of prophecy is frequently given to those who do not have the grace that makes pleasing, as is plain in the case of Saul from the text: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, that the Son is sent according to the gifts of grace freely given seems [also clear]. For the Son is then said to be sent when revelation of hidden things occurs; but revelation of hidden things can take place without the gift of grace that makes pleasing: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, Augustine says — and it is held in the present distinction[^3] — that «then Wisdom is sent when she is perceived in someone's mind», or when she becomes known to someone; if therefore she is perceived and becomes known through the gifts of grace freely given (such as through unformed faith): therefore she seems to be given in those: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. Augustine[^4] says that the Holy Spirit is given to someone when he is so given as to make him a lover of God and of neighbor — that is to say, when charity is given to a man; but charity is not [a gift] except of grace that makes pleasing: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the same seems to be the case of the Son, since it is said in Wisdom 7[^5]: *She passes into holy souls, and constitutes [them] friends of God*; but [men] are not called friends of God without the grace that makes pleasing: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, by reason it is shown thus[^6]: the Holy Spirit is then given or sent when he indwells in a man; but he is not said to indwell in a man without the grace that makes pleasing: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, when the Son or the Holy Spirit is sent to someone, he is sent not in order to be[^7] where he was not before, but in order to be in him otherwise than before; but a new mode of being, added on top of being by nature, is not [given] except through the grace that makes pleasing: therefore etc.

### CONCLUSION.

> In the invisible mission, neither person is given simply, except by the gift of grace that makes pleasing; but in a qualified sense [each] is also given through grace freely given.

**I respond:** Some draw a distinction here, that[^8] for the Holy Spirit to be given or sent invisibly can be either insofar as he is *Spirit*, or insofar as he is *holy*. Insofar as *Spirit*, he is given through the gift of grace freely given; insofar as *holy*, or[^9] sanctifying, he is given through the gifts of grace that makes pleasing. Similarly, Wisdom or the Son can be sent either as making [one] *to know* (*sapere*), and so through the gifts of grace freely given; or insofar as *sapientia* (wisdom) is named from *sapor* (taste), and so through the gifts of grace that makes pleasing. But this does not seem to solve [the question], because one who grants the opposite of this solution can still be solved against[^10] and asked about the Spirit and the Word, how each is said to be given and not to indwell.

On account of this it must be said otherwise, both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, that[^11] *to be given* or *to be sent* is twofold: either *simply*, or *for this* [particular end]. He is given *simply* when he is simply had — namely, not only for use, but for enjoyment; this however is only through the gifts of grace that makes pleasing, and therefore only in [that grace] are the Son or the Holy Spirit given *simply*. In another mode he is said to be given *for this* [particular end], when not for enjoyment, but for assistance or for some use, certain gifts are given; and this happens[^12] when certain gifts of grace freely given are bestowed, in which

<!-- page 271 -->

the Son or the Holy Spirit is manifested; and so the [first] arguments proceed as to the first part [of the conclusion].

**1.** For[^13] the saying of Rabanus is to be understood thus; for he speaks of mission in a common way; whence he says that the Holy Spirit was given thrice. But Augustine speaks only of giving or mission which is *for indwelling* or for being had simply.

**2.** To what is objected concerning prophecy, it must be said that in one mode the Holy Spirit is given simply *in* it, insofar as it asserts a knowledge according to the fitness of the recipient and according to the piety[^14] of the one carrying [it] out. In another mode, insofar as it is mere revelation[^15], the Spirit is not given in it simply, or rather is not sent except for *this* [particular end]. Whence it is not said in the book of Kings that the Holy Spirit was sent *to* Saul, or made *in* Saul, but *upon* Saul.

**3.** To what is objected — that the Son is sent when there is revelation of hidden things — it must be said that this is not the case in every revelation; for some revelation occurs[^16] not through the mission of the Son, but through the mission of an angel — for many things are revealed through angels[^17] — but it is to be understood of that revelation in which there is illumination of the soul through grace; and if through grace freely given, [the Son] is not sent simply; but if through grace that makes pleasing, then he is sent simply and had.

**4.** To what is objected last — that he is then sent when he is perceived — it must be said that it does not suffice to know the Son to be from another; rather, [the soul] must know him to be in itself as in his own dwelling. But this I say not of cognition by necessity, but of cognition by conjecture[^18]; nor of actual cognition, but of habitual.

la: Vide supra d. 14. dub. 4.

en: See above d. 14, dub. 4.

la: Vers. 10, ubi Vulgata habet: *Et insiluit super eum spiritus Domini et prophetavit in medio eorum*.

en: Verse 10 [1 Sam./Kings 10:10], where the Vulgate has: *And the Spirit of the Lord leapt upon him and he prophesied in their midst*.

la: Cap. 7. — Paulo infra post *ergo percipitur* unus alterque codex ut I T *sive* loco *et*.

en: Chap. 7 [of the Master's letter on this distinction, where the Augustine quotation appears]. — A little further on, after *ergo percipitur*, one or another codex (such as I, T) reads *sive* in place of *et*.

la: Libr. XV. de Trin. c. 17. n. 31: *Spiritus sanctus... cum datus fuerit homini, accendit eum in dilectionem Dei et proximi, et ipse dilectio est*. — Vat., obnitentibus mss. et sex primis edd., *per Augustinum dicitur*, et mox, refragantibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1, *hominibus* pro *homini*.

en: Book XV of *On the Trinity*, c. 17, n. 31: *The Holy Spirit, when he has been given to a man, kindles him to the love of God and of neighbor, and is himself this love*. — The Vatican edition, with the manuscripts and the first six editions resisting, reads *per Augustinum dicitur*, and soon after, with the older manuscripts and ed. 1 against, reads *hominibus* in place of *homini*.

la: Vers. 27, ubi Vulgata post *transfert*, omissa particula *et*, prosequitur: *amicos Dei et Prophetas constituit*.

en: Verse 27 [Wisd. 7:27], where the Vulgate, with the particle *et* omitted after *transfert*, continues: *constitutes [them] friends of God and prophets*.

la: Supplevimus ex vetustioribus codd. et ed. 4 *sic*.

en: From the older codices and ed. 4 we have supplied *sic*.

la: Fide mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 removimus in Vat. additum *ibi*. Mox ed. 1 *sed ut insit* loco *sed ut sit*.

en: On the testimony of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3 we have removed *ibi*, which had been added in the Vatican edition. Soon after, ed. 1 reads *sed ut insit* in place of *sed ut sit*.

la: Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus *hoc*. Mox post *esse* cod. A addit *dupliciter*.

en: From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have added *hoc*. Soon after *esse*, codex A adds *dupliciter*.

la: Fide multorum codd. ut F G H I M P Q X Z aa ee ff et ed. 1 adiunximus *sanctus vel*; aliqui codd. ut F P Q loco *vel* habent *id est*. Paulo ante plures codd. ut H M P Q T X Z aa ee cum ed. 1 post *datae* addunt *sed*.

en: On the testimony of many codices (F, G, H, I, M, P, Q, X, Z, aa, ee, ff) and ed. 1 we have added *sanctus vel*; some codices (F, P, Q) in place of *vel* have *id est*. A little before, several codices (H, M, P, Q, T, X, Z, aa, ee) with ed. 1 add *sed* after *datae*.

la: Aristot., II. Elench. c. 3. (c. 22.), cuius verba vide supra d. 4. dub. 3.

en: Aristotle, *Sophistical Refutations* II, c. 3 (c. 22), whose words see above d. 4, dub. 3.

la: Cod. A satis bene *scilicet quod*.

en: Codex A reads quite well *scilicet quod*.

la: Ita plurimi antiquiorum mss. cum ed. 1, sed Vat. cum cod. cc loco *quidem* habet *fit*; cod. X *quando* pro *quidem cum*.

en: So most of the older manuscripts with ed. 1, but the Vatican edition with codex *cc* in place of *quidem* has *fit*; codex X reads *quando* for *quidem cum*.

la: In Vat. desideratur *Nam*, quod tamen in mss. et tribus primis edd. habetur. Paulo infra maiorem partem codd. ut C G H I R S T U V W aa bb cc ee ff cum ed. 1 secuti, substituimus *Spiritum sanctum ter datum* pro *Spiritus sanctus ter datur*. Mox post *autem* ope plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus *solum*, pro quo aliqui codd. ut A V X *solummodo*. Dein plures codd. ut A G I K T etc. *inhabitandum* pro *habitandum*.

en: In the Vatican edition *Nam* is missing, which is nevertheless held in the manuscripts and the first three editions. A little further on, following the majority of the codices (C, G, H, I, R, S, T, U, V, W, aa, bb, cc, ee, ff) with ed. 1, we have substituted *Spiritum sanctum ter datum* (acc.) for *Spiritus sanctus ter datur* (nom.). Soon after *autem*, with the help of most manuscripts and ed. 1, we have supplied *solum*, for which some codices (A, V, X) [read] *solummodo*. Then several codices (A, G, I, K, T, etc.) read *inhabitandum* in place of *habitandum*.

la: In cod. K adiicitur *exponentis vel*.

en: In codex K *exponentis vel* is added.

la: Fide mss. et edd. 1 delevimus hic in Vat. non bene additum *et sic*. — Cfr. August., II. de Divers. QQ. ad Simpl. q. 1.

en: On the testimony of the manuscripts and editions 1, we have here deleted *et sic*, which had been wrongly added in the Vatican edition. — Cf. Augustine, *On Diverse Questions to Simplicianus* II, q. 1.

la: Mss. cum ed. 1 *est* loco *fit*. Paulo infra cod. X *aliquando* pro *aliqua*.

en: The manuscripts with ed. 1 read *est* in place of *fit*. A little further on, codex X reads *aliquando* in place of *aliqua*.

la: Quia lectio antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 *multa enim revelant* est incompleta, probabiliter siquidem excidit verbum *Angeli*, reliquimus lectionem Vat.; cod. cc et ed. 2 *revelantur Angelis*, sed perperam. Paulo infra pauci codd. ut A I S cc cum ed. 1 male *et sic* loco *et si*.

en: Because the reading of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, *multa enim revelant*, is incomplete (probably the word *Angeli* has fallen out), we have left the Vatican reading; codex *cc* and ed. 2 read *revelantur Angelis*, but wrongly. A little further on, a few codices (A, I, S, cc) with ed. 1 wrongly read *et sic* for *et si*.

la: Cod. X *convenientiae*, cod. Z *congruentiae*.

en: Codex X reads *convenientiae* ("of fittingness"), codex Z reads *congruentiae* ("of congruity").

latin_scholion:
**I.** Antiquiores Scholastici *gratiam gratis datam* accipiebant in sensu largiore, quam moderni theologi, ita ut omnem gratiam actualem, quatenus distinguitur a gratia sanctificante, sub hoc nomine complecterentur (cfr. II. Sent. d. 28. a. 2. q. 1. in corp. et alibi passim). — Distinctio in corp. posita inter *dari simpliciter* et *ad hoc* eadem est ac *simpliciter* et *secundum quid*.

**II.** Primam opinionem, quae etiam attribuitur B. Alberto (1. Sent. d. 17. a. 9.), S. Doctor non approbat. B. Albert. sic dicit: «Dicendum, quod, ut puto, non dicetur mitti, nisi in caritate simpliciter, sed secundum quid in aliis, ut mittatur videlicet in aliis ut Spiritus est, et non ut sanctus est». Sed haec sententia Alberti in re non videtur esse alia a communi. S. Bonav. suam opinionem iuxta distinctionem ibi factam duplici conclusione proponit, scil. quod proprie et simpliciter Spiritus sanctus non mittitur nec datur nisi per donum gratiae sanctificantis. Ratio est, quia sine hoc dono et caritate non habemus facultatem fruendi Spiritu sancto. Quod explicat S. Thom. (S. I. q. 43. a. 3.) his verbis: «Super modum communem (quo Deus est in rebus) est unus specialis, qui convenit naturae rationali, in qua Deus dicitur esse sicut cognitum in cognoscente et amatum in amante. Et quia cognoscendo et amando creatura rationalis sua operatione attingit ad ipsum Deum, secundum istum specialem modum Deus non solum dicitur esse in creatura rationali, sed etiam habitare in ea sicut in templo suo». Improprie tamen, sive «extenso nomine missionis» (ut loquitur Alex. Hal.), aliquando dicitur mitti Spiritus sanctus ad aliquem actum gratiae actualis vel gratis datae. In hac doctrina consentiunt Alex. Hal., S. Thom., Scot., Richard. aliique innumeri.

**III.** Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 73. m. 4. a. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 4. a. 1; S. I. q. 43. a. 3. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. hic a. 16. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., I. Sent. d. 14. a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., d. 14. secunda princ. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3. — Biel, de hac et seq. I. Sent. d. 14. q. 1. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The older Scholastics took *grace freely given* (*gratia gratis data*) in a wider sense than modern theologians, so that they comprehended under this name every actual grace, insofar as it is distinguished from sanctifying grace (cf. II *Sent.* d. 28, a. 2, q. 1, in the corpus, and elsewhere passim). — The distinction made in the corpus between *to be given simply* and *for this* [particular end] is the same as *simply* and *in a qualified sense*.

**II.** The first opinion, which is also attributed to Bl. Albert (I *Sent.* d. 17, a. 9), the Holy Doctor [Bonaventure] does not approve. Bl. Albert says thus: «It must be said that, as I think, [the Holy Spirit] will not be said to be sent except in charity simply, but in a qualified sense in others — that is, that he is sent in others as he is *Spirit*, and not as he is *holy*». But this opinion of Albert seems in fact to be no different from the common one. St. Bonaventure proposes his opinion, in accordance with the distinction there made, by a twofold conclusion — namely, that properly and simply the Holy Spirit is not sent or given except through the gift of sanctifying grace. The reason is that without this gift and charity we do not have the faculty of enjoying the Holy Spirit. Which St. Thomas (*S.* I, q. 43, a. 3) explains in these words: «Above the common mode (by which God is in things) there is one special mode which belongs to rational nature, in which God is said to be as the known in the knower and as the loved in the lover. And because by knowing and loving the rational creature attains by its operation to God himself, according to this special mode God is said not only to be in the rational creature, but also to indwell in it as in his temple». Improperly however, or «with the name of mission extended» (as Alexander of Hales puts it), the Holy Spirit is sometimes said to be sent for some act of actual or freely-given grace. In this doctrine Alex. Hal., St. Thom., Scotus, Richard, and innumerable others agree.

**III.** Cf. Alex. Hal., *Summa* p. I, q. 73, m. 4, a. 2. — St. Thom., here q. 4, a. 1; *S.* I, q. 43, a. 3. — Bl. Albert, on this and the following, here a. 16. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 3, a. 2. — Richard. a Med., I *Sent.* d. 14, a. 2, q. 2. — Aegid. R., d. 14, second principal q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 3. — Biel, on this and the following, I *Sent.* d. 14, q. 1, 2.

---

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 15, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 271 -->

### QUAESTIO II.

*Utrum Filius et Spiritus sanctus secundum eadem dona gratiae mitti dicantur.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum secundum eadem dona gratiae dicantur mitti Filius et Spiritus sanctus. Et quod non, videtur hoc modo.

1. Missio Spiritus sancti est eius donatio, et similiter Filii[^1]; sed alia est missio Filii et Spiritus sancti: ergo alia donatio: ergo secundum aliud donum.

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur per simile, quia sicut se habet missio visibilis Filii ad missionem visibilem Spiritus sancti, ita etiam et invisibilis; sed missio visibilis Filii et Spiritus sancti est secundum alium et alium effectum et signum in creatura: ergo invisibilis secundum aliud et aliud donum.

3. Item, missio est ad cognoscendam emanationem et discernendam[^2]; si ergo Filius discernitur ab effectu, in quo mittitur, et Spiritus sanctus; et huiusmodi sunt dona gratiae: ergo quantum ad aliud donum mittitur Filius, quantum ad aliud Spiritus sanctus.

4. Item, non est idem appropriatum Filio et Spiritui sancto, sed aliud in creaturis[^3]: ergo cum Filius dicatur mitti in effectu sibi appropriato, in alio effectu vel dono mittitur Filius quam Spiritus sanctus.

**Contra:**

1. Omnis donorum distributio tam gratiae gratis datae quam gratiae gratum facientis attribuitur Spiritui sancto, maxime dona gratiae gratum facientis, sicut patet primae ad Corinthios duodecimo[^4]: ergo cum Spiritus sanctus mittatur in donis sibi appropriatis, in omnibus donis mittitur: ergo in eisdem, in quibus Filius.

2. Item, Filius mittitur, cum sapientia datur, et similiter Spiritus sanctus, quia praecipuum donum Spiritus sancti est sapientia: ergo etc.

3. Item, quandocumque datur cognitio, dicitur mitti Filius: sed in hoc eodem dono datur vel mittitur Spiritus sanctus, Ioannis decimo sexto[^5]: *Cum venerit ille, docebit vos omnem veritatem*: ergo etc.

4. Item, quandocumque caritas datur, mittitur Spiritus sanctus; sed in hoc dono datur Filius, Sapientiae septimo[^6]: *In animas sanctas se transfert et amicos Dei constituit*; et Augustinus in quarto de Trinitate[^7] exponit illud de missione Filii: ergo etc.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Missiones Filii et Spiritus sancti in se et quoad radicem donorum sunt indivisae; distinguuntur tantum quoad habitus et actus consequentes.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in missione invisibili est donorum collatio, in quibus est manifestatio

<!-- page 272 -->

et inhabitatio. Et secundum hoc intelligendum est, quod est loqui de donis Dei quantum ad *radicem*, vel quantum ad *habitum*, vel quantum ad *actum consequentem*.

Loquendo autem quantum ad *radicem*, sic — quia[^8] una est gratia gratum faciens, per quam inhabitat Filius et Spiritus sanctus, quae est radix donorum gratuitorum — sic dantur vel mittuntur eodem dono.

Loquendo autem quantum ad *habitum*, sic distinguendum, quia quidam habitus sunt pure affectivi, quidam pure cognitivi, quidam medii. In habitibus pure affectivis datur sive mittitur Spiritus sanctus, quia ei appropriantur. In habitibus pure cognitivis nec Filius nec Spiritus sanctus proprie, sicut dictum est[^9], mittitur. In habitibus autem partim cognitivis partim affectivis, secundum quod diversa in se continent, et Filius mittitur et Spiritus sanctus. Nam cognitivi ducunt in manifestationem Verbi, affectivi in manifestationem Amoris.

Si autem loquamur quantum ad *actus consequentes*, qui sunt illuminatio intellectus et affectus inflammatio, sic vocando donum, in aliis et aliis donis mittuntur.

Sed quoniam ista[^10] coniuncta sunt, ideo missio Filii et Spiritus sancti invisibilis sunt indivisae, et secundum hoc procedunt rationes ad oppositas partes. Tamen illud quod adducit pro simili in missione sensibili, nequaquam est simile, quia non est tanta unio et connexio in signis exterioribus, quanta est in habitibus interioribus.

english:
<!-- page 271 -->

### QUESTION II.

*Whether the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to be sent according to the same gifts of grace.*

Second it is asked whether the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to be sent according to the same gifts of grace. And that they are not, seems [clear] in this way.

1. The mission of the Holy Spirit is his donation, and similarly [the mission] of the Son[^1]; but the mission of the Son and the mission of the Holy Spirit are different: therefore the donations are different: therefore [they are] according to a different gift.

2. Likewise, the same seems [clear] from a parallel: for as the visible mission of the Son is to the visible mission of the Holy Spirit, so also the invisible; but the visible mission of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are according to one and another effect and sign in the creature: therefore the invisible [are] according to one and another gift.

3. Likewise, mission is for knowing emanation, and for distinguishing[^2] [it]; if therefore the Son is distinguished from the effect in which he is sent — and the Holy Spirit also — and these are gifts of grace: therefore the Son is sent according to one gift, and the Holy Spirit according to another.

4. Likewise, what is appropriated to the Son and to the Holy Spirit is not the same, but other in creatures[^3]: therefore since the Son is said to be sent in an effect appropriated to him, the Son is sent in another effect or gift than the Holy Spirit.

**On the contrary:**

1. Every distribution of gifts — both of grace freely given and of grace that makes pleasing — is attributed to the Holy Spirit, especially the gifts of grace that makes pleasing, as is plain from 1 Corinthians 12[^4]: therefore since the Holy Spirit is sent in the gifts appropriated to him, he is sent in all the gifts: therefore in the same in which the Son [is sent].

2. Likewise, the Son is sent when wisdom is given, and similarly the Holy Spirit, since the principal gift of the Holy Spirit is wisdom: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, whenever cognition is given, the Son is said to be sent: but in this same gift the Holy Spirit also is given or sent, John 16[^5]: *When he comes, he will teach you all truth*: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, whenever charity is given, the Holy Spirit is sent; but in this gift the Son is also given, Wisdom 7[^6]: *She passes into holy souls and constitutes [them] friends of God*; and Augustine in *On the Trinity* IV[^7] expounds this of the mission of the Son: therefore etc.

### CONCLUSION.

> The missions of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are indivisible in themselves and as to the *root* of the gifts; they are distinguished only as to the *habits* and the *consequent acts*.

**I respond:** It must be said that in the invisible mission there is a bestowal of gifts, in which there is manifestation

<!-- page 272 -->

and indwelling. And accordingly it must be understood that one can speak of the gifts of God either with respect to the *root*, or with respect to the *habit*, or with respect to the *consequent act*.

Speaking with respect to the *root*: since[^8] there is one *grace that makes pleasing* by which the Son and the Holy Spirit indwell, which is the root of the gratuitous gifts — accordingly they are given or sent by the same gift.

Speaking with respect to the *habit*: a distinction must be made, because some habits are purely affective, some purely cognitive, some intermediate. In purely affective habits the Holy Spirit is given or sent, since they are appropriated to him. In purely cognitive habits, neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit is properly sent, as has been said[^9]. In habits partly cognitive and partly affective, according to the diverse [aspects] they contain in themselves, both the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent. For the cognitive [habits] lead to the manifestation of the *Word*, the affective to the manifestation of *Love*.

But if we speak with respect to the *consequent acts* — which are the illumination of the intellect and the inflammation of the affection — then, calling the *gift* in this sense, they are sent in different gifts.

But because these things are conjoined[^10], therefore the invisible missions of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are undivided, and accordingly the arguments [for and against] proceed to opposing parts. Yet what [the third argument] adduces from a parallel in *sensible* mission is by no means parallel, since there is not such union and connection in external signs as there is in interior habits.

la: Cfr. supra q. 1.

en: Cf. above q. 1.

la: Vide supra p. I. q. 1. 3. 4. huius dist. — Mox cod. H *per effectum*, cod. T *in effectu* pro *effectu*. Circa finem argumenti post *Filius* in cod. bb additur *et*.

en: See above pars I, qq. 1, 3, 4 of this distinction. — Soon after, codex H reads *per effectum*, codex T *in effectu* in place of *effectu*. Near the end of the argument, after *Filius*, in codex bb *et* is added.

la: Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *creaturis* pro *creatura*.

en: From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted *creaturis* (plural) for *creatura* (singular).

la: Vers. 4. seqq.

en: Verses 4 ff. [1 Cor. 12:4 ff.].

la: Vers. 13, ubi Vulgata: *Cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis, docebit* etc. — Paulo ante Vat. cum cod. cc, antiquioribus tamen mss. et ed. 1 reluctantibus, omittit *eodem*.

en: Verse 13 [John 16:13], where the Vulgate reads: *But when that Spirit of truth comes, he will teach* etc. — A little before, the Vatican edition with codex *cc*, with the older manuscripts and ed. 1 nevertheless resisting, omits *eodem*.

la: Vers. 27. Lectionem Vulgatae vide q. praec. fundam. 2.

en: Verse 27 [Wisd. 7:27]. For the Vulgate reading see the preceding question, *fundamentum* 2.

la: Cap. 20. n. 27.: *In animas enim sanctas se transfert (Sapientia) atque amicos Dei et Prophetas constituit, sicut etiam implet sanctos Angelos et omnia talibus ministeriis congrua per eos operatur. Cum autem venit plenitudo temporis, missa est, non ut impleret Angelos nec ut esset Angelus, nisi in quantum consilium Patris annuntiabat, quod et ipsius erat; nec ut esset cum hominibus aut in hominibus; hoc enim et antea in Patribus et Prophetis; sed ut ipsum Verbum caro fieret, id est, homo fieret* etc.

en: Chap. 20, n. 27 [of *De Trinitate* IV]: *For [Wisdom] passes into holy souls and constitutes [them] friends of God and prophets, just as she also fills the holy Angels and works through them all things suitable to such ministries. But when the fullness of time came, she was sent — not in order to fill the Angels, nor to be an Angel, except insofar as she was announcing the counsel of the Father, which was also her own; nor in order to be with men or in men — for this had been so already in the Patriarchs and the Prophets — but in order that the Word himself should become flesh, that is, become man*, etc.

la: Ed. 1 *quod* loco *quia*.

en: Ed. 1 reads *quod* in place of *quia*.

la: Hic q. praecedenti, praesertim ad 2. et 3.

en: Here, in the preceding question, especially in the replies to objections 2 and 3.

la: Scil. radix, habitus et actus consequentes donorum. — Paulo infra fide plurium mss. ut C F S Y substituimus *invisibilis* pro *invisibiles*.

en: Namely, the *root*, the *habit*, and the *consequent acts* of the gifts. — A little further on, on the testimony of several manuscripts (C, F, S, Y) we have substituted *invisibilis* (singular) for *invisibiles* (plural).

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quoad missionem simpliciter dictam, quae est secundum gratiam sanctificantem, omnes concorditer asserunt, missiones utriusque personae esse indivisas; sed quoad missionem improprie dictam sive *secundum quid* aliqui cum Alex. Hal. (S. p. I. q. 73. m. 2. a. 3.) dicunt, utramque personam aliquando simul mitti vel dari, non tamen semper. Hoc explicat Alex. Hal. (loc. cit.) sic: «Cum missio passive dicta sit processio manifestata in effectu appropriato personae vel manifestatio processionis; cum processio Filii non sit processio Spiritus sancti, nec idem effectus, in quo manifestatur utraque processio, ratione cuius dicitur mitti Filius vel Spiritus sanctus, immo unus effectus possit esse sine alio, et manifestatio unius processionis sine manifestatione alterius: ideo potest esse una missio sine alia. Non sic autem est de missione active dicta» etc. Cui sententiae etiam Richard. a Med. adhaeret. Petr. a Tar. vero, Aegid. R. aliique plures hoc non admittunt, nec SS. Bonav. et Thom. sic loquuntur. Dicunt enim, quod quoad actum consequentem, sive effectus gratiae, qui sunt illuminatio intellectus et inflammatio affectus, hae duae missiones differunt, quin tamen una possit esse sine alia.

**II.** Alex. Hal., l. c. et m. 4. a. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 4. a. 2; S. I. q. 43. a. 5. praesertim ad 3., ubi fere iisdem verbis ac S. Bonav. utitur. — B. Albert., d. 17. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2; q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** As regards mission *simply* spoken of, which is according to sanctifying grace, all unanimously assert that the missions of both persons are undivided; but as regards mission improperly spoken of, or *in a qualified sense*, some, with Alexander of Hales (*Summa* p. I, q. 73, m. 2, a. 3), say that both persons are sometimes sent or given simultaneously, but not always. Alex. Hal. (in the place cited) explains this thus: «Since mission, passively spoken of, is procession manifested in an effect appropriated to a person, or the manifestation of procession; since the procession of the Son is not the procession of the Holy Spirit, nor [is there] the same effect in which both processions are manifested — by reason of which the Son or the Holy Spirit is said to be sent — but rather one effect can be without the other, and the manifestation of one procession without the manifestation of the other: therefore there can be one mission without the other. But this is not so with mission actively spoken of», etc. Richard of Mediavilla also adheres to this opinion. But Peter of Tarentaise, Giles of Rome, and many others do not admit this, nor do SS. Bonaventure and Thomas speak thus. For they say that as regards the *consequent act*, or the effects of grace — which are the illumination of the intellect and the inflammation of the affection — these two missions differ, although one cannot be without the other.

**II.** Alex. Hal., loc. cit. and m. 4, a. 2. — St. Thom., here q. 4, a. 2; *S.* I, q. 43, a. 5, especially *ad* 3, where he uses almost the same words as St. Bonaventure. — Bl. Albert, d. 17, a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 2, a. 2; q. 3, a. 2. — Richard. a Med., here a. 4, q. 1, 2. — Aegid. R., here, first principal q. 2. — Durand., here q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 3.

---


title: Dist. 15, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 272 -->

### QUAESTIO III.

*Utrum Filius et Spiritus sanctus mittantur, quando dona gratiae augmentantur.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum missio Filii et Spiritus sancti sit secundum eadem dona gratiae augmentata. Et quod sic, videtur exemplo, auctoritate et ratione.

1. Exemplo sic: constat, in die Pentecostes Apostolis esse Spiritum sanctum missum, non tantum visibiliter, sed etiam invisibiliter, quia missio visibilis sine invisibili non confert: sed ipsi prius habebant gratiam: ergo etc.

2. Item, hoc videtur auctoritate Rabani[^1]: «In baptismo datur Spiritus sanctus ad habitationem Deo consecrandam, sed in confirmatione cum omni plenitudine sanctitatis venit in hominem»: ergo datur in confirmatione post baptismum: ergo etc.

3. Item, augmentum gratiae est per gratiae additionem; sed ubi est gratiae additio, ibi est[^2] gratiae donatio; sed «Spiritus sanctus mittitur vel datur, cum datur eius gratia», ut dicit Beda[^3]: ergo in augmento gratiae datur vel mittitur Spiritus sanctus.

4. Item, non minus donum est caritatem consummare[^4] quam inchoare: ergo si mittitur Filius vel Spiritus sanctus, cum gratia inchoatur, multo fortius cum consummatur; sed consummatur per augmentum: ergo mittitur in augmento.

**Contra:**

1. Spiritus sanctus non mittitur in hominem, ut de novo sit in eo, sed ut aliter sit in ipso; sed in eo, in quo augetur gratia, non est aliter quam prius: ergo ad illum[^5] non mittitur.

2. Item, si mittitur in augmento gratiae, aut ergo quia de novo mittitur, aut quia abundantius mittitur; non quia de novo: ergo quia abundantius. Sed contra: mitti est procedere, ergo abundantius mitti est abundantius procedere; sed semper aequaliter procedit: ergo etc.

3. Item, si mittitur in gratiae augmento; cum ergo gratia in nobis quotidie augeatur, etiam homine nesciente, videtur quod Spiritus sanctus vel Filius mittatur, homine nesciente, et[^6] quod quotidie mittatur homini; quod non est dicendum.

4. Item, contingit gratiam caritatis in aliquo per negligentiam remitti: ergo si Spiritus sanctus mittitur in augmento, et recedit in remissione: ergo quando aliquis peccat venialiter, perdit Spiritum sanctum: quod falsum est.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Spiritus sanctus non dicitur mitti, quando solummodo fit profectus in gratia prius habita, sed in collatione novi usus vel novi doni gratuiti dicitur mitti.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc dicunt aliqui, quod gratiam augeri est dupliciter, scilicet *perceptibiliter* et *imperceptibiliter*. Si perceptibiliter, tunc dicunt, in tali augmento dari vel mitti Filium et Spiritum sanctum; si autem imperceptibiliter, tunc dicunt, ipsum non mitti. Et ratio huius est, quia tunc dicitur dari vel mitti, cum mente percipitur.

Sed aliter potest dici, quod augmentum gratiae est dupliciter: aut secundum *profectum* in gratia prius habita et[^7] eius usu, aut per collationem *novi usus* vel etiam *novi doni gratuiti*. Si solum per profectum, sicut ostendunt ultimae rationes, non dicitur mitti Spiritus sanctus. Si autem per collationem novi doni, sicut fuit in[^8] Apostolis in die Pentecostes, vel novi usus, sicut est in confirmatione; tunc potest dici mitti vel dari Spiritus sanctus, quia aliquo modo est ibi de novo quantum ad illud donum vel usum doni, et quia abundantius est.

**1.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est ibi alio modo essendi; dicendum, quod etsi hoc[^9] non sit alio modo essendi, est tamen perfectiori modo inhabitandi et alio modo utendi, et ideo novo modo.

**2.** Ad illud quod obiicitur[^10], si abundantius mittitur, abundantius procedit; dicendum, quod *mitti abundantius* vel *procedere* est dupliciter: vel *ab hoc*, vel *in hoc*; primo modo uniformiter est mitti, secundo modo non.

<!-- page 273 -->

**3.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod quotidie augetur; dicendum, quod quotidie augetur quantum ad fervorem, sed non quantum ad novorum donorum vel usuum collationem.

**4.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod gratia remissa debet recedere; dicendum, quod, sicut infra patebit, gratia augetur quantum ad substantiam, sed non remittitur nisi solum quantum ad fervorem; Spiritus autem sanctus[^11] mitti non dicitur in augmento fervoris, sed solum substantiae caritatis.

english:
<!-- page 272 -->

### QUESTION III.

*Whether the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent when the gifts of grace are augmented.*

Third it is asked whether the mission of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is according to the same gifts of grace augmented. And that it is so, seems [clear] by example, by authority, and by reason.

1. By example thus: it is plain that on the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was sent to the Apostles — not only visibly, but also invisibly, since the visible mission without the invisible does not confer [grace]; but they previously had grace: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, this seems [clear] by the authority of Rabanus[^1]: «In baptism the Holy Spirit is given to consecrate a habitation for God, but in confirmation he comes into a man with all the fullness of holiness»: therefore he is given in confirmation after baptism: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the augmentation of grace is by the addition of grace; but where there is addition of grace, there is[^2] donation of grace; but «the Holy Spirit is sent or given when his grace is given», as Bede says[^3]: therefore in the augmentation of grace the Holy Spirit is given or sent.

4. Likewise, it is no less a gift to *consummate*[^4] charity than to begin it: therefore if the Son or the Holy Spirit is sent when grace is begun, much more strongly when it is consummated; but it is consummated through augmentation: therefore he is sent in the augmentation.

**On the contrary:**

1. The Holy Spirit is not sent into a man in order to be in him anew, but in order to be in him otherwise [than before]; but in him in whom grace is augmented, there is no other [mode] than before: therefore he is not sent to him[^5].

2. Likewise, if he is sent in the augmentation of grace, then either because he is sent *anew*, or because he is sent *more abundantly*; not because anew: therefore because more abundantly. But on the contrary: *to be sent* is *to proceed*; therefore *to be sent more abundantly* is *to proceed more abundantly*; but he always proceeds equally: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if he is sent in the augmentation of grace, then since grace daily increases in us — even with the man unaware — it seems that the Holy Spirit or the Son is sent without the man's awareness, and[^6] that he is sent to the man daily; which is not to be said.

4. Likewise, it happens that the grace of charity is in someone remitted [diminished] through negligence: therefore if the Holy Spirit is sent in the augmentation, and withdraws in the remission: therefore when someone sins venially, he loses the Holy Spirit: which is false.

### CONCLUSION.

> The Holy Spirit is not said to be sent when there is merely progress in the grace previously had, but in the bestowal of a new use, or of a new freely-given gift, he is said to be sent.

**I respond:** To this some say that *to be augmented in grace* is twofold — namely, *perceptibly* and *imperceptibly*. If perceptibly, then they say that in such augmentation the Son and the Holy Spirit are given or sent; but if imperceptibly, then they say [the person] is not sent. And the reason for this is that he is then said to be given or sent when he is perceived in the mind.

But it can be said otherwise, that the augmentation of grace is twofold: either according to *progress* in the grace already had and[^7] in its use, or by the bestowal of a *new use* or even of a *new freely-given gift*. If only by progress — as the last arguments show — the Holy Spirit is not said to be sent. But if by the bestowal of a new gift, as was the case in[^8] the Apostles on the day of Pentecost; or of a new use, as is the case in confirmation: then it can be said that the Holy Spirit is sent or given, since he is in some way there *anew* with respect to that gift or use of the gift, and because he is there more abundantly.

**1.** To what is objected — that there is no other mode of being there — it must be said that, although this[^9] is not another mode of *being*, it is nevertheless a more perfect mode of *indwelling* and another mode of *use*, and therefore [it is] a *new* mode.

**2.** To what is objected[^10] — if he is sent more abundantly, he proceeds more abundantly — it must be said that *to be sent* or *to proceed more abundantly* is twofold: either *from this* [side], or *into this* [side]; in the first mode it is uniformly to be sent, in the second mode it is not.

<!-- page 273 -->

**3.** To what is objected — that [grace] is augmented daily — it must be said that it is augmented daily as to *fervor*, but not as to the bestowal of new gifts or new uses.

**4.** To what is objected — that diminished grace ought to withdraw — it must be said that, as will appear below, grace is augmented as to its *substance*, but is not diminished except as to *fervor* alone; but the Holy Spirit[^11] is not said to be sent in the augmentation of fervor, but only of the substance of charity.

la: Libr. I. de Cleric. instit. c. 30: *Signatur enim baptizatus cum chrismate per sacerdotem in capitis summitate, per pontificem vero in fronte, ut priori unctione significetur Spiritus sancti super ipsum descensio ad habitationem Deo consecrandam, in secunda quoque, ut eiusdem Spiritus sancti septiformis gratia cum omni plenitudine sanctitatis et scientiae et virtutis venire in hominem declaretur.*

en: Book I, *On the Instruction of Clerics*, c. 30: *For the baptized is signed with chrism by the priest on the top of the head, but by the bishop on the forehead — so that by the first anointing the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him is signified, for consecrating a dwelling for God; and by the second, that the sevenfold grace of the same Holy Spirit may be declared to come into the man with all the fullness of holiness and knowledge and virtue.*

la: A Vat. et cod. cc abest verbum *est*, quod tamen in ceteris mss. et ed. 1 invenitur.

en: From the Vatican edition and codex *cc* the word *est* is missing, which is nevertheless found in the other manuscripts and in ed. 1.

la: Libr. II. Homil. 10: *Cum enim eiusdem Spiritus gratia datur hominibus, mittitur profecto Spiritus a Patre.* Cfr. supra p. 242, nota 3.

en: Book II, Homily 10: *For when the grace of the same Spirit is given to men, the Spirit is indeed sent by the Father.* Cf. above p. 242, note 3.

la: Praeferendo ed. 1 lectionem, utpote quae ex ipso contextu vera comprobatur, posuimus in hoc argumento ter *consummare* loco *conservare*, quod Vat. cum mss. exhibet.

en: Preferring the reading of ed. 1 — since it is shown to be true from the context itself — we have set in this argument three times *consummare* ("to consummate") in place of *conservare* ("to conserve"), which the Vatican edition with the manuscripts displays.

la: Ex antiquis mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *illum* pro minus apto *illud*, et paulo ante *quam* loco *ut*.

en: From the old manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted *illum* (masculine) for the less apt *illud* (neuter), and a little before, *quam* in place of *ut*.

la: Plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 loco *et* ponunt *eo*, quae tamen lectio et vim obiectionis elidere et responsioni infra positae minus congruere videtur. — Paulo supra post *etiam* codd. L O adiungunt praepositionem *in*.

en: Most codices with ed. 1 in place of *et* put *eo*; this reading, however, seems both to weaken the force of the objection and to accord less with the response posited below. — A little above, after *etiam*, codices L and O add the preposition *in*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc, aliis autem codd. cum ed. 1 obnitentibus, pro *et* ponit *aut*, quo membra disiunctionis confunduntur.

en: The Vatican edition with codex *cc* — though the other codices with ed. 1 resist — puts *aut* in place of *et*, by which the members of the disjunction are confused.

la: Supplevimus ex mss. et ed. 1 *in*.

en: From the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied *in*.

la: In codd. variae exstant lectiones; nam aliqui codd. ut gg legunt *ibi* pro *hoc*, alii vero ut ff *in hoc*, ed. 1 autem omittit *hoc*; multi tandem *quod si* loco *quod etsi*, licet minus bene.

en: Various readings exist in the codices; for some codices (such as gg) read *ibi* in place of *hoc*; others (such as ff) read *in hoc*; ed. 1, however, omits *hoc*; finally many [read] *quod si* in place of *quod etsi*, although less well.

la: Nonnulla scripta ut I K P Q V X addunt *quod*.

en: Some writings (I, K, P, Q, V, X) add *quod*.

la: Vat., contra codd. et ed. 1 et aliter quam supra in corp., hic legit *Spiritum autem sanctum*. Mox post *fervorem* cod. V addit *nec in alio augmento*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the codices and ed. 1, and otherwise than above in the corpus, here reads *Spiritum autem sanctum* (acc.). Soon after *fervorem* codex V adds *nec in alio augmento* ("nor in any other augmentation").

latin_scholion:
**I.** Sensus quaestionis est, utrum semper mittantur Filius et Spiritus sanctus, quotiescumque dona vel gratia augentur. — Prima opinio, quam S. Doctor nec approbat nec reprobat, est B. Alberti, Richardi aliorumque. Ipse vero respondet sub alia distinctione et bimembri conclusione, ut patet ex textu. — Verba in solut. ad 1. et ad ult., quae videntur insinuare, quod in omni augmento gratiae sanctificantis sit missio, intelligi debent secundum doctrinam in corp. positam. Sententiam Seraphici sequitur S. Thomas, qui tamen in Comment. addit: «Quidam dicunt, quod in omni augmento gratiae gratum facientis sit missio divinae personae, quod et sustineri faciliter potest».

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 73. m. 4. a. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 5. quaestiunc. 2; S. I. q. 43. a. 6. ad 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 19; d. 17. a. 9. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 1. coll. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3. in fine.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The sense of the question is whether the Son and the Holy Spirit are always sent whenever the gifts or grace are augmented. — The first opinion, which the Holy Doctor neither approves nor reprobates, is that of Bl. Albert, Richard, and others. He himself, however, responds with another distinction and a two-membered conclusion, as is plain from the text. — The words in the reply to the first and to the last [objection], which seem to insinuate that there is mission in every augmentation of sanctifying grace, must be understood according to the doctrine set forth in the corpus. The opinion of the Seraphic [Doctor] is followed by St. Thomas, who nevertheless in the *Commentary* adds: «Some say that in every augmentation of grace that makes pleasing there is a mission of a divine person, which can also be easily sustained».

**II.** Alex. Hal., *Summa* p. I, q. 73, m. 4, a. 3. — St. Thom., here q. 5, quaestiuncula 2; *S.* I, q. 43, a. 6, ad 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 19; d. 17, a. 9. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 1, quaestiuncula 3. — Richard. a Med., here a. 4, q. 2. — Aegid. R., here, second principal q. 1, coll. 1. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 3 *in fine*.

---