title: Dist. 12, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 223 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum Spiritus sanctus mediante Filio a Patre procedat.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Spiritus sanctus procedat a Patre mediante Filio.

**Fundamenta:**

1. Et quod sic, videtur per Hilarium duodecimo *de Trinitate*[^1], qui loquens ad Patrem ait: «Spiritum sanctum, qui ex te per eum est, promerear»: ergo Spiritus sanctus est a Patre per Filium, ergo mediante Filio.

2. Item, Richardus[^2] dicit, quod in divinis est processio *immediata tantum*, et *mediata et immediata* — *mediata tantum* esse non potest — et dicit, quod *mediata et immediata* est processio Spiritus sancti ex Patre: ergo cum non possit cadere medium nisi Filius, Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre mediante Filio.

3. Item, similis est processus in illa Trinitate processui imaginis creatae[^3]; sed amor procedit a mente mediante intelligentia: ergo Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre mediante Filio. Si dicas, quod non est similitudo quantum ad hoc: ergo destruitur ratio imaginis, quia imago debet repraesentare *ordinem* et *originem* personarum, non tantum numerum in personis, quia hoc[^4] etiam est in vestigio.

4. Item, si solus Filius spiraret[^5], ita quod non Pater, tunc Pater diceretur spirare, sed mediante Filio, ita quod esset processio mediata tantum: ergo cum spiratio conveniat Patri *per se* et conveniat ei *per hoc, quod est principium Filii spirantis*, ergo convenit ei et mediate et immediate; sed si hoc[^6], Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre mediante Filio.

**Ad oppositum:**

1. Nobilius est *immediatum* principium quam *mediatum*; sed omne nobilius est Deo tribuendum[^7]: ergo si Pater est nobilissimum principium Spiritus sancti, ergo tantum immediate, non mediate producit ipsum. Si tu dicas, quod producit simul mediate et immediate; contra: *mediatum* et *immediatum* sunt opposita; sed opposita non sunt simul vera de eodem et respectu eiusdem[^8]: ergo impossibile est, quod simul producat mediate et immediate.

2. Item, sicut se habet *per se* ad *per accidens*, ita *mediatum* ad *immediatum*; sed Deus nullius, cuius est causa *per se*, est causa *per accidens*: ergo nullius, cuius est principium *immediatum*, est principium *mediatum*.

3. Item, magis est immediatum quod nullo modo recipit medium, quam quod recipit medium; sed Filius nullum medium recipit in spirando: ergo immediatius producit, quam producat Pater: non ergo uniformiter omnino producunt Pater et Filius Spiritum sanctum.

> **Conclusio.** *Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre tum immediate, tum mediante Filio.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut vult Richardus, productio[^9] Spiritus sancti est *mediata simul et immediata*: *mediata*, in quantum est a Filio, et Filius a Patre; sed *immediata*, in quantum ipse Spiritus sanctus ab ipso Patre spiratur.

*Exemplum.* Et huius exemplum ponitur in exitu Abel de Adam. Abel enim[^10] immediate exiit de Adam, quia ipse ex lumbis suis genuit eum; nihilominus exiit mediate, quia exiit ab Eva, quae fuit ab Adam sive de Adam deducta. Et hunc modum oportuit esse in Deo propter summam germanitatem.

*Ratio.* Si enim tantum mediata esset processio Spiritus sancti, ut tantum esset a Filio, non esset summa germanitas Spiritus sancti cum Patre. Similiter, si omnino immediata, ut esset a Patre tantum, non esset summa germanitas cum Filio. Et sic concedendum[^11], quod mediante Filio.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo[^12] quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod nobilius est immediatum principium; dicendum, quod *mediatio* est tribus modis. *Tres modi mediationis.* Quaedam enim est mediatio, quae *excludit* immediationem tantum, ut quando effectus ultimus non continuatur influentiae causae prioris, sed per medium omnino producitur, priori non cooperante[^13]; et haec dicit *ordinem* et *diversitatem* agentium et *separationem*. Alio modo dicitur mediatio, prout dicit *ordinem* causarum ad invicem, *non separationem* in agendo, sed solum *diversitatem* agentium[^14] et ordinem. Tertio modo, prout dicit *ordinem*, non tamen separationem virtutum agentium nec diversitatem.

*Conclusio 1.* Prima mediatio non cadit in Deo, quia Deus est causa simpliciter prima, cuius influentia est tanta, quod nulla creatura aliquid agit, eius influentia remota; et ideo nihil a[^15] Deo exit *mediate tantum*.

<!-- page 224 -->

*Conclusio 2.* Secunda mediatio cadit in Deo respectu effectus producti a causa creata, quia ibi est ordo causarum et diversitas virtutum; sed tamen non est separatio, quia Deus *intime* agit, quia per se ipsum; agit[^16] nihilominus per virtutem creatam, quae ab ipso est.

*Conclusio 3.* Tertia mediatio cadit in operatione divina, in qua sunt agentes personae, in quibus attenditur ordo, quia una habet ab alia quod agat, sed tamen nec est ibi virtutum diversitas nec separatio vel distantia aliqua, immo una virtute et aeque intime agunt. Et sic Pater mediante Filio producit Spiritum sanctum, non quia sit medium *distantiae* vel *differentiae*, sed quia, quod Filius producat, hoc habet a Patre, ita quod est ibi quidam *ordo*. Et sic patet responsio ad sequens, cum dicit, quod *mediatum* et *immediatum* sunt opposita; verum est enim primo modo, sed non secundo nec tertio[^17].

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus nullius est causa *per accidens*, ergo nec *mediate*; dicendum, quod *per accidens* aliquid causare derogat veritati[^18] causae supremae. Illius enim dicitur aliquid causa esse *per accidens*, cuius est causa per aliquid aliud, quod non est ab ipso, sed aliunde; si ergo Deus alicuius esset causa per accidens, non esset causa universalissima et prima, et ita nec nobilissima. Sed[^19] mediatio non repugnat nobilitati causae supremae. Causare enim aliquid[^20] *per se* et *per id quod ab ipso est* non dicit indignitatem, immo dignitatem, quia dignitas est non tantum per se aliquid posse, sed posse alii communicare, ita tamen quod ille sine eo nihil possit.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod Filius est immediatior causa; dicendum, quod non valet, quia ista mediatio, quae praedicta est, non repugnat immediationi, et ideo non diminuit eam.

english:
### Question III. *Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father with the Son as medium.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father with the Son as medium.

**Foundations:**

1. And that He does, [it] seems [to follow] from Hilary, *On the Trinity* XII[^1], who, addressing the Father, says: «May I merit Thy Holy Spirit, who is from Thee through Him»: therefore the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, therefore with the Son as medium.

2. Likewise, Richard[^2] says that in the divine being there is procession *immediate only*, and *both mediate and immediate* — *mediate only* cannot be — and he says that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is *both mediate and immediate*: therefore since no medium can fall save the Son, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father with the Son as medium.

3. Likewise, the procedure in that Trinity is similar to the procedure of the *created image*[^3]; but love proceeds from mind through the medium of intellection: therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. If you say there is no likeness in this respect, then the formal character of *image* is destroyed, because an image must represent the *order* and *origin* of the persons, not only the number in the persons, since this[^4] is found also in a *vestige*.

4. Likewise, if the Son alone were to spirate[^5] in such wise that the Father did not, then the Father would be said to spirate, but with the Son as medium, in such wise that there would be procession *mediate only*: therefore since spiration belongs to the Father *per se* and belongs to Him *through this, that He is the principle of the spirating Son*, therefore it belongs to Him both mediately and immediately; but if so[^6], the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father with the Son as medium.

**On the contrary:**

1. An *immediate* principle is more noble than a *mediate*; but everything more noble is to be attributed to God[^7]: therefore if the Father is the most noble principle of the Holy Spirit, He produces Him only immediately, not mediately. If you say that He produces both mediately and immediately at once; on the contrary: *mediate* and *immediate* are opposites; but opposites are not at once true of the same thing and with respect to the same[^8]: therefore it is impossible that He produce both mediately and immediately at once.

2. Likewise, as *per se* is to *per accidens*, so *mediate* to *immediate*; but God is *per accidens* cause of nothing of which He is *per se* cause: therefore He is *mediate* principle of nothing of which He is *immediate* principle.

3. Likewise, that is more immediate which in no way receives a medium, than that which receives a medium; but the Son receives no medium in spirating: therefore He produces more immediately than the Father produces: therefore the Father and the Son do not altogether uniformly produce the Holy Spirit.

> **Conclusion.** *The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father both immediately and with the Son as medium.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, as Richard intends, the production[^9] of the Holy Spirit is *both mediate and immediate*: *mediate*, insofar as He is from the Son, and the Son from the Father; but *immediate*, insofar as the Holy Spirit Himself is spirated by the Father Himself.

*Example.* And an example of this is given in the going-forth of Abel from Adam. For Abel[^10] went forth immediately from Adam, because he himself begot him from his loins; nonetheless he went forth mediately, because he came forth from Eve, who was led from Adam or out of Adam. And this mode had to be in God, on account of the *highest kinship*.

*The reason.* For if the procession of the Holy Spirit were *mediate only*, so that He were only from the Son, there would not be the highest kinship of the Holy Spirit with the Father. Likewise, if [the procession were] altogether immediate, so that He were from the Father only, there would not be the highest kinship with the Son. And so it must be conceded[^11] that [He proceeds] with the Son as medium.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*To 1.* To that, then[^12], which is objected to the contrary — that the immediate principle is more noble — it must be said that *mediation* is in three modes. *Three modes of mediation.* For there is a mediation which *excludes* immediation altogether, as when the ultimate effect is not continued from the influence of the prior cause but is wholly produced through the medium, the prior not co-operating[^13]; and this kind says *order* and *diversity* of agents and *separation*. In another way, mediation is said insofar as it says *order* of causes among themselves, *not separation* in acting, but only *diversity* of agents[^14] and order. In a third way, insofar as it says *order*, but not separation of the powers of the agents nor diversity.

*Conclusion 1.* The first mediation does not fall in God, because God is simply the first cause, whose influence is so great that no creature does anything if His influence is removed; and therefore nothing goes forth from[^15] God *mediately only*.

*Conclusion 2.* The second mediation falls in God with respect to an effect produced by a created cause, because there is order of causes and diversity of powers; yet there is no separation, because God acts *intimately*, because by Himself; He acts[^16] nonetheless through the created power, which is from Him.

*Conclusion 3.* The third mediation falls in the divine operation, in which the persons are agents, in whom an order is observed, because the one has from the other that He acts, but yet there is no diversity of powers nor separation or any distance, but rather they act by one power and equally intimately. And so the Father, with the Son as medium, produces the Holy Spirit — not because [the Son] is a medium of *distance* or *difference*, but because, that the Son produces, this He has from the Father, in such wise that there is here a certain *order*. And so the response to what follows is plain, when it says that *mediate* and *immediate* are opposites: this is true in the first mode, but not in the second nor the third[^17].

*To 2.* To what is objected, that God is cause of nothing *per accidens*, therefore neither mediately; it must be said that to cause something *per accidens* derogates from the truth[^18] of the supreme cause. For something is said to be cause of something *per accidens* whose cause it is *through something else*, which is not from itself but from elsewhere; if therefore God were cause *per accidens* of anything, He would not be the most universal and first cause, and so neither the most noble. But[^19] mediation does not repugn the nobility of the supreme cause. For to cause something[^20] *per se* and *per that which is from Him* does not say unworthiness, but rather worthiness, because it is worthiness not only to be able [to do] something by oneself, but to be able to communicate [it] to another, in such wise, however, that that one without [the first] could do nothing.

*To 3.* To what is objected last, that the Son is a more immediate cause; it must be said that [the argument] does not hold, because the mediation which has been described does not repugn immediation, and therefore does not diminish it.

la: In fine. Vide lit. Magistri supra.

en: [Hilary, *De Trin.* XII] at the end. See Lombard's text above [d12-littera].

la: Libr. V *de Trin.* c. 7–9.

en: Richard of St-Victor, *On the Trinity* V, cc. 7–9.

la: De imagine creata vide supra q. 2.

en: On the created image, see above [d. 9 / d. 3] q. 2.

la: Fide mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *hoc* pro *haec*, quod Vat. perperam ponit. Sub *hoc* intellige: *repraesentare numerum*.

en: On the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted *hoc* for *haec*, which the Vatican wrongly places. Under *hoc* understand: *to represent number*.

la: Ex pluribus mss. ut I aa bb et ed. 1 mutavimus *spirat* in *spiraret*, quod subnexis magis congruit. Mox post *non Pater* ed. 1 addit *non*.

en: From several manuscripts (I aa bb) and ed. 1 we have changed *spirat* to *spiraret*, which agrees better with what follows. Just after *non Pater*, ed. 1 adds *non*.

la: In ed. 1 additur *ergo*.

en: In ed. 1, *ergo* is added.

la: Unus alterve codex ut Y cc *attribuendum*.

en: A codex or two, as Y cc, read *attribuendum*.

la: Vide Aristot., XI *Metaph.* c. 4 (X, c. 5), et *de Praedicam.* c. *de Oppositis*.

en: See Aristotle, *Metaphysics* XI, c. 4 (X, c. 5), and *Categories*, ch. *On Opposites*.

la: Cod. E *processio*.

en: Codex E reads *processio*.

la: Vat., plurimis mss. et ed. 1 refragantibus, omittit *enim*. — De hoc exemplo vide Richard. a S. Vict., V *de Trin.* c. 6.

en: The Vatican, with very many manuscripts and ed. 1 resisting, omits *enim*. — On this example see Richard of St-Victor, *On the Trinity* V, c. 6.

la: Cod. V addit *est*; cod. O autem post *quod* adiungit *procedit*.

en: Codex V adds *est*; codex O after *quod* adds *procedit*.

la: Ope plurium mss. ut A F W etc. et ed. 1 supplevimus *ergo*.

en: With the help of several manuscripts (A F W etc.) and ed. 1 we have supplied *ergo*.

la: Cod. A *operante*. Ed. 1 paulo infra post *Alio modo* habet *est* pro *dicitur*.

en: Codex A reads *operante*. Ed. 1, a little below, after *Alio modo* has *est* in place of *dicitur*.

la: Auctoritate mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 expunximus *virtutum*, quod Vat. praemittit verbo *agentium*. Mox post *Tertio modo* cod. X repetit *dicitur mediatio*.

en: On the authority of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 6 we have expunged *virtutum*, which the Vatican prefixes to the word *agentium*. Just after *Tertio modo*, codex X repeats *dicitur mediatio*.

la: Fide mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *a* loco *ex*.

en: On the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted *a* in place of *ex*.

la: Vat., interpunctione mutata, refert verbum *agit* ad *per se ipsum*, atque deinde adiungit *et*, sed mss. obnitentibus; ed. 1 loco *et* bene repetit *agit*; cod. F minus bene post *nihilominus* addit *est actio*; insuper *secundum* ponit pro *per*.

en: The Vatican, with the punctuation altered, refers the verb *agit* to *per se ipsum*, and thereafter adds *et*, but with the manuscripts resisting; ed. 1 in place of *et* well repeats *agit*; codex F less well after *nihilominus* adds *est actio*; moreover it places *secundum* in place of *per*.

la: Varii codd. varie legunt; cod. F loco *enim* ponit *sed*; cod. H post *enim* addit *aliquo modo scilicet*; multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 mendose *verum est enim, sed non primo modo, sed secundo vel tertio*; cod. T incomplete *verum est enim, sed non cadit mediatio in Deo primo modo, sed secundo vel tertio*, quae lectio a posteriore manu mutata est in eam quam habet Vaticana. Coniectamus, lectionem genuinam esse: *verum est enim primo modo; sed non cadit mediatio in Deo primo modo, sed secundo vel tertio*, qua lectione et codices reconciliantur.

en: Various codices read variously; codex F places *sed* in place of *enim*; codex H after *enim* adds *aliquo modo scilicet*; many codices with editions 1, 2, 3 erroneously [read] *verum est enim, sed non primo modo, sed secundo vel tertio*; codex T incompletely *verum est enim, sed non cadit mediatio in Deo primo modo, sed secundo vel tertio*, which reading was altered by a later hand into that which the Vatican has. We conjecture that the genuine reading is: *verum est enim primo modo; sed non cadit mediatio in Deo primo modo, sed secundo vel tertio* — by which reading the codices are also reconciled.

la: In cod. H additur *et nobilitati*; in cod. T a secunda manu nomen *veritati* mutatum est in *universalitati*. — De *causa per se* et *per accidens* cfr. Aristot., II *Phys.* text. 50 (c. 5), ubi ait: *Ut enim et ens, aliud quidem per se est, aliud autem secundum accidens; sic et causam contingit esse...*

en: In codex H *et nobilitati* is added; in codex T by a second hand the noun *veritati* was changed to *universalitati*. — On *cause per se* and *per accidens* cf. Aristotle, *Physics* II, text 50 (c. 5), where he says: «For just as being is one thing *per se*, another *per accidens*, so it happens with cause...»

la: Pauci codd. ut V X Z addunt *haec*; cod. Y melius post *mediatio* adiungit *quae in Deo ponitur*.

en: A few codices, as V X Z, add *haec*; codex Y better adds after *mediatio* the words *quae in Deo ponitur*.

la: Ex antiquioribus mss. et edd. 1, 6 substituimus *aliquid* loco *aliud*. Mox aliqui codd. ut B T X *illud* pro *id*, et paulo infra cod. Y cum ed. 1 *dignitatis* loco *dignitas*.

en: From the older manuscripts and editions 1 and 6 we have substituted *aliquid* in place of *aliud*. Just after, some codices, as B T X, read *illud* in place of *id*, and a little below codex Y with ed. 1 reads *dignitatis* in place of *dignitas*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Pro elucidatione huius quaestionis servire potest quod dicit Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 1. a. 3.): «Respiciendo ad principium quo spirant, aeque immediate procedit Spiritus sanctus a Patre, sicut a Filio; respiciendo ad ipsos spirantes, similiter aeque immediate procedit a Patre, sicut a Filio, sed nihilominus etiam mediate procedit a Patre, quia non solum per se spirat, sed etiam mediante Filio».

**II.** Locutio: *procedere mediante Filio* in eodem sensu explicatur a S. Thom. (S. I. q. 36. a. 3. ad 1, 2). — Tres modi mediationis, qui in solut. ad 1. occurrunt, exemplis magis illustrari possunt. Primi modi exemplum est avus, qui est causa tantum mediata filiorum sui filii; et sic *mediate* et *immediate* contradictorie opponuntur, nec talis mediatio Deo tribui potest. Secundi modi exemplum in ipso textu adducitur, scil. cooperatio Dei cum actibus creaturarum. Deus enim sic operatur mediantibus causis secundis, ut tamen ista mediatio non excludat immediatam operationem divinam, qua intime attingit et causam secundam et effectum eius; sic sumtum *mediatum* et *immediatum* non opponuntur. Tertius modus mediationis respicit tantum ordinem divinarum personarum ad invicem, sive attendatur in operibus divinis ad extra, quae sunt indivisa, et tamen operantes personae habent ordinem inter se, sive attendatur in spiratione Spiritus sancti, in qua est ordo spirantium.

**III.** Circa id quod dicit *ad 2*, Deum non esse causam *per accidens*, cfr. II *Sent.* d. 37. q. 2. a. 2, ubi dicit: *Causa per accidens dicitur respectu intentionis, non quatenus accidens est differentia entis*.

**IV.** Quoad conclusionem: cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 46. m. 6. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3; S. I. q. 36. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unic. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 3. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** For the elucidation of this question, what Peter of Tarantasia says (here q. 1, a. 3) can serve: «Looking to the principle by which they spirate, the Holy Spirit proceeds equally immediately from the Father as from the Son; looking to the spirators themselves, likewise He proceeds equally immediately from the Father as from the Son, but nonetheless He also proceeds mediately from the Father, because [the Father] does not only spirate per se, but also with the Son as medium».

**II.** The expression *to proceed with the Son as medium* is explained in the same sense by St. Thomas (S. I, q. 36, a. 3, ad 1, 2). — The three modes of mediation occurring in the *reply to 1* can be illustrated more by examples. An example of the first mode is a grandfather, who is cause only mediately of the children of his son; and so *mediately* and *immediately* are contradictorily opposed, nor can such a mediation be attributed to God. An example of the second mode is given in the text itself, namely the cooperation of God with the acts of creatures. For God so operates with second causes as media, that yet this mediation does not exclude the immediate divine operation by which He intimately reaches both the second cause and its effect; *mediate* and *immediate* taken in this way are not opposed. The third mode of mediation regards only the order of the divine persons among themselves — whether one looks to the divine works *ad extra*, which are undivided, and yet the operating persons have an order between themselves, or whether one looks to the spiration of the Holy Spirit, in which there is an order of the spirators.

**III.** Concerning what he says *ad 2* — that God is not cause *per accidens* — cf. II *Sent.* d. 37, q. 2, a. 2, where he says: *Cause per accidens is so called with respect to intention, not insofar as accident is a difference of being.*

**IV.** As to the conclusion: cf. Alexander of Hales, S. p. I, q. 46, m. 6. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3; S. I, q. 36, a. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. unica, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 3. — Giles of Rome, here 2. princ. q. 2. — Durandus, here q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
The *mediante Filio* question. Bonaventure's resolution is yes: the Spirit's procession is *both* mediate (through the Son) *and* immediate (from the Father), with Richard of St-Victor's Adam/Eve/Abel triad as the analogy.

**Three modes of mediation** (the structural core of the *reply to 1*, used elsewhere in the *Sentences*):

| Mode | Says | Example | Falls in God? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (excluding) | order + diversity + **separation** of agents | grandfather as cause of grandson | No |
| 2 (cooperating) | order + diversity, no separation | God + creature in created effects | Yes (creation) |
| 3 (intra-divine) | only order, no diversity, no separation | Father + Son spirating Spirit | Yes (Trinity) |

The Spirit's *highest kinship* (*summa germanitas*) with both Father and Son requires this twin character: were He from the Son alone (mediately), there would be no kinship with the Father; were He from the Father alone (immediately), no kinship with the Son.

The Adam/Abel/Eve example (Richard, *De Trin.* V.6) is a sub-Trinitarian image: Abel proceeds *immediately* from Adam by generation, *mediately* through Eve who is led from Adam.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 12, Art. 1, Q. 4

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 225 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum generatio Filii sit prior spiratione Spiritus sancti secundum rationem intelligendi.*

Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, quae istarum duarum emanationum, scilicet *generationis* et *processionis*, sit prior secundum rationem intelligendi. Et quod *generatio Filii*, ostenditur sic.

**Fundamenta:**

1. In imagine creata sic est, quod secundum ordinem intelligendi prior est emanatio *notitiae* a mente quam *amoris*, sicut vult Augustinus[^1]: «quia incognita non possumus diligere», sicut dicit Augustinus in decimo *de Trinitate*[^2]: ergo si ordo attenditur in imagine secundum conformitatem ad Trinitatem increatam, ergo secundum rationem intelligendi prior est processus *Verbi* quam *Amoris* in divinis, maxime cum per imaginem creatam intelligamus Trinitatem increatam.

2. Item, sicut vult Philosophus[^3], «voluntas est, cuius principium est in ipso cognoscente singularia», ergo voluntas ut voluntas praesupponit cognitionem: ergo emanationem Verbi [praesupponit] emanatio Amoris.

3. Item, omne principium secundum rationem intelligendi prius est quam principiatum; sed Filius est principium Spiritus sancti: ergo secundum rationem intelligendi oportet praeintelligere Filium Spiritui sancto[^4]: ergo et generationem, quae est emanatio Filii, prius quam processionem, quae est Spiritus sancti.

4. Item, in omni natura[^5] agente per modum naturae et voluntatis, productio per modum naturae intelligitur ante productionem voluntatis: ergo cum Pater sit natura intellectualis, producens Filium connaturalem et per modum naturae et Spiritum sanctum per modum voluntatis, ut supra tactum est[^6]: ergo emanatio Filii prior est secundum rationem intelligendi emanatione Spiritus sancti.

**Ad oppositum:**

1. Augustinus nono *de Trinitate*[^7]: «Partum mentis praecedit appetitus, quo id quod nosse volumus quaerendo, nascitur proles ipsa notitia»: ergo ante est in imagine creata appetitus, quam sit proles notitia, ergo ante amor quam verbum: ergo et processio ante generationem.

2. Item, nullus videns rem cognoscit eam[^8] nisi intentio voluntatis applicet vim cognoscentem ipsi cognoscibili, ut patet de homine eunte per viam, qui cum ivit et alibi cogitavit, perfecte nescit, qua transierit, sicut dicit Augustinus in undecimo *de Trinitate*[^9]. Ergo voluntas praecedit ipsam cognitionem, ergo amor verbum in creaturis: ergo pari ratione in Deo, saltem secundum intellectum.

3. Item, sicut vult Philosophus, *primum* et *immediatum* est idem. Unde ipse in libro *Posteriorum*[^10], definiens *propositionem immediatam*, dicit, quod «*immediata propositio est illa qua non est altera prior*»; sed aeque immediate Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre, ut Filius, ergo aeque primo: ergo nec secundum rem, nec secundum rationem intelligendi generatio Filii praecedit processionem Spiritus sancti.

4. Item, quanto aliquid communius, tanto prius est secundum rationem intelligendi[^11]; sed *communis spiratio* est communior quam *generatio*, quia convenit Patri et Filio, sed generatio soli Patri: ergo prior est secundum rationem intelligendi spiratio quam generatio.

> **Conclusio.** *Secundum rationem intelligendi generatio Filii prior est spiratione Spiritus sancti, quod triplici ratione probatur.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, quidquid sit de ordine *reali*, de quo infra dicetur[^12], tamen secundum rationem intelligendi prior est emanatio Verbi, *tum* quia Verbum est Spiritus sancti principium, *tum* etiam quia Verbum procedit per modum naturae, sed Spiritus sanctus per modum liberalis voluntatis, *tum* etiam quia intelligimus emanationes in personis per emanationes repertas in imagine. In imagine autem constat, quod cognitio et intelligentia praecedit amorem et voluntatem; non tamen volo dicere, quod in divinis sit emanatio ita[^13] *natura* posterior emanatione, sicut reperimus in imagine creata.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod appetitus praecedit partum mentis; dicendum, quod ille appetitus habet secundum duplicem statum dupliciter considerari[^14]:

<!-- page 226 -->

uno modo secundum rationem *inhiantis* ante habitam cognitionem; alio modo secundum rationem *complectentis*, et hoc est post habitam cognitionem; et secundum primum statum est imperfectionis, quantum vero ad secundum est perfectionis. Et ideo quia quod perfectionis est in Deo ponimus, non quod est imperfectionis, ideo appetitus secundo modo assimilatur Spiritui sancto, et hic tenet rationem tertii. Et quod primus sit imperfectionis, patet, quia est ignorantis et desiderantis scientiam acquirere, quod non convenit Deo.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod intentio praeexigitur ad cognitionem; dicendum, quod verum est ad cognitionem *acquirendam*; sed notitia, prout est in acquirendo, non habet similitudinem cum illo *Verbo*, ut vult Augustinus in decimo quinto *de Trinitate*[^15].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aeque immediate procedit Spiritus sanctus; dicendum, quod verum est; sed tamen Spiritus sanctus ita procedit immediate, quod etiam mediante Filio; et ita ex illa ratione oportet praeintelligi emanationem Filii.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod quanto aliquid communius, tanto prius; dicendum, quod verum est *in absolutis*, sed non tenet *in respectivis*, ut patet in generatione et creatione. — Potest tamen dici, quod istud intelligitur de eo quod est commune[^16] communitate *praedicationis*; sed communis spiratio est communis communitate non tantum praedicationis, quia dicitur de Patre et Filio, sed etiam *cuiusdam concordiae et connexionis*; et tale commune secundum rationem concordiae et amicitiae *praesupponit* concordantes et connexos, *non praeit*: et sic patet illud.

english:
### Question IV. *Whether the generation of the Son is prior to the spiration of the Holy Spirit in the order of understanding.*

Fourthly and last it is asked, which of these two emanations — namely *generation* and *procession* — is prior in the order of understanding. And that [it is] *the generation of the Son* is shown thus.

**Foundations:**

1. In the *created image*, it is so that according to the order of understanding the emanation of *cognition* from the mind is prior to that of *love*, as Augustine intends[^1]: «because we cannot love what is unknown», as Augustine says in *De Trin.* X[^2]: therefore if the order in the image is observed by conformity to the *uncreated Trinity*, then in the order of understanding the procession of the *Word* is prior to that of *Love* in the divine being — especially since through the created image we understand the uncreated Trinity.

2. Likewise, as the Philosopher intends[^3], «will is that whose principle is in the very one cognizing the singulars», therefore will *as will* presupposes cognition: therefore the emanation of Love [presupposes] the emanation of the Word.

3. Likewise, every principle is prior in the order of understanding to what is principiated by it; but the Son is principle of the Holy Spirit: therefore in the order of understanding the Son must be pre-understood to the Holy Spirit[^4]: therefore generation, which is the emanation of the Son, [is prior] to procession, which is [the emanation] of the Holy Spirit.

4. Likewise, in every nature[^5] acting both *by mode of nature* and *by mode of will*, production by mode of nature is understood before production by will: therefore since the Father is intellectual nature, producing the Son connatural and by mode of nature, and the Holy Spirit by mode of will, as was touched on above[^6]: therefore the emanation of the Son is prior in the order of understanding to the emanation of the Holy Spirit.

**On the contrary:**

1. Augustine, *De Trin.* IX[^7]: «The birth of the mind is preceded by appetite, by which, in seeking what we will to know, the offspring itself, [namely] cognition, is born»: therefore in the created image appetite is before the offspring [which is] cognition, therefore love before word: therefore also procession before generation.

2. Likewise, no one seeing a thing knows it[^8] unless the intention of the will applies the cognitive power to the cognizable [thing] itself, as is plain in a man going along a road who, when he has gone and was thinking elsewhere, does not perfectly know where he passed, as Augustine says in *De Trin.* XI[^9]. Therefore will precedes cognition itself, therefore love [precedes] word in creatures: therefore by parity of reasoning in God, at least in the [order of] understanding.

3. Likewise, as the Philosopher intends, *first* and *immediate* are the same. Hence in the *Posterior [Analytics]*[^10], defining the *immediate proposition*, he says that «*an immediate proposition is one which has no other prior*»; but the Holy Spirit proceeds equally immediately from the Father as the Son does, therefore equally first: therefore neither in reality nor in the order of understanding does the generation of the Son precede the procession of the Holy Spirit.

4. Likewise, the more common a thing is, the prior it is in the order of understanding[^11]; but *common spiration* is more common than *generation*, because it belongs to the Father and the Son, but generation only to the Father: therefore spiration is prior in the order of understanding to generation.

> **Conclusion.** *In the order of understanding the generation of the Son is prior to the spiration of the Holy Spirit, which is proved on three grounds.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, whatever the case may be in the *real* order, of which more below[^12], yet in the order of understanding the emanation of the Word is prior — *both* because the Word is principle of the Holy Spirit, *and* because the Word proceeds by mode of nature, while the Holy Spirit by mode of *liberal will*, *and* because we understand the emanations in the [divine] persons through the emanations found in the [created] image. In the image, however, it is established that cognition and understanding precede love and will. I do not, however, mean to say that in the divine being there is an emanation thus[^13] *posterior in nature* to [another] emanation, as we find in the created image.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected to the contrary — that appetite precedes the birth of the mind — it must be said that appetite, according to a twofold *state*, is to be considered in two ways[^14]: in one way according to the formal character of *yearning [for]* before cognition is had; in another way according to the formal character of *embracing*, and this is after cognition is had; and in the first state it is of imperfection, but in the second of perfection. And therefore, because we posit in God what is of perfection, not what is of imperfection, therefore appetite in the second mode is likened to the Holy Spirit, and here it holds the formal character of a *third*. And that the first is of imperfection is plain, because it is of one ignorant and desiring to acquire knowledge — which does not befit God.

*To 2.* To what is objected, that intention is required prior to cognition; it must be said that this is true for cognition *to be acquired*; but cognition, insofar as it is in being acquired, has no likeness to that *Word*, as Augustine intends in *De Trin.* XV[^15].

*To 3.* To what is objected, that the Holy Spirit proceeds equally immediately; it must be said that this is true; but yet the Holy Spirit so proceeds immediately, that He also [proceeds] with the Son as medium; and so on this account the emanation of the Son must be pre-understood.

*To 4.* To what is objected, that the more common, the prior; it must be said that this is true *in absolute* [terms], but does not hold *in respective* [terms], as is plain in *generation* and *creation*. — Yet it can be said that this is understood of what is common[^16] by the *commonness of predication*; but common spiration is common by a commonness not only of *predication* — because it is said of the Father and the Son — but also of *a certain concord and connection*; and such a common, according to the formal character of concord and friendship, *presupposes* the concordant and connected, [and] *does not precede* [them]: and so that [point] is plain.

la: Libr. IX *de Trin.* c. 12, n. 18.

en: [Augustine,] *On the Trinity* IX, c. 12, n. 18.

la: Cap. 1, n. 1 seqq.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* X,] c. 1, n. 1 ff.

la: Libr. III *Ethic.* c. 1, ubi *voluntarium* (spontaneum) definitur esse eius, *cuius principium in ipso cognoscente singularia, in quibus est actio*. — De voluntate ut *voluntas* seu *deliberativa*, cui opponitur voluntas ut *natura*, vide II *Sent.* d. 24. p. I. a. 2. q. 3, et IV d. 14. p. I. q. 2. ad 1.

en: [Aristotle,] *Nicomachean Ethics* III, c. 1, where *the voluntary* (spontaneous) is defined as «that whose principle is in the one cognizing the singulars in which the action lies». — On will *as will* or *deliberative*, opposed to will *as nature*, see II *Sent.* d. 24, p. I, a. 2, q. 3, and IV *Sent.* d. 14, p. I, q. 2, ad 1.

la: Plures codd. cum Vat. *quam Spiritum sanctum*, sed minus congrue et contra alios codd. ut G T V etc. cum ed. 1; cod. X *intelligere Filium prius, quam Spiritum sanctum*.

en: Several codices with the Vatican read *quam Spiritum sanctum*, but less aptly and against the other codices, as G T V etc., with ed. 1; codex X reads *intelligere Filium prius, quam Spiritum sanctum*.

la: Auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus *natura*, minus bene propter subnexa omissum a Vat.

en: On the authority of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied *natura*, less well omitted by the Vatican on account of what follows.

la: Cap. 12, n. 18, in quibus verbis Vat. cum ed. operum S. Augustini, sed contra nostros codd. et sex primas edd., post *appetitus* addunt *quidam* et post *quaerendo* adiiciunt *et inveniendo*.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* IX,] c. 12, n. 18 — in which words the Vatican with the edition of St. Augustine's works, but against our codices and the first six editions, after *appetitus* adds *quidam*, and after *quaerendo* adds *et inveniendo*.

la: Vat., plurimis mss. et ed. 1 obnitentibus, *ipsam*.

en: The Vatican, with very many manuscripts and ed. 1 resisting, [reads] *ipsam*.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* XI,] c. 8, n. 15.

la: Libr. I, c. 2.

en: [Aristotle, *Posterior Analytics*] I, c. 2.

la: Vide Aristot., III *Phys.* text. 2; et V *Metaph.* text. 16 (IV, c. 11). — Mox in Vat. omittitur perperam *communis*, quod tamen in mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 habetur.

en: See Aristotle, *Physics* III, text 2; and *Metaphysics* V, text 16 (IV, c. 11). — Just after, in the Vatican *communis* is wrongly omitted, which is yet found in the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3.

la: Hic, dub. 1, et infra d. 20, a. 2, qq. 1 et 2. — Immediate post ex mss. antiquioribus et ed. 1 adiecimus *tamen*.

en: Here, *dub.* 1, and below d. 20, a. 2, qq. 1 and 2. — Immediately after, from the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have added *tamen*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc male et contra alios codd. et ed. 1 omittit *ita*.

en: The Vatican with codex cc badly and against the other codices and ed. 1 omits *ita*.

la: Cod. T cum ed. 1 *consideratur*.

en: Codex T with ed. 1 reads *consideratur*.

la: [Augustini *De Trin.* XV] c. 15, n. 25.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* XV,] c. 15, n. 25.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc *commune est*; codd. plures *id quod*.

en: The Vatican with codex cc reads *commune est*; several codices [read] *id quod*.

latin_scholion:
In conclusione omnes Scholastici antiqui consentiunt: Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 46. m. 7. — Scot., I *Sent.* d. 11. q. 1. — S. Thom., hic a. 1. — B. Albert., I *Sent.* d. 28. a. 2. circa finem. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 4. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 1. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 54. q. 5. n. 12, et q. 6. n. 26, 34. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
In the conclusion all the ancient scholastics agree: Alexander of Hales, S. p. I, q. 46, m. 7. — Scotus, I *Sent.* d. 11, q. 1. — St. Thomas, here a. 1. — Bl. Albert, I *Sent.* d. 28, a. 2, near the end. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 4. — Giles of Rome, here 1. princ. q. 1. — Henry of Ghent, S. a. 54, q. 5, n. 12, and q. 6, nn. 26, 34. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
The *ordo intelligendi* question. Conclusion: in the *order of understanding*, the generation of the Son is prior to the spiration of the Holy Spirit. (The *real* order is reserved for d. 12 dub. 1 and d. 20 a. 2.)

**Three grounds for the priority** (the structural core of the *respondeo*):

1. The Son is *principle* of the Holy Spirit; principle precedes principiated in understanding.
2. The Son proceeds *per modum naturae*; the Spirit *per modum liberalis voluntatis* — and nature precedes will in the order of understanding.
3. We understand the divine emanations *through the created image*, in which cognition precedes love.

**Caveat.** Bonaventure expressly disclaims that the divine emanations are *posterior in nature* to one another in the way found in the created image. The priority is strictly one *secundum rationem intelligendi*, not *natura*.

**The reply to obj. 1 — the appetite distinction.** Augustine's *De Trin.* IX seems to put appetite *before* cognition. Bonaventure splits appetite:
- *appetitus inhiantis* — yearning before knowledge: imperfection, not in God.
- *appetitus complectentis* — embracing after knowledge: perfection, attributed to the Holy Spirit.

This is the same imperfection/perfection split Bonaventure uses elsewhere when reading Augustine on appetite-before-cognition.

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. 12, Dubia

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

source_text:
<!-- page 226 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dubium I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de argumento haeretici, quod facit ibi: *Aut nato iam Filio, aut non nato*. Videtur enim istud argumentum necessarium, quia cuiuslibet contradictionis necessarium est alteram partem esse veram[^1]; sed *natum* et *non natum* opponuntur contradictorie: ergo necesse est alteram partem dare[^2], quod Spiritus sanctus procedat aut nato iam Filio, aut non nato: cum igitur Magister[^3] et Augustinus respondeant interimendo utramque partem, videntur male respondere.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod haereticus in sua quaestione quaerebat de ordine generationis Filii ad processionem Spiritus sancti, et quaerebat de ordine secundum *durationem et tempus*, non secundum *rationem intelligendi*, et quaerebat, utrum prius natus est Filius, quam processit[^4] Spiritus sanctus, aut e converso. Et utrumque falsum erat; ideo Magister et Augustinus considerantes intentionem haeretici sive interrogationem secundum sensum, in quo eam proponit, simpliciter et bene respondent eam *interimendo*.

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod divisio haeretici est per contradictoria; dicendum, quod falsum est; quia *propositio contradictoria* accipitur negando *compositionem principalem*[^5]; sed ipse fert negationem ad compositionem non principalem, sed intellectam in hoc quod est *nato*[^6]; et ideo causa falsitatis semper remanet. Haec enim est falsa: *Spiritus sanctus procedit, nato Filio*; quia notatur, quod *nativitas Filii praecedat processionem Spiritus sancti*. Haec iterum est falsa: *processit, non nato Filio*; quia notatur, quod *nativitas Filii non fuerit simul cum processione Spiritus sancti*. Sed haec est vera: *Spiritus sanctus non processit, nato prius Filio*; quia simul fuit nativitas Filii et processio Spiritus sancti[^7].

### Dubium II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur: *Quidquid Unigenito dedit, gignendo dedit*. Videtur male dicere, quia si hoc; sed[^8] dedit ei spirationem, ergo dedit eam gignendo, ergo *spiratio est genita*. Sed quidquid dicitur in divinis concrete, dicitur et abstracte, sed non convertitur: ergo si spiratio est genita, *spiratio est generatio*, quod est contra omnes modo[^9].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod defectus est in utroque argumento.

*Solutio 1.* Nam illud non valet: *dedit generando spirationem, ergo generavit spirationem*; sicut non sequitur: *generando dedit Filio essentiam, ergo essentia est genita*. Aliqua enim per generationem dicuntur *dari*, quae non dicuntur *generari*.

*Solutio 2.* Et iterum alia ratio non valet: *spiratio est genita, ergo spiratio est generatio*. Sicut enim infra patebit[^10] de duabus notionibus unius personae, verum est, quod una praedicatur de altera *denominative*, non *in abstractione*; et ideo non valet illa ratio, immo est ibi accidens. Quod ergo dicitur: *quidquid praedicatur denominative et abstracte*, verum est de essentia; sed non est verum de proprietate personae; et haec infra melius patebunt[^11].

### Dubium III.

Item dubitatio est de hoc quod dicit Hieronymus: *Credimus in Spiritum sanctum, qui de Patre proprie procedit*. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia *proprium est quod convenit uni soli*[^12]: ergo si de Patre procedit *proprie*, non ergo de Filio. Si tu dicas, quod non dicit *proprie* contra communitatem, sed contra improprietatem: ergo videtur quod *improprie* procedat a Filio.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *proprie* non dicit proprietatem sive solitudinem, sed sonat in[^13] auctoritatem, sicut *principaliter*.

*Solutio 1.* Sicut enim Pater principaliter dicitur spirare, quia hoc non habet ab alio; ita etiam *proprie*, quia hanc conditionem, *non habere ab alio*, nulli communicat; ita videtur dicere Magister.

*Alia solutio.* Potest tamen dici, quod uno modo *proprium* dicitur contra *communitatem*; alio modo contra *improprietatem*; tertio modo accipitur pro *appropriatione*[^14]; et sic accipitur hic. Quamvis enim spiratio aeque vere et proprie conveniat Patri et Filio, tamen Hieronymus appropriat eam Patri propter *auctoritatem*[^15].

### Dubium IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hilarius loquens ad Patrem: *Ex te per eum Spiritus sanctus tuus est*. Videtur enim male dicere dicendo *per eum*, quia, ut dicit Praepositivus[^16], *per* cum verbis transitivis significat *subauctoritatem*, sed cum absolutis *auctoritatem*; ut patet, cum dicitur: *ego sum sapiens per Deum*, in *Deo* notatur auctoritas. Cum ergo dicitur, quod Spiritus sanctus est a Patre per Filium, in *Filio* notatur auctoritas.

**Respondeo:**

*Solutio aliorum.* Dicendum, quod aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod haec est impropria: *Spiritus sanctus est a Patre per Filium* sive *procedit*; et debet resolvi in hanc: *Spiritus sanctus spiratur a Patre per Filium*; et consentiunt rationi praedictae.

<!-- page 227 -->

*Non probatur.* Sed cum ista sit vera: *creatura procedit a Patre per Filium*, et haec similiter: *exit vel procedit*: non video rationem, quare similiter illa verba Hilarii non proprie dici [possint].

*Solutio vera.* Et[^17] propterea est dicendum, quod quamvis *procedere* non sit verbum transitivum quantum ad modum significandi, quia non construitur cum accusativo; quia tamen aequivalet[^18] transitivo, ut cum dicitur: *procedit a Patre per Filium*, iudicandum est sicut de verbo transitivo; et ideo dicit *subauctoritatem*[^19].

---

english:
### DOUBTS ON THE TEXT OF THE MASTER (Distinction XII).

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts on the text, and first on the heretic's argument which he makes there: *Either when the Son was already born, or when He was not yet born*. For that argument seems necessary, because it is necessary that one part of any contradiction be true[^1]; but *born* and *not born* are contradictorily opposed: therefore it is necessary to grant one part[^2], that the Holy Spirit proceeds either when the Son was already born, or when He was not yet born: since therefore the Master[^3] and Augustine reply by *killing* both parts, they seem to reply badly.

**I respond:** It must be said that the heretic in his question was asking about the order of the generation of the Son to the procession of the Holy Spirit, and was asking about the order according to *duration and time*, not according to the *order of understanding*, and was asking whether the Son was born first, before the Holy Spirit proceeded[^4], or conversely. And both were false; therefore the Master and Augustine, considering the intention of the heretic — that is, the question according to the sense in which he proposed it — reply simply and well by *killing* it.

To that, then, which is objected, that the heretic's division is by contradictories; it must be said that this is false; because a *contradictory proposition* is taken by negating the *principal composition*[^5]; but he carries the negation to a composition that is not principal, but understood in the [participle] *born*[^6]; and therefore the cause of falsity always remains. For this is false: *The Holy Spirit proceeded, the Son [already] born*; because it is signified that *the nativity of the Son precedes the procession of the Holy Spirit*. This too is false: *He proceeded, the Son not [yet] born*; because it is signified that *the nativity of the Son was not at the same time as the procession of the Holy Spirit*. But this is true: *The Holy Spirit did not proceed, the Son being born first*; because the nativity of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit were at the same time[^7].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what is said: *Whatever He gave to the Only-begotten, He gave by begetting*. He seems to say [this] badly, because if so; but[^8] He gave Him spiration, therefore He gave it by begetting, therefore *spiration is begotten*. But whatever is said in the divine [persons] concretely is also said abstractly — though not conversely: therefore if spiration is begotten, *spiration is generation*, which is against everyone today[^9].

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a defect in both arguments.

*Solution 1.* For this does not hold: *He gave by begetting spiration, therefore He begot spiration*; just as it does not follow: *by begetting He gave the essence to the Son, therefore the essence is begotten*. For some things are said to be *given* by generation which are not said to be *generated*.

*Solution 2.* And again the other reasoning does not hold: *spiration is begotten, therefore spiration is generation*. For as will appear below[^10] concerning the two notions of one person, it is true that one is predicated of the other *denominatively*, not *in abstract*; and so that reasoning does not hold — rather, an accident is committed there. So when it is said: *whatever is predicated denominatively is also [predicable] abstractly*, this is true of *essence*; but it is not true of *property of a person*; and these things will appear better below[^11].

### Doubt III.

Likewise there is a doubt about what Jerome says: *We believe in the Holy Spirit, who properly proceeds from the Father*. For he seems to say [something] false, because *property is what belongs to one alone*[^12]: therefore if [the Spirit] proceeds *properly* from the Father, He does not [proceed properly] from the Son. If you say that he does not say *properly* against *commonness* but against *improperness*: then it seems that He proceeds *improperly* from the Son.

**I respond:** It must be said that *proprie* does not denote *property* or *solitude*, but rings of[^13] *authority*, like *principally*.

*Solution 1.* For just as the Father is said to spirate *principally* because He does not have this from another; so also *properly*, because this condition — *not to have from another* — He communicates to no one. So the Master seems to say.

*Another solution.* Yet it can be said that in one way *proper* is said against *commonness*; in another way against *improperness*; in a third way it is taken for *appropriation*[^14]; and so it is taken here. For although spiration belongs as truly and properly to the Father and the Son, yet Jerome appropriates it to the Father on account of *authority*[^15].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what Hilary, addressing the Father, says: *From Thee, through Him, is Thy Holy Spirit*. For he seems to say [it] badly by saying *through Him*, because, as Prepositivus says[^16], *per* (through) with transitive verbs signifies *sub-authority*, but with absolute [verbs] *authority*; as is plain when it is said: *I am wise through God*, in *God* authority is denoted. When therefore it is said that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, in *the Son* authority is denoted.

**I respond:**

*The solution of others.* It must be said that some have wished to say that this is improper: *The Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son*, or *proceeds*; and it should be resolved into: *The Holy Spirit is spirated by the Father through the Son*; and they consent to the aforesaid reasoning.

*Not proven.* But since *creature proceeds from the Father through the Son* is true, and likewise *goes out or proceeds*: I do not see why those words of Hilary similarly cannot be said properly.

*The true solution.* And[^17] therefore it must be said that, although *to proceed* is not a transitive verb in mode of signifying — because it is not construed with the accusative — yet because it is equivalent[^18] to a transitive [verb], as when it is said: *He proceeds from the Father through the Son*, it is to be judged as if [it were] a transitive verb; and so it denotes *sub-authority*[^19].

---

la: Aristot., I *Periherm.* c. 6 (c. 8).

en: Aristotle, *On Interpretation* I, c. 6 (c. 8).

la: In cod. Y additur *videlicet*.

en: In codex Y *videlicet* is added.

la: Hic, c. 1, ubi et verba Augustini habentur.

en: [Lombard,] here, c. 1, where Augustine's words are also given.

la: Unus alterve codex ut I bb cum ed. 1 *natus esset Filius quam processisset*.

en: A codex or two, as I bb, with ed. 1 read *natus esset Filius quam processisset*.

la: Id est, copulam, quae hic fit verbo *procedit*.

en: That is, the copula, which here is made by the verb *procedit*.

la: B. Albert., hic a. 2. ad ult. ait: *Dicendum, quod licet natum et non natum habeant modum oppositionis contradictoriorum, tamen propositiones, in quibus ponuntur, non sunt contradictoriae, istae scilicet: aut processit iam nato, aut processit iam non nato, quia negatio non fertur ad compositionem (copulam), et ideo sunt ambae affirmativae.* — Similia dicit Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. ad 1.

en: Bl. Albert, here a. 2, *ad ult.*, says: «It must be said that, although *born* and *not born* have the mode of opposition of contradictories, yet the propositions in which they are placed are not contradictory — namely these: *He proceeded the [Son] already born*, or *He proceeded the [Son] not yet born* — because the negation is not carried to the composition (copula), and therefore both are affirmative». — Peter of Tarantasia says similar things, here q. 1, a. 1, ad 1.

la: Cfr. hic, q. 1; et Richard., hic q. 1. ad ult.

en: Cf. here, q. 1; and Richard [of Mediavilla], here q. 1, *ad ult.*

la: Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 *esset verum* loco *sed*; simili elliptica locutione S. Bonav. saepius utitur.

en: The Vatican, without the authority of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 6, [reads] *esset verum* in place of *sed*; the Holy Doctor often uses such an elliptical expression.

la: Ita fere omnes codd. cum ed. 1; cod. cc omittit *modo*, pro quo Vat. *modernos*.

en: So nearly all the codices with ed. 1; codex cc omits *modo*, in place of which the Vatican has *modernos*.

la: Dist. 33, qq. 3 et 4. — Mox post *verum est* Vat. cum cod. cc, aliis tamen codd. et ed. 1 refragantibus, addit *dicere*. Paulo infra post *denominative* in cod. T apponitur *sed*.

en: D. 33, qq. 3 and 4. — Just after *verum est* the Vatican with codex cc — though the other codices and ed. 1 resist — adds *dicere*. A little below, after *denominative*, in codex T *sed* is appended.

la: Loco paulo supra citato. — Antiquiores codd. cum ed. 1 in eo conveniunt, quod in ultima propositione adiungant a Vat. et cod. cc omissum *melius*, sed in eo dissentiunt, quod alii ut A G H I T etc. cum ed. 1 exhibent lectionem nostram, alii modo singulari *et hoc infra melius patebit*; cod. Z *et hoc similiter melius patebit*. — De solutione huius dubii vide etiam B. Albert., hic a. 7.

en: At the place just cited above. — The older codices with ed. 1 agree in adding *melius*, omitted by the Vatican and codex cc, in the last proposition; but they disagree in that some, as A G H I T etc., with ed. 1 present our reading, others in the singular *et hoc infra melius patebit*; codex Z reads *et hoc similiter melius patebit*. — On the solution of this doubt see also Bl. Albert, here a. 7.

la: Aristot., I *Topic.* c. 4, et Porphyr., *de Praedicab.* c. *de Proprio*. — Paulo infra fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *dicit*, scilicet Hieronymus, loco *dicitur*.

en: Aristotle, *Topics* I, c. 4, and Porphyry, *On the Predicables*, ch. *On the Proper*. — A little below, on the testimony of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted *dicit* (sc. Jerome) in place of *dicitur*.

la: Auctoritate fere omnium mss. et trium primarum edd. restituimus praepositionem *in*; familiaris siquidem est S. Doctori haec locutio *sonare in*.

en: On the authority of nearly all the manuscripts and the first three editions, we have restored the preposition *in*; for the expression *sonare in* (to ring of) is familiar to the Holy Doctor.

la: Plurimi codd. cum tribus primis edd. *per appropriationem*. Melius legeretur *pro appropriato*. Paulo infra mss. cum sex primis edd. perperam *Filius* loco *Hieronymus*.

en: Very many codices with the first three editions read *per appropriationem*. It would be better read *pro appropriato*. A little below the manuscripts with the first six editions wrongly read *Filius* in place of *Hieronymus*.

la: Solutioni consentit S. Thom., S. I. q. 36. a. 3. ad 2, et Scot., hic q. 2.

en: St. Thomas agrees with the solution, S. I, q. 36, a. 3, ad 2, and Scotus, here q. 2.

la: Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 *Priscianus*.

en: The Vatican, against the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, [reads] *Priscianus*.

la: In Vat. omittitur *Et*, refragantibus mss. et ed. 1.

en: In the Vatican *Et* is omitted, with the manuscripts and ed. 1 resisting.

la: Ed. 1 *aequipollet*. Paulo infra post *Filium* codd. H V addunt *tantum valet ac si diceretur, producitur*.

en: Ed. 1 reads *aequipollet*. A little below, after *Filium*, codices H V add *tantum valet ac si diceretur, producitur* («it has the same force as if it were said, *He is produced*»).

la: Explicationem textus Hilarii et significationem praepositionis *per* vide etiam in S. Thom., S. I. q. 36 a. 3, in corp. et ad 1; B. Albert., hic a. 6; Scot., hic q. 2.

en: For the explanation of the text of Hilary and the signification of the preposition *per*, see also St. Thomas, S. I, q. 36, a. 3, *in corpore* and *ad 1*; Bl. Albert, here a. 6; Scotus, here q. 2.

translators_notes:
Four *dubia* on Lombard's d. 12 text, treating four sticking-points:

1. **DUB I.** *The heretic's contradictory disjunction* — *natus / non natus*. Both Lombard and Augustine reply by *killing* both parts. Bonaventure's defense: the heretic's question presupposes a *temporal* order; Augustine kills the temporal premise rather than choosing a horn. The negation in the heretic's disjunction does not fall on the principal copula but on the participle *nato*, so the propositions are not strictly contradictory (= Albert's same solution).

2. **DUB II.** *Whatever the Father gives to the Son, He gives by begetting* — does it follow that *spiratio* is begotten? No, on two grounds: (a) some things are *given* by generation that are not *generated* (e.g. essence); (b) one notion can be predicated of another denominatively (*Filius est spirans*) but not in the abstract (*generatio est spiratio*). Forward-reference: d. 33, qq. 3–4.

3. **DUB III.** *Spirit proceeds properly from the Father* (Jerome) — does *properly* exclude proceeding from the Son? Bonaventure offers two solutions: (a) *proprie* here means *with authority*, parallel to *principaliter* — said of what the Father has *not from another*; (b) *proprium* has three senses (against *commonness*, against *improperness*, for *appropriation*); here it is appropriation. Spiration belongs equally truly and properly to Father and Son; Jerome merely *appropriates* it to the Father on account of authority.

4. **DUB IV.** *Per* (through) with transitive verbs signifies sub-authority (Prepositivus). Then *Spirit proceeds from Father through Son* would put authority in the Son. Bonaventure's resolution: *procedere* is grammatically intransitive (no accusative) but logically equivalent to a transitive verb here, so should be judged like a transitive — hence *per Filium* signifies sub-authority of the Son, not authority. (= the conclusion already reached at d. 12 a. 1 q. 2 on *auctoritas / subauctoritas*.)


title: Dist. 13

source_text:
<!-- page 229 -->

# DISTINCTIO XIII.

…Deo sit, nec tamen ipse Filius sit, quoniam procedendo, non nascendo legitur esse de Deo, iam superius, quantum visum est, disputavimus.

### *Utrum Spiritus sanctus debeat dici ingenitus, cum non sit genitus.*

Nunc considerandum est, cum Spiritus sanctus non sit genitus, utrum debeat dici ingenitus. Ad quod dicimus, Spiritum sanctum nec genitum nec ingenitum debere dici. Unde Augustinus *ad Orosium*[^1] ait: « Spiritum sanctum nec genitum nec ingenitum fides certa declarat; quia si dixerimus ingenitum, duos patres affirmare videbimur; si autem genitum, duos filios credere culpamur. » Sicut enim solus Filius dicitur genitus, ita et solus Pater dicitur ingenitus, eo quod ab alio non sit. Unde Augustinus in decimo quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^2]: « Pater, inquit, solus non est de alio, ideo solus appellatur ingenitus, non quidem in Scripturis, sed in consuetudine disputantium et de re tanta sermonem qualem valuerint proferentium. Filius autem de Patre natus est, et Spiritus sanctus de Patre principaliter et communiter de utroque procedit. Ideoque cum Spiritum sanctum genitum non dicamus, dicere tamen non audemus ingenitum, ne in hoc vocabulo vel duos patres in illa Trinitate, vel duos, qui non sunt de alio, quispiam suspicetur. » Ecce his verbis aperte ostendit, Spiritum sanctum nec genitum nec ingenitum debere dici.

### *Hieronymus aliter loquitur.*

Hieronymus tamen *in Regulis definitionum*[^3] contra haereticos Spiritum sanctum dicit ingenitum esse, his verbis: « Spiritus sanctus Pater non est, sed ingenitus atque infectus. Pater non est, quia Patris est et in Patre est; processionem habet ex Patre, et non nativitatem; Filius autem non est, quia genitus non est. » Ecce his verbis dicitur Spiritus sanctus esse ingenitus; quod videtur adversari praemissis verbis Augustini.

### *Quomodo dictum Hieronymi solvatur. Duplex sensus ingeniti.*

Sed ut istam quae videtur repugnantiam de medio abigamus, dicimus, quod Hieronymus aliter accepit[^4] nomen ingeniti, et aliter Augustinus. Accepit enim Augustinus ingenitum, qui vel quod ab[^5] alio non est; et secundum hoc de solo Patre dicitur; Hieronymus vero ingenitum dicit non genitum; et secundum hoc de Spiritu sancto potest dici, cum Spiritus sanctus non sit genitus.

### *Probatur ratio.*

Quod autem Hieronymus ita acceperit, ostenditur ex verbis suis, quibus in eodem tractatu[^6] utitur, faciens talem divisionem: « Omne quod est, aut ingenitum est, aut genitum, aut factum. Est ergo quod nec natum est nec factum; et est quod natum est et factum non est; et est quod nec natum est nec factum est; et est quod factum est et natum non est; et est quod factum est et natum est et renatum est; et est quod factum est et natum est et renatum non est. Nunc praepositorum singulis rebus subsistentiam destinemus. Quod ergo nec natum nec factum est, Pater est; non enim ab aliquo[^7] est. Quod autem natum est et factum non est, Filius est, qui a Patre genitus est, non factus. Quod iterum nec natum nec factum est, Spiritus sanctus est, qui a Patre procedit. Quod etiam factum est et natum non est, caelum et terra[^8] ceteraque, quae sunt insensibilia. Quod autem factum et natum et renatum est, homo est. Quod vero factum est et natum est et renatum non est, animalia sunt. » Ecce his verbis ostendit Hieronymus, se *ingenitum* accipere *non genitum*. Aliter enim non esset praemissa divisio vera, scilicet omne quod est aut ingenitum est, aut genitum, aut factum. Atque in divisionis huius prosecutione in assignatione ingeniti, ubique ponit *non natum*.

---

english:
<!-- page 229 -->

# Distinction XIII.

…that he is from God, yet is not himself the Son — for he is read of as being from God by proceeding, not by being born — we have already disputed above, so far as it seemed fit.

### *Whether the Holy Spirit ought to be called unbegotten, since he is not begotten.*

Now it must be considered, since the Holy Spirit is not begotten, whether he ought to be called unbegotten. To which we say, that the Holy Spirit ought to be called neither begotten nor unbegotten. Hence Augustine, *to Orosius*[^1], says: "Sure faith declares the Holy Spirit to be neither begotten nor unbegotten; for if we say unbegotten, we shall seem to affirm two fathers; but if begotten, we are blamed for believing two sons." For just as the Son alone is called begotten, so also the Father alone is called unbegotten, in that he is not from another. Hence Augustine in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*[^2]: "The Father alone," he says, "is not from another, and for that reason he alone is called unbegotten — not indeed in the Scriptures, but in the usage of disputants who utter such speech as they were able concerning so great a matter. But the Son is born of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father, and from both in common. And therefore, although we do not call the Holy Spirit begotten, yet we do not dare to call him unbegotten, lest by this word someone should suspect either two fathers in that Trinity, or two persons who are not from another." Behold, by these words he plainly shows that the Holy Spirit ought to be called neither begotten nor unbegotten.

### *Jerome speaks otherwise.*

Yet Jerome *in the Rules of Definitions*[^3], against the heretics, says that the Holy Spirit is unbegotten, in these words: "The Holy Spirit is not the Father, but is unbegotten and unmade. He is not the Father, because he is of the Father and is in the Father; he has procession from the Father, and not nativity; nor is he the Son, because he is not begotten." Behold, by these words the Holy Spirit is said to be unbegotten — which seems to be opposed to the preceding words of Augustine.

### *How Jerome's saying is to be resolved. The two senses of "unbegotten".*

But that we may put aside this seeming contradiction, we say that Jerome took[^4] the term *unbegotten* in one sense, and Augustine in another. For Augustine took *unbegotten* as meaning "he, or that, which is not from[^5] another"; and according to this, it is said only of the Father. Jerome, however, calls *unbegotten* "not begotten"; and according to this it can be said of the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit is not begotten.

### *The reason is shown.*

That Jerome did so understand the term is shown from his own words, which he uses in the same treatise[^6], making this division: "Everything that is, is either unbegotten, or begotten, or made. There is therefore that which is neither born nor made; and there is that which is born and is not made; and there is that which is neither born nor made; and there is that which is made and is not born; and there is that which is made and is born and is reborn; and there is that which is made and is born and is not reborn. Let us now assign a subsistence to each of the things set forth. That which is neither born nor made is the Father; for he is not from anything[^7]. That which is born and is not made is the Son, who is begotten of the Father, not made. That which is again neither born nor made is the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father. That which is made and is not born is heaven and earth[^8] and the other things that are insensible. That which is made and born and reborn is man. That which is made and born and not reborn — these are the animals." Behold, by these words Jerome shows that he takes *unbegotten* as *not begotten*. For otherwise the foregoing division would not be true — namely, that everything which is, is either unbegotten, or begotten, or made. And in carrying out this division, in his assignment of "unbegotten", he everywhere puts *not born*.

---

la: In dialogo nempe quaestionum sub titulo *ad Orosium*, quaest. 2. Sed supposititium est hoc opus. In fine huius loci ed. 8 cum originali *culpabimur* pro *culpamur*.

en: Namely, in the dialogue of questions under the title *to Orosius*, q. 2. But this work is spurious. At the end of this passage, ed. 8, with the original, has *culpabimur* ("we shall be blamed") for *culpamur* ("we are blamed").

la: Cap. 26. n. 47. — In hoc textu post *sermonem* cod. D *qualemcumque* loco *qualem*. Ipse Augustinus post *principaliter* interserit: *ipso sine ullo temporis intervallo dante* etc. — In fine ed. 1 *non sint* pro *non sunt*, et edd. 5, 9 *ab aliquo* pro *de alio*.

en: Ch. 26, n. 47. — In this text, after *sermonem*, codex D reads *qualemcumque* in place of *qualem*. Augustine himself, after *principaliter*, inserts: *ipso sine ullo temporis intervallo dante* ("with him giving without any interval of time"), etc. — At the end, ed. 1 has *non sint* for *non sunt*, and edd. 5, 9 *ab aliquo* for *de alio*.

la: Edd. 1, 8 titulo huius operis addunt: *vel definitionum*. Hic liber non est S. Hieronymi, nec in appendicibus editionum eiusdem invenitur. In appendice ad opera S. Ambrosii (Patrolog. Migne, Lat. tom. 17. col. 510.) impressum est opusculum anonymum sub titulo: *de Trinitate*; alias, *in Symbolum Apostolorum Tractatus*, ex quo (c. 3. coll. 512.) textus secundus, paulo infra citatus, integre desumtus est, paucis tantum verbis deficientibus vel mutatis. Locus vero hic citatus tantum quoad sensum ibi exhibetur. Cum autem hoc opusculum, ut putant editores, sit mutilum et iam antiquitus interpolatum, fortasse Lombardus etiam primum textum ad verbum inde accepit. In praevia admonitione Benedictini editores huius libelli censent, ipsum contra Priscillianistas et ad vindicandam Toletanam fidei regulam esse editum atque Concilio, si minus Toletano, saltem Braccarensi secundo, quod a. 563 vulgo ponitur, supparem esse. — Locum infra a Magistro exhibitum Alcuinus (*de Fide Ss. Trinitatis* libr. II. c. 9. Patrolog. Lat. Migne, tom. 101. col. 28.) totum reportat, sed nonnullis additis vel mutatis.

en: Edd. 1, 8 add to the title of this work: *or, of Definitions*. This book is not by St. Jerome, nor is it found in the appendices of his editions. In the appendix to the works of St. Ambrose (Patrologia, Migne, Lat. vol. 17, col. 510) there is printed an anonymous little work under the title *On the Trinity*; otherwise, *Tractatus on the Apostles' Creed*, from which (c. 3, col. 512) the second text cited a little below is taken in its entirety, with only a few words missing or altered. The passage here cited, however, is given there only as to its sense. Since, moreover — as the editors think — this little work is mutilated and was anciently interpolated, perhaps Lombard took even the first text from it word-for-word. In their introductory notice the Benedictine editors of this booklet judge that it was issued against the Priscillianists and to vindicate the Toledan rule of faith, and that it is roughly contemporary with a council — if not the Toledan, at least the second of Braga, which is commonly placed in the year 563. — The passage given below by the Master is reported in full by Alcuin (*On the Faith of the Holy Trinity*, bk. II, c. 9, Patrologia Lat., Migne, vol. 101, col. 28), with some things added or altered.

la: Codd. ACDE *acceperit*.

en: Codices A, C, D, E read *acceperit* ("[Jerome] would have taken").

la: Vat. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 *de*. Immediate ante ed. 1 omittit *vel quod*. Deinde codd. ABCD post *Spiritu* omittunt *sancto*. Denique ed. 1 omittit ultima verba: *cum Spiritus* etc.

en: The Vatican edition and edd. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 read *de*. Just before, ed. 1 omits *vel quod*. Next, codices A, B, C, D after *Spiritu* omit *sancto*. Finally, ed. 1 omits the last words: *cum Spiritus* etc.

la: Cap. 3. — Vide notam paulo supra. — Immediate ante Vat. et edd. 4, 6, 8 *verbis eius* pro *verbis suis*; quod licet sit minus rectum, exhibent tamen omnes codd. et ceterae edd. Deinde ubi prima vice ponitur *nec natum* codd. omittunt *est* contra edd.

en: Ch. 3. — See the note a little above. — Just before, the Vatican edition and edd. 4, 6, 8 have *verbis eius* ("his words") in place of *verbis suis* ("his own words"); which, although less correct, is nonetheless given by all codices and the remaining editions. Then, where *nec natum* is first set down, the codices omit *est*, against the editions.

la: Vat. et edd. 4, 5, 6, 9 verbo *aliquo* praemittunt *alio*.

en: The Vatican edition and edd. 4, 5, 6, 9 prefix *alio* to the word *aliquo* (i.e., reading *ab alio aliquo*).

la: Supple cum ed. 6 *est*. — Immediate post edd. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 omittunt *sunt*. Non multum infra ante *ostendit Hieronymus* cod. C addit *aperte*.

en: Supply *est* with ed. 6. — Just after, edd. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 omit *sunt*. Not much further on, before *ostendit Hieronymus*, codex C adds *aperte* ("openly").

translators_notes: Lombard's d.13 in the Quaracchi text is a single short chapter responding to a question raised at the end of d.12: since the Holy Spirit is not *genitus*, must he be called *ingenitus*? Lombard's answer is to refuse the dilemma — with Augustine — and then to harmonise Jerome's apparently contrary usage by distinguishing two senses of *ingenitus*: (i) "not from another" (Augustine, said only of the Father), and (ii) "not begotten" (Jerome, applicable to the Holy Spirit). The Bonaventurian commentary that follows (in `bon-sent-I-d13-p1-divisio` and the question articles) takes up this same distinction and probes its theological consequences.


title: Dist. 13, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text of distinction XIII

source_text:
<!-- page 230 -->

# COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIII.

*De aeterna processione Spiritus sancti, quatenus distinguitur a generatione.*

*Post haec considerandum* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de processione per comparationem ad illum, ad quem et a quo est. Hic tertio loco agit de ipsa secundum[^1] comparationem ad generationem, a qua differt. Et haec pars habet duas partes. In prima Magister quaerit et determinat, utrum Spiritus sanctus debeat dici genitus; in secunda, utrum debeat dici ingenitus, ibi: *Nunc considerandum est, cum Spiritus sanctus non sit genitus.*

Item, prima pars habet quatuor. In prima ostendit, quod Spiritus sanctus non debeat dici natus[^2]. In secunda ostendit, quod quamvis dicatur de Spiritu sancto procedere, dicitur tamen de Filio, ibi: *Cum autem Spiritus sanctus non dicatur genitus*; et ratio est, quod aliter dicitur Filius procedere quam Spiritus sanctus. In tertia vero tentat assignare differentiam inter generationem et processionem, ibi: *Inter generationem vero Filii et processionem* etc. In quarta vero et ultima ostendit humanam insufficientiam[^3] ad illam differentiam indagandam, ibi: *Quid autem inter nasci et procedere intersit.*

*Nunc considerandum est, cum Spiritus sanctus.* Haec est[^4] secunda pars, in qua Magister quaerit et determinat, utrum Spiritus sanctus debeat dici ingenitus; et haec pars habet quatuor partes. In prima ostendit Magister et probat auctoritate Augustini, quod Spiritus sanctus non debet dici ingenitus. In secunda vero ostendit contrarium auctoritate Hieronymi, quod debet dici ingenitus, et ponitur ibi: *Hieronymus tamen in Regulis distinctionum* etc. In tertia vero praedictam controversiam determinat per distinctionem, ibi: *Sed ut istam quae videtur esse repugnantiam.* In quarta auctoritate Hieronymi confirmat suam solutionem, ibi: *Quod autem Hieronymus ita accepit* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam eorum quae dicuntur in littera, quatuor quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum in divinis sit ponere processionem.

Secundo, utrum processio Spiritus sancti sit generatio.

Tertio, utrum processio Spiritus sancti realiter differat a generatione.

Quarto, utrum Spiritus sanctus debeat dici ingenitus aut[^5] non.

---

english:
<!-- page 230 -->

# Commentary on Distinction XIII.

*On the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, insofar as it is distinguished from generation.*

*"After these things, it must be considered..."* etc.

### Division of the text.

Above, the Master treated of the procession by comparing it to him from whom and to whom it is. Here, in the third place, he treats of it according to[^1] its comparison with generation, from which it differs. And this part has two parts. In the first, the Master inquires and determines whether the Holy Spirit ought to be called *begotten*; in the second, whether he ought to be called *unbegotten*, at the words: *Now it must be considered, since the Holy Spirit is not begotten.*

Likewise, the first part has four divisions. In the first, he shows that the Holy Spirit ought not to be called *born*[^2]. In the second, he shows that although "to proceed" is said of the Holy Spirit, it is nonetheless said also of the Son, at the words: *But although the Holy Spirit is not called begotten*; and the reason is that the Son is said to proceed in a manner different from the Holy Spirit. In the third, he attempts to assign the difference between generation and procession, at the words: *But between the generation of the Son and the procession,* etc. In the fourth and last, he shows the insufficiency[^3] of human reason to investigate that difference, at the words: *But what lies between being born and proceeding.*

*Now it must be considered, since the Holy Spirit.* This is[^4] the second part, in which the Master inquires and determines whether the Holy Spirit ought to be called *unbegotten*; and this part has four divisions. In the first, the Master shows and proves on the authority of Augustine that the Holy Spirit ought not to be called *unbegotten*. In the second, he shows the contrary on the authority of Jerome — that he ought to be called *unbegotten* — set down at the words: *Yet Jerome in the Rules of Distinctions,* etc. In the third, he resolves the aforesaid controversy by means of a distinction, at the words: *But that we may put aside this seeming contradiction.* In the fourth, he confirms his solution by the authority of Jerome, at the words: *That Jerome did so understand,* etc.

### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of what is said in the letter, four questions are asked.

First, whether procession is to be posited in divine things.

Second, whether the procession of the Holy Spirit is generation.

Third, whether the procession of the Holy Spirit really differs from generation.

Fourth, whether the Holy Spirit ought to be called *unbegotten* or[^5] not.

---

la: Cod. M et ed. 1 *prius*.

en: Codex M and ed. 1 read *prius* ("first" — i.e. "treats of it first by comparison with generation").

la: Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 addit *vel genitus vel Filius*, sicut et mox prosequitur: *In secunda ostendit, quod cum Spiritus sanctus non dicatur genitus, cur Filius, qui dicitur genitus, etiam dicatur procedere; ibi.*

en: The Vatican edition, without the support of the manuscripts or ed. 1, adds *or begotten or the Son*, just as it goes on shortly to read: *In the second, he shows that, since the Holy Spirit is not called begotten, why the Son, who is called begotten, is nonetheless said also to proceed; at the words.*

la: Codd. L O *intelligentiam insufficientem esse* loco *insufficientiam*.

en: Codices L, O read *intelligentiam insufficientem esse* ("that the understanding is insufficient") in place of *insufficientiam* ("the insufficiency").

la: Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1, omissis verbis Magistri *Nunc considerandum* etc., loco *Haec est* ponit *Similiter*, et consequenter propter variatam constructionem paulo infra omittit *et haec pars*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, omitting the Master's words *Now it must be considered,* etc., places *Similiter* ("Likewise") in place of *Haec est* ("This is"), and consequently, on account of the altered construction, also omits *et haec pars* ("and this part") a little further on.

la: Fide plurium mss. ut A F G H I T etc. et ed. 1 loco *aut* substituimus *an*.

en: On the authority of several manuscripts (A, F, G, H, I, T, etc.) and ed. 1, we have substituted *an* for *aut* (both meaning "or" in indirect questions).

translators_notes: Standard divisio: it indexes the four divisions of Lombard's chapter on whether the Holy Spirit must be called *ingenitus*, then announces the four corresponding questions Bonaventure will treat under the single articulus. Note that Lombard's text as Bonaventure read it has *Hieronymus tamen in Regulis distinctionum* (so cited here), whereas the Quaracchi-edited body reads *in Regulis definitionum*.