title: Dist. 15, Part 1, Divisio Textus

title_alt:
Divisio textus
Division of the text

source_text:
<!-- page 288 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV.

*De missione quantum ad principium et modum.*

### Pars I.

*De missione sive temporali processione quantum ad principium.*

> *Hic considerandum est, cum ipse Spiritus sanctus detur hominibus a Patre et Filio.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de processione temporali ipsius Spiritus sancti, secundum quod est a Patre et Filio; hic secundo ostendit, quod temporaliter procedit a se ipso; et hoc intendit in tota ista parte usque ibi: *Hic quaeritur, utrum semel tantum sit missus Filius*, ubi incipit agere quantum ad modum[^1].

<!-- page 289 -->

Habet autem haec pars quatuor partes. In prima ostendit, quod Spiritus sanctus temporaliter a se mittitur, datur et procedit, et hoc deducendo ad impossibile, quia aliter non essent indivisa opera Trinitatis. In secunda ostendit a minori per auctoritatem, quod Pater misit Filium una cum Spiritu sancto, ita quod Spiritus sanctus misit Filium, in quem nullo modo habet auctoritatem, ergo multo fortius mittit se; et hoc facit ibi: *Ne autem mireris, quod Spiritus sanctus dicitur mitti vel procedere a se*. In tertia vero parte ostendit hoc a simili: si enim Filius misit se, pari ratione et Spiritus sanctus se; et hoc facit ibi: *Deinde ostendit datum esse etiam a se ipso*. In quarta vero et ultima opponit contra praedicta, et hoc ibi: *Sed ad hoc opponitur: Si Filius a se ipso etc.*, ubi etiam solvit et breviter epilogat praedeterminata.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis quatuor quaeruntur:

Primo quaeritur, utrum missio sit in divinis.

Secundo, dato quod sic, utrum missio sit ex tempore vel aeterna.

Tertio quaeritur, cuius sit missio ut missi.

Quarto, cuius sit missio ut mittentis.

---

english:
<!-- page 288 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XV.

*On mission with regard to its principle and its mode.*

### Part I.

*On mission, or temporal procession, with regard to its principle.*

> *Here it must be considered: since the Holy Spirit himself is given to men by the Father and the Son.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit himself, insofar as it is from the Father and the Son; here he secondly shows that he proceeds temporally from himself as well; and he carries this out through the whole of this part down to: *Here it is asked, whether the Son was sent only once*, where he begins to treat of the mode [of procession][^1].

<!-- page 289 -->

This part has four sub-parts. In the first he shows that the Holy Spirit is temporally sent, given, and proceeds from himself, and this by reducing to the impossible, since otherwise the works of the Trinity would not be undivided. In the second he shows by argument from the lesser, on authority, that the Father sent the Son together with the Holy Spirit — so that the Holy Spirit also sent the Son, over whom in no way does he have authority; therefore much more strongly does he send himself; and he does this at: *But do not be amazed that the Holy Spirit is said to be sent or to proceed from himself*. In the third part he shows this by a parallel: for if the Son sent himself, by like reasoning the Holy Spirit also sends himself; and he does this at: *Next he shows that the Son too has been given by himself*. In the fourth and last he raises an objection against the foregoing, namely at: *But against this it is objected: If the Son from himself etc.*, where he also solves it and briefly recapitulates what has been determined.

### THE TREATMENT OF QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, four questions are asked:

First it is asked whether mission [in the proper sense] is in the divine [persons].

Second, granting that it is, whether mission is from time or eternal.

Third it is asked, of whom the mission belongs as the one sent.

Fourth, of whom the mission belongs as the one sending.

---

la: Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 *de modo* loco *quantum ad modum*, deinde post *processionis* addit *seu missionis Filii, qui est visibilis et invisibilis*. Et hoc quodam modo accidentaliter, cum ista missio et Filio conveniat et Spiritui sancto.

en: The Vatican edition, against the testimony of the manuscripts and of ed. 1, reads *de modo* ("concerning the mode") in place of *quantum ad modum* ("with regard to the mode"); and afterwards, following *processionis*, it adds *seu missionis Filii, qui est visibilis et invisibilis* ("or of the mission of the Son, which is visible and invisible"). And this [is added] in a certain accidental way, since this mission befits both the Son and the Holy Spirit.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 15, Part 2, Divisio Textus

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 313 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV.

### Pars II.

*De missione Filii et Spiritus sancti quantum ad modum, qui duplex est, visibilis scilicet et invisibilis.*

> *Hic quaeritur, utrum semel tantum sit missus Filius.*
>
> Huius partis textum vide supra p. 287.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de missione quantum ad principium; hic agit de ea quantum ad modum, qui duplex est, scilicet visibilis et invisibilis. Et quoniam isti modi conveniunt missioni Filii et Spiritus sancti, ideo Magister primo assignat eos circa missionem Filii; secundo circa missionem Spiritus sancti, infra in principio decimae sextae distinctionis: *Nunc de Spiritu sancto videndum est* etc.

Prima pars habet quatuor partes. In prima ostendit auctoritate Augustini, quod Filius duobus modis missus est, scilicet visibiliter et invisibiliter. In secunda assignat duplicem differentiam istorum duorum modorum[^1], ibi: *Ecce distincti sunt duo modi missionis Filii*. In tertia vero movet dubium quoddam, quod habet ortum ex praedeterminatis, ibi: *Hic quaeritur, cur Pater non dicitur missus*. In quarta vero removet sive docet errorem cavere, procedentem ex illius dubii solutione, ibi: *Ideoque putaverunt quidam haeretici*. Ex hoc enim, quod dixerat, Patrem non mitti, posset quis credere, in divinis non esse aequalitatem. Ad hoc respondens Magister dicit, quod hoc non est propter inaequalitatem, sed propter principii auctoritatem sive connotationem.

<!-- page 314 -->

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam eorum quae dicuntur in parte ista[^2], tria quaeruntur de missione Filii invisibili, quia de visibili agetur in tertio. Et quia missio invisibilis Filii similis est missioni invisibili Spiritus sancti, ideo simul quaeritur de utraque.

Primo quaeritur, utrum haec missio sit secundum dona gratiae gratum facientis, vel gratiae gratis datae.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum secundum eadem dona gratiae dicatur mitti Filius et Spiritus sanctus.

Tertio, utrum utraque missio sit secundum eadem dona gratiae augmentata.

---

english:
<!-- page 313 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XV.

### Part II.

*On the mission of the Son and of the Holy Spirit with regard to its mode, which is twofold — namely, visible and invisible.*

> *Here it is asked whether the Son was sent only once.*
>
> For the text of this part, see above p. 287.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of mission with regard to its principle; here he treats of it with regard to its mode, which is twofold — namely, visible and invisible. And since these modes belong to both the mission of the Son and the mission of the Holy Spirit, the Master first assigns them with respect to the mission of the Son; secondly, with respect to the mission of the Holy Spirit, below at the beginning of the sixteenth distinction: *Now we must consider the Holy Spirit*, etc.

The first part has four sub-parts. In the first he shows on the authority of Augustine that the Son has been sent in two modes — namely, visibly and invisibly. In the second he assigns a twofold difference between these two modes[^1], at: *Behold, two modes of the mission of the Son have been distinguished*. In the third he raises a certain doubt arising from what has been determined, at: *Here it is asked why the Father is not said to be sent*. In the fourth he removes — that is, teaches how to avoid — an error proceeding from the solution of that doubt, at: *Hence certain heretics have supposed*. For from his having said that the Father is not sent, one might come to believe that there is no equality in the divine [persons]. Responding to this, the Master says that this is not on account of inequality but on account of the authority of the principle, or its connotation.

<!-- page 314 -->

### THE TREATMENT OF QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of what is said in this part[^2], three questions are asked concerning the invisible mission of the Son — for the visible will be treated in the third [book]. And because the invisible mission of the Son is similar to the invisible mission of the Holy Spirit, both are asked about together.

First it is asked whether this mission is according to the gifts of grace that makes pleasing [*gratum facientis*], or of grace freely given [*gratis datae*].

Second it is asked whether the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to be sent according to the same gifts of grace.

Third, whether each mission is according to the same gifts of grace augmented.

---

la: In Vat. hic additur *unam*, et mox post *Filii* adiungitur *Aliam* ibi: *Praeterea notandum*; sed obstant mss. cum ed. 1.

en: In the Vatican edition *unam* is added here, and a little later, after *Filii*, *Aliam* is added at *Praeterea notandum*; but the manuscripts together with ed. 1 are against this.

la: Fide mss. et ed. 1 removimus verba praemissa quaestione, quae Vat. hic addit.

en: On the testimony of the manuscripts and of ed. 1, we have removed the words that the Vatican edition here adds before *quaestione*.

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 1, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 259 -->

### ARTICULUS UNICUS.

*De missione in divinis.*

### QUAESTIO I.

*Utrum in divinis sit missio.*

Circa primum, quod missio sit in divinis, ostenditur:

1. Primo per scripturam veteris Testamenti, Sapientiae nono[^1]: *Mitte illam de caelis*, et loquitur de Sapientia, quae est Dei Filius.

2. Item, per scripturam novi Testamenti, ad Galatas quarto[^2]: *At ubi venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum*. Et post[^3]: *Quoniam estis filii Dei, misit Deus Spiritum Filii sui in corda vestra*.

3. Item, hoc ostenditur per testimonium Veritatis, Ioannis decimo sexto[^4]: *Cum autem abiero, mittam vobis Spiritum veritatis*.

4. Item, ratione videtur[^5] istud idem: quia mittere non est aliud quam ex se aliquem producere in alium, sicut Sol radium mittit in aera; sed Spiritus sanctus a Patre et Filio procedit in creaturam: ergo ab eis mittitur.

5. Item, quandocumque datur aliquid alicui ut absenti, convenienter dicitur mitti; sed tota Trinitas est absens peccatoribus quantum ad gratiam inhabitantem: ergo quandocumque datur Spiritus sanctus quantum ad gratiam inhabitantem, non incongrue dicitur mitti; si ergo dari est in divinis hoc modo, ut dictum est[^6], ergo et missio.

**Contra:**

1. Ubicumque est missio, ibi est separatio; unde Hieronymus super Ezechielem[^7]: «Quod coniunctum est et in uno corpore copulatum mitti non potest, sed quod extra est»; unde non mittitur manus, sed iaculum. Sed in divinis est omnimoda indivisio et nulla separatio: ergo etc.

2. Item, ubicumque est missio, ibi[^8] est missi ad mittentem subiectio; quod patet: dominus enim mittit servum, et non servus dominum. Sed in divinis est omnimoda aequalitas et nulla subiectio: ergo ibi non est missio.

3. Item, ubicumque est missio, ibi est mutatio, quia non dicitur aliquid mitti, ubi est; sed in divinis nulla omnino cadit mutatio: ergo etc.

4. Item, missio, passive dicta, in quantum talis est opus ministerii; sed in nobilissima natura in quantum talis non cadit ministerium: ergo etc.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Missio est in divinis; tamen a triplici respectu missionis ad principium, ad terminum, ad missum removenda est omnis imperfectio, qualis inest missioni in creaturis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod missio est in divinis, sicut ostendunt praedictae auctoritates et rationes; et transfertur a creaturis ad Deum.

<!-- page 260 -->

Secundum autem quod missio in his inferioribus consideratur, habet respectum ad tria, scilicet ad principium et ad terminum et ad missum.

Ad principium sive ad mittentem sub triplici habitudine comparari contingit: ut ad dantem esse, et sic mittitur radius a sole; ut ad dantem virtutem, et sic mittitur iaculum a proiectore; ut ad dantem iurisdictionem sive auctoritatem, et sic mittitur nuntius a praetore[^9]. Secundum omnem hanc comparationem est in divinis missio; quia Spiritus mittitur a Patre et Filio tanquam habens esse et virtutem et auctoritatem in operando ab eis; et ideo missio secundum hunc respectum est completissime[^10] in divinis. Non enim est ponere, quod una persona recipiat auctoritatem, nisi a quo recipit virtutem, nec virtutem, nisi a quo recipit esse.

Similiter ad terminum sub triplici habitudine comparatur. Mittitur enim aliquid alicubi[^11], ubi videlicet quietatur, ut lapis mittitur deorsum; mittitur etiam alicui, ut a quo habeatur, sicut aliquis mittit alicui donum; mittitur etiam ut ad aliquid, quod scilicet operetur. Secundum hanc triplicem comparationem est missio in divinis. Mittitur enim Filius vel Spiritus sanctus ut alicubi ad inhabitandum, ut alicui ad possidendum ut donum, ut ad aliquid, scilicet ad effectum conferendum[^12]. Et ideo missio per comparationem ad terminum reperitur completissime in divinis, multo magis quam in creaturis.

Si autem loquimur de missione in comparatione ad missum, sic in his inferioribus ponit triplicem conditionem imperfectionis, scilicet separationem, subiectionem et mutationem; quae quidem non sunt in divinis. Est tamen aliquid perfectionis ibi istis correspondens; et ratio huius patet sic.

In istis inferioribus separatur missus a mittente propter distantiam termini a mittente[^13]; ut patet, cum mitto aliquem Romam; quia Roma distat a me, si ille debet esse Romae, oportet quod separetur a me. In divinis vero, quia Deus mittens est ubique, nulla est distantia, et ideo nulla est separatio[^14]; loco tamen huius est missi a mittente egressio, sive emanatio.

**1.** Et sic patet responsio ad illud quod obiicitur de conditione separationis.

Similiter in his inferioribus est in misso subiectio propter differentiam mittentis ad missum. Quia enim missus recipit a mittente vel esse, vel virtutem, vel operationem, et est separatus ab eo in substantia — quia substantia omnino eadem non participatur a pluribus — necesse est, quod aliam virtutem recipiat ab eo et aliam iurisdictionem illa inferiorem. Sed in divinis non est substantialis differentia, et ideo omnia sunt aequalis nobilitatis in mittente et misso. Sed tamen loco huius est subauctoritatis emanatio[^15].

**2.** Et sic patet secunda obiectio.

Similiter in his inferioribus est in misso mutatio propter distantiam missi a termino. Quia[^16] enim non est in termino, ad quem mittitur, ideo oportet quod mutet locum, et ita quod sit in eo mutatio. Quia vero in divinis missus nulli loco abest, non oportet, quod personaliter accedat; et ideo non est ibi mutatio. Sed tamen loco eius est alicuius effectus de novo productio.

**3.** Et sic patet tertia obiectio. Quamvis enim in divinis non sit separatio, subiectio et mutatio, tamen loco horum est emanatio[^17], subauctoritatis origo et novi effectus productio.

**4.** Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod pertinet ad ministerium; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, ubi missio dicit subiectionem; sed hoc non est in divina natura, sed in creaturis.

<!-- page 261 -->

english:
<!-- page 259 -->

### THE SOLE ARTICLE.

*On mission in the divine [persons].*

### QUESTION I.

*Whether mission is in the divine [persons].*

Concerning the first [question] — that mission is in the divine [persons] — it is shown:

1. First, by the Scripture of the Old Testament, Wisdom 9[^1]: *Send her forth from the heavens*; and it is speaking of Wisdom, who is the Son of God.

2. Likewise, by the Scripture of the New Testament, to the Galatians 4[^2]: *But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son*. And after[^3]: *Because you are sons of God, God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts*.

3. Likewise, this is shown by the testimony of Truth himself, John 16[^4]: *And when I have gone away, I will send you the Spirit of truth*.

4. Likewise, by reason this same thing seems [to follow][^5]: for to send is nothing other than to bring someone forth from oneself into another, just as the Sun sends a ray into the air; but the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son into the creature: therefore he is sent by them.

5. Likewise, whenever something is given to someone as to one who is absent, it is fittingly said to be *sent*; but the whole Trinity is absent from sinners with respect to indwelling grace: therefore whenever the Holy Spirit is given with respect to indwelling grace, he is not unfittingly said to be sent; if therefore *to be given* exists in the divine [persons] in this mode, as has been said[^6], then so does mission.

**On the contrary:**

1. Wherever there is mission, there is separation; whence Jerome on Ezekiel[^7]: «What is conjoined and coupled in one body cannot be sent, but only what is outside»; whence the hand is not sent, but the spear. But in the divine [persons] there is total indivision and no separation: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, wherever there is mission, there[^8] is subjection of the one sent to the one sending; which is plain: for the lord sends the servant, and not the servant the lord. But in the divine [persons] there is total equality and no subjection: therefore there is no mission there.

3. Likewise, wherever there is mission, there is change, for nothing is said to be sent where it [already] is; but in the divine [persons] no change at all takes place: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, mission, passively spoken of, insofar as such, is a work of ministry; but in the noblest nature, insofar as such, ministry has no place: therefore etc.

### CONCLUSION.

> Mission is in the divine [persons]; nevertheless, from the threefold respect of mission to the principle, to the term, and to the one sent, every imperfection of the kind that belongs to mission in creatures must be removed.

**I respond:** It must be said that mission is in the divine [persons], as the foregoing authorities and reasons show; and it is transferred from creatures to God.

<!-- page 260 -->

Now according to how mission is considered in these lower things, it has a respect to three [things] — namely, to the principle, to the term, and to the one sent.

To the principle, or the one sending, it can be compared under a threefold relation: as to the giver of being, and thus the ray is sent by the sun; as to the giver of power, and thus the spear is sent by the thrower; as to the giver of jurisdiction or authority, and thus the messenger is sent by the magistrate[^9]. According to all this comparison, mission is in the divine [persons]; for the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son as having from them being and power and authority in operating; and therefore mission according to this respect is most fully[^10] in the divine [persons]. For one cannot hold that one Person receives authority except from the one from whom he receives power, nor power, except from the one from whom he receives being.

Similarly, with respect to the term it is compared under a threefold relation. For something is sent *somewhere*[^11] — that is, where it comes to rest, as a stone is sent downward; it is also sent *to someone*, that he may have it, as one sends a gift to someone; it is also sent *to* something — namely, that it may be brought about. According to this threefold comparison, mission is in the divine [persons]. For the Son or the Holy Spirit is sent as somewhere, to indwell; as to someone, to be possessed as a gift; as to something — namely, to confer an effect[^12]. And therefore mission, by comparison to the term, is found most fully in the divine [persons], much more than in creatures.

But if we speak of mission in comparison to the one sent, then in these lower things it posits a threefold condition of imperfection — namely, separation, subjection, and change; and these indeed are not in the divine [persons]. There is, however, something of perfection there corresponding to these; and the reason for this is plain as follows.

In these lower things the one sent is separated from the one sending on account of the distance of the term from the one sending[^13]; as is plain when I send someone to Rome: because Rome is distant from me, if he is to be at Rome, he must be separated from me. But in the divine [persons], because God who sends is everywhere, there is no distance, and therefore no separation[^14]; in place of this, however, there is the going-forth, or emanation, of the one sent from the one sending.

**1.** And so the response is plain to the [first] objection concerning the condition of separation.

Similarly, in these lower things there is in the one sent subjection on account of the difference of the one sending to the one sent. For because the one sent receives from the one sending either being, or power, or operation, and is separated from him in substance — for one and the same substance is not participated in by many — it is necessary that he receive from him a different power and a different jurisdiction inferior to that one's. But in the divine [persons] there is no substantial difference, and therefore all things are of equal nobility in the one sending and the one sent. Yet still, in place of this, there is the emanation of derived authority [*subauctoritas*][^15].

**2.** And so the second objection is plain.

Similarly, in these lower things there is in the one sent change on account of the distance of the one sent from the term. For because[^16] he is not at the term to which he is sent, he must change place, and so there must be change in him. But because in the divine [persons] the one sent is absent from no place, it is not necessary that he draw near *personally*; and therefore there is no change there. Yet still, in place of this, there is the new production of some effect.

**3.** And so the third objection is plain. For although in the divine [persons] there is no separation, subjection, and change, nevertheless in place of these there is emanation[^17], origin of derived authority [*subauctoritas*], and production of a new effect.

**4.** To what is objected last — that [mission] pertains to ministry — it must be said that this is true where mission implies subjection; but this is not the case in the divine nature, but in creatures.

<!-- page 261 -->

la: Vers. 10. — Sap. 9, 10. Vulgata: *Mitte illam de caelis sanctis tuis*.

en: Verse 10. — Wisd. 9:10. Vulgate: *Send her forth from your holy heavens*.

la: Vers. 4, in quo textu fide mss. et Vulgatae substituimus *At ubi* loco *Cum*.

en: Verse 4 [Gal. 4:4], in which text on the testimony of the manuscripts and the Vulgate we have substituted *At ubi* ("but when") for *Cum* ("when").

la: Ibid. vers. 6.

en: Same chapter, verse 6 [Gal. 4:6].

la: Vers. 7, ubi Vulgata: *Si autem abiero, mittam eum (Paraclitum) ad vos*; c. 15, 26: *Quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, Spiritum veritatis*. Paulo post unus alterve codex ut S post *hoc* addit *ipsum*.

en: Verse 7 [John 16:7], where the Vulgate reads: *But if I go away, I will send him (the Paraclete) to you*; c. 15:26: *Whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth*. A little later one or another codex, such as S, adds *ipsum* after *hoc*.

la: Cod. S *ostenditur*. Dein ed. 1 *illud* pro *istud*. Paulo infra codices et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 secuti posuimus *aera* pro *aerem*.

en: Codex S reads *ostenditur* ["it is shown"]. Then ed. 1 reads *illud* in place of *istud*. A little further on, following the codices and editions 1, 2, 3, 6, we have set *aera* for *aerem*.

en: Distinction 14, art. 1, q. 1, and art. 2, q. 1.

la: Cap. 16. vers. 54, in quibus verbis originalia post *extra* exhibent *corpus*.

en: Chap. 16, verse 54 [of Jerome's *Commentary on Ezekiel*], in which words the original [editions] display *corpus* after *extra*.

la: Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus *ibi*.

en: From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied *ibi* ["there"].

la: Multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 perperam *praeceptore*.

en: Many codices, with editions 1, 2, 3, 6, wrongly read *praeceptore* ["by the preceptor"] [in place of *praetore*, "by the magistrate"].

la: Cod. M addit *etiam*.

en: Codex M adds *etiam* ["also"].

la: Vat. in huius et sequentis propositionis membris semper exhibet *alicui*; codd. inter se sunt divisi, alii enim ter *alicui* ponunt, alii ut F H T etc. cum ed. 1 exhibent lectionem nostram, quae et contextui magis correspondet.

en: The Vatican edition in the limbs of this and the following proposition always displays *alicui* ["to someone"]; the codices are divided among themselves, for some put *alicui* three times, while others, such as F, H, T, etc., together with ed. 1, display our reading, which also corresponds better to the context.

la: Consentientibus antiquis mss. cum ed. 1, substituimus *conferendum* pro *operandum*. Mox aliqui codd. ut A N *secundum* loco *per*.

en: With the agreement of the older manuscripts together with ed. 1, we have substituted *conferendum* ["to be conferred"] for *operandum* ["to be brought about"]. Soon after, some codices such as A, N read *secundum* in place of *per*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc *ad mittentem*, sed minus bene et contra alios codd. cum ed. 1. — Paulo infra post *quod* cod. I addit *distet et*.

en: The Vatican edition with codex *cc* reads *ad mittentem* ["to the one sending"], but less well and against the other codices together with ed. 1. — A little further on, after *quod*, codex I adds *distet et* ["he is distant and"].

la: Cod. K, interpunctione mutata, *separatio loci; tamen huiusmodi missio est a mittente* etc.

en: Codex K, with the punctuation altered, reads *separatio loci; tamen huiusmodi missio est a mittente* ("a separation of place; nevertheless mission of this sort is from the one sending") etc.

la: Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 *origo*. De *subauctoritate* vide infra q. 4. in corp., et supra d. 12. q. 2, dein d. 20. a. 1. q. 2. ad 4. — Paulo ante cod. W pro *omnia* ponit *omnino*, quod refertur ad *virtutem* et *iurisdictionem*.

en: The Vatican edition, without the authority of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, reads *origo* ["origin"]. On *subauctoritas* see below q. 4 in the corpus, and above d. 12 q. 2, then d. 20 a. 1 q. 2 ad 4. — A little before, codex W reads *omnino* in place of *omnia*, which would be referred to *virtutem* and *iurisdictionem*.

la: Ex mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 substituimus *quia* loco *cum*, et paulo infra ex antiquioribus codd. cum ed. 1 supplevimus perperam omissum *ita*.

en: From the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3 we have substituted *quia* ["because"] for *cum* ["when"], and a little further down, from the older codices together with ed. 1, we have supplied *ita* ["thus"], which had been wrongly omitted.

la: Cod. 1 *tamen loco harum est personae emanatio*.

en: Codex 1 reads *tamen loco harum est personae emanatio* ("yet in place of these is the emanation of the person").

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quomodo differant temporalis processio, missio, datio Spiritus sancti non eodem modo ab antiquis Scholasticis determinatur. Audiamus Richard. a Med. (I. Sent. d. 14. a. 1. q. 3.): «Quidam volunt, quod non differunt realiter, sed secundum rationem tantum. Nam processio temporalis principalius importat respectum ad terminum ad quem, missio ad principium a quo, donatio vero ad effectum. Alii autem maiorem differentiam conantur assignare inter haec tria. Dicunt enim, quod processio temporalis de principali significato non significat nisi processionem aeternam cum quodam respectu secundum rationem vel secundum dici ad creaturam, et actu connotat novum effectum in creatura et novam realem relationem in creatura ad Spiritum sanctum. Donatio vero de suo principali significato non dicit aliquam emanationem, quia tota Trinitas dat se ipsam, loquendo de emanatione secundum rem, qua emanat ipsamet persona, sed dicit emanationem doni appropriati personae, in quo dono etiam ipsamet persona vere datur recipienti illud donum. Missio vero dicit respectum personae emanantis per emanationem alicuius rei visibilis vel invisibilis appropriatae illi personae. Et ita de principali significato missionis non est emanatio personae, sed est de cointellectu significati missionis, sicut nasus non est de principali significato simitatis, quamvis simitas nasi nasum includat de cointellectu». Ipse Richard. a Med. praefert secundam opinionem, infra d. 18. p. I. a. 3. q. 1.

His verbis iam manifestatur, aliquos putasse, missionem principaliter significare processionem unius personae ab alia, sed connotare manifestationem eiusdem. Ita Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 71. m. 2. et 4., et nonnulli moderni, ut Suarez. Sed S. Bonav. infra (q. 4. in corp. et clarius ibi ad 3.) dicit: «Missio de se duo importat, scil. emanationem et manifestationem, et principaliter de ratione suae significationis importat manifestationem». Eandem sententiam profitentur S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 2; d. 16. q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 43. a. 2. praesertim ad 3.), Scot. (I. Sent. d. 16. q. unic.), B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., locis infra citatis.

**II.** In responsione S. Bonav. docet, triplicem in missione includi respectum, et haec tria membra iterum tripliciter comparat. Secundum hos multiplices respectus resolvit, quae sint a divinis missionibus removenda, quaeve in iis ponenda.

**III.** Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 71. m. 1. — Scot., de hac et seqq. hic et in Report. q. unic. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 43. a. 1. — B. Albert., I. Sent. d. 14. a. 3. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et seqq. hic q. unic.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** How temporal procession, mission, and donation of the Holy Spirit differ is not determined in the same way by the older Scholastics. Let us hear Richard of Mediavilla (*I Sent.* d. 14, a. 1, q. 3): «Some hold that they do not differ really, but only according to reason. For temporal procession more principally imports a respect to the term *to which*, mission to the principle *from which*, and donation to the effect. Others, however, try to assign a greater difference among these three. For they say that temporal procession, in its principal signification, signifies nothing other than eternal procession together with a certain respect according to reason, or according to a relation of speech, to the creature; and it actually connotes a new effect in the creature, and a new real relation in the creature to the Holy Spirit. Donation, in its principal signification, does not assert any emanation [of person], because the whole Trinity gives itself, speaking of the emanation in reality by which the very person emanates; rather it asserts the emanation of the gift appropriated to a person, in which gift even the very person is truly given to the recipient of that gift. Mission, however, asserts the respect of the person emanating through the emanation of some visible or invisible thing appropriated to that person. And so the emanation of the person is not part of the principal signification of mission, but is part of the co-understood [signification] of mission — just as the nose is not part of the principal signification of *snubness*, although the snubness of a nose includes the nose by way of co-understanding.» Richard of Mediavilla himself prefers the second opinion, below at d. 18, p. I, a. 3, q. 1.

By these words it is now made clear that some held mission to signify principally the procession of one person from another, but to connote the manifestation of the same. So Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. I, q. 71, m. 2 and 4, and certain moderns, such as Suárez. But St. Bonaventure below (q. 4 in the corpus and more clearly there in reply 3) says: «Mission of itself imports two things — namely, emanation and manifestation — and principally, by the very nature of its signification, it imports manifestation.» The same view is professed by St. Thomas (here, q. 1, a. 2; d. 16, q. 1, a. 1; *S.* I, q. 43, a. 2, especially *ad* 3), Scotus (*I Sent.* d. 16, q. unica), Bl. Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, in the places cited below.

**II.** In the response, St. Bonaventure teaches that a threefold respect is included in mission, and these three members he in turn compares threefoldly. According to these multiple respects, he resolves what must be removed from the divine missions and what must be posited in them.

**III.** Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. I, q. 71, m. 1. — Scotus, on this and the following, here and in the *Reportata*, q. unica. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; *S.* I, q. 43, a. 1. — Bl. Albert, *I Sent.* d. 14, a. 3–4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1, 2, 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here, first principal q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the following, here q. unica.

---


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

source_text:
<!-- page 261 -->

### QUAESTIO II.

*Utrum missio in divinis sit tantum ex tempore, an etiam ab aeterno.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum missio in divinis sit ex tempore tantum, an etiam ab aeterno. Et quod ab aeterno, ostenditur auctoritate et ratione.

1. Auctoritate sic: Gregorius[^1]: «Eo ipso mittitur Filius, quo generatur»; sed generatur ab aeterno: ergo mittitur ab aeterno: ergo missio in divinis est ab aeterno.

2. Item, Beda in homilia[^2]: «Spiritus sancti missio est eius processio»: sed procedit ab aeterno: ergo mittitur ab aeterno.

3. Item, ratione sic: missio, sive active sive passive dicta, est Deus; sed omnis actio, quae active et passive est Deus, est ab aeterno: ergo etc.

4. Item, omnis actio, quae habet Deum ut terminum et ut principium, est ab aeterno, ut patet, cum dicitur: Deus intelligit Deum[^3], Deus generat Deum: sed missio est huiusmodi, quia Deus mittit Deum: ergo missio est aeterna. Si dicas, quod missio requirit duplicem terminum, scilicet eum qui mittitur, et eum ad quem mittitur, et ille ad quem fit missio, est temporalis; contra: Deus potest esse qui mittit, Deus, qui mittitur: ergo pari ratione Deus, ad quem mittitur; et videtur, quod istae comparationes principii et termini maxime Deo conveniant. Deus enim est *alpha et omega, principium et finis*[^4]: ergo magis proprie dicitur Deus, ad quem mittitur, quam Deus, qui mittitur.

5. Item, quidquid est Deus, est aeternum; missio est Deus: ergo est aeterna; sed praemissae sunt verae: ergo et conclusio.

**Contra:**

1. Ioannis decimo sexto[^5]: *Si non abiero, Paraclitus non veniet ad vos; cum autem abiero, mittam vobis eum*. Ergo Spiritus sanctus potest mitti et promitti; sed quod est aeternum non potest promitti: ergo etc.

2. Item, Augustinus quarto de Trinitate[^6]: «Mittitur Filius vel Spiritus sanctus, cum ex tempore cuiusquam mente percipitur».

3. Item, omnis missio est ad[^7] aliquid posterius mittente; sed ubi cadit posterius necessario intervenit ratio principii et temporis: ergo etc. Prima propositio per se est vera, quia mittens per prius habet ipsum quod[^8] mittit, quam habet ille, ad quem mittit.

4. Item, omnis missio vel est ratione mutationis, vel ratione operationis; sed in divinis non est mutatio: ergo ad hoc, quod missio sit, necesse est quod interveniat operatio; et si operatio, et effectus; et si effectus, et[^9] tempus: ergo omnis missio est ex tempore.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Missio propter comparationem ad terminum creatum dicenda est temporalis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum ad praedicta, quod missio in divinis nullo modo dicitur nisi ex tempore. Et ratio huius est, quia dicit comparationem non tantum ad principium nec tantum ad missum, sed

<!-- page 262 -->

etiam ad terminum. Terminus[^10] ille de necessitate creatus est, quia missio in Deo, cum non dicat mutationem, dicit aliquam circa terminum operationem, et ita aliquem effectum; et quia omne quod recipit effectum, est creatum et temporale: ideo missio de necessitate est temporalis.

**1.** Ad illud ergo quod dicit Gregorius: «Eo ipso mittitur Filius, quo generatur»; dicendum, quod ipse loquitur, praesupposita manifestatione in creatura[^11]. Pater enim manifestatur in creatura, sed non mittitur, sed Filius mittitur. Et Gregorius reddit rationem, quia nulla alia causa est, nisi quod iste[^12] generatur, ille non, id est Pater.

**2.** Ad illud quod obiicitur de Beda, dicendum, quod Beda loquitur de processione Spiritus sancti, prout est in creatura, et ita semper est temporalis ut missio.

**3.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omne quod active et passive ponitur, in Deo est aeternum; dicendum, quod verum est, nisi habeat ulteriorem respectum ad creaturam; sed missio praeter respectum, qui est mittentis ad missum, importat aliquem effectum in creatura[^13].

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod missio active et passive est Deus; dicendum, quod est quaedam actio, quae solum respicit passum, ut «percutio te»; quaedam, quae passum et alium terminum, ut «doceo te grammaticam», similiter et «mitto te ad illum». Et quod obiicit[^14] verum est in actione et passione, quae nihil aliud respiciunt nisi principium et obiectum; sed non in aliis, quae requirunt alium terminum, et ideo habet instantiam in proposito.

**4.** Similiter solvendum est ad sequens, quod verum est, si actio illa omnino terminaretur[^15] in Deum.

Sed quod obiicit, quod missio respicit Deum ut terminum *ad quem*; dicendum, quod si terminus, ad quem est missio, esset solum in ratione finientis, verum[^16] esset; nunc autem non est sic, sed magis in ratione suscipientis.

**5.** Ad ultimum obiectum dicendum, quod ibi est paralogismus accidentis, sicut hic: omne aes est naturale, statua est aes: ergo etc.; quia quod erat materiae attribuitur statuae ratione artificii. Similiter hic, quod erat divinae essentiae attribuitur missioni ratione connotati.

english:
<!-- page 261 -->

### QUESTION II.

*Whether mission in the divine [persons] is only from time, or also from eternity.*

Second it is asked whether mission in the divine [persons] is only from time, or also from eternity. And that it is from eternity is shown by authority and by reason.

1. By authority, thus: Gregory[^1]: «By that very thing the Son is sent, by which he is generated»; but he is generated from eternity: therefore he is sent from eternity: therefore mission in the divine [persons] is from eternity.

2. Likewise, Bede in a homily[^2]: «The mission of the Holy Spirit is his procession»: but he proceeds from eternity: therefore he is sent from eternity.

3. Likewise, by reason, thus: mission, whether spoken of actively or passively, is God; but every action which actively and passively is God is from eternity: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, every action which has God as term and as principle is from eternity, as is plain when it is said: God understands God[^3], God generates God: but mission is of this kind, since God sends God: therefore mission is eternal. If you say that mission requires a twofold term — namely, the one who is sent, and the one to whom he is sent — and the one to whom mission is made is temporal; on the contrary: God can be the one who sends, [and] God the one who is sent: therefore by like reasoning [also] God [as the one] to whom he is sent; and it seems that these comparisons of principle and term belong most fully to God. For God is *alpha and omega, the beginning and the end*[^4]: therefore it is more properly said God to whom he is sent than God who is sent.

5. Likewise, whatever is God is eternal; mission is God: therefore it is eternal; but the premises are true: therefore so also is the conclusion.

**On the contrary:**

1. John 16[^5]: *If I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you; but when I have gone away, I will send him to you*. Therefore the Holy Spirit can be sent and *promised*; but what is eternal cannot be promised: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Augustine, *On the Trinity* IV[^6]: «The Son or the Holy Spirit is sent when from time he is perceived in someone's mind».

3. Likewise, every mission is to[^7] something posterior to the one sending; but where there is posteriority, the account of principle and of time necessarily intervenes: therefore etc. The first proposition is per se true, since the one sending has the very thing that[^8] he sends *prior* to the one to whom he sends [it].

4. Likewise, every mission is either by reason of change or by reason of operation; but in the divine [persons] there is no change: therefore for there to be mission, an operation must intervene; and if operation, then [also] an effect; and if an effect, then[^9] [also] time: therefore every mission is from time.

### CONCLUSION.

> Mission, on account of [its] comparison to a created term, must be called temporal.

**I respond:** It must be said in reply to the foregoing that mission in the divine [persons] is in no way said except from time. And the reason for this is that it asserts a comparison not only to the principle, nor only to the one sent, but

<!-- page 262 -->

also to the term. That term[^10] is necessarily created, because mission in God, since it does not assert change, asserts some operation about a term, and so some effect; and because everything that receives an effect is created and temporal, mission is necessarily temporal.

**1.** Therefore to what Gregory says — «By that very thing the Son is sent, by which he is generated» — it must be said that he is speaking with the manifestation in the creature presupposed[^11]. For the Father is manifested in the creature, but he is not sent; rather the Son is sent. And Gregory gives the reason, namely that there is no other cause except that this one[^12] is generated, [and] that one is not — that is, the Father.

**2.** To what is objected from Bede, it must be said that Bede is speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit insofar as it is in the creature, and so always is temporal, just like mission.

**3.** To what is objected — that everything which is posited actively and passively is in God eternal — it must be said that this is true unless it has a further respect to the creature; but mission, beyond the respect which is of the one sending to the one sent, imports some effect in the creature[^13].

To what is objected — that mission is actively and passively God — it must be said that there is a certain action which regards only the patient, as «I strike you»; another which [regards] the patient and another term, as «I teach you grammar», and similarly «I send you to him». And what is objected[^14] is true in [that] action and passion which regard nothing other than principle and object; but not in others, which require another term, and so it has a counter-instance in the case at hand.

**4.** Similarly the next [objection] must be solved: it would be true if that action were wholly terminated[^15] in God.

But to what is objected — that mission regards God as term *to which* — it must be said that if the term to which mission is made were only in the character of *that which terminates*, it would be true[^16]; but as it is, it is not so, but rather in the character of *that which receives*.

**5.** To the last objection it must be said that there a fallacy of accident is committed, just as here: every bronze is natural, the statue is bronze: therefore etc.; for what belonged to the matter is attributed to the statue by reason of the craftsmanship. Similarly here, what belonged to the divine essence is attributed to mission by reason of what is connoted.

la: Homil. 26. n. 2. in Evang.: *Eo enim ipso a Patre Filius mitti dicitur, quo a Patre generatur*. In quo textu plurimi codd. et ed. 1 omittunt *ipso*.

en: Homily 26, n. 2, on the Gospel: *For by that very thing the Son is said to be sent by the Father, by which he is generated by the Father*. In which text very many codices and ed. 1 omit *ipso*.

la: Vide d. XIV. lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: See d. 14, *Letter of the Master* [Lombard's text], chapter 1.

la: Reliquimus *Deum*, quod in fere omnibus codd. et sex primis edd. non bene decidit (forte propter immediate sequentem repetitionem nominis *Deus*); idem recurrit mox post *generat*.

en: We have left *Deum* ["God"] standing, although in nearly all the codices and the first six editions it does not stand well (perhaps on account of the immediately following repetition of the noun *Deus*); the same recurs soon after *generat*.

en: Apocalypse 1:8.

la: Vers. 7; ultimam huius textus partem Vulgata ita exhibet: *Si autem abiero, mittam eum ad vos*. — Mox post *eum* fide plurium mss. ut F H I T X aa bb ff et ed. 1 expunximus *Cum*, quod propter formam argumenti melius deest.

en: Verse 7 [John 16:7]; the last part of this text the Vulgate displays as: *But if I go away, I will send him to you*. — Soon after *eum*, on the testimony of several manuscripts (F, H, I, T, X, aa, bb, ff) and ed. 1, we have expunged *Cum* ["When"], which is better absent on account of the form of the argument.

la: Cap. 20. n. 28. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 7. et 8. — In principio verborum Augustini nonnulli codd. ut I bb ff cum ed. 1 ponunt *Tunc mittitur* etc.

en: Chap. 20, n. 28 [of *De Trinitate* IV]. See here the *Letter of the Master*, c. 7 and 8. — At the beginning of Augustine's words, some codices, such as I, bb, ff, with ed. 1, put *Tunc mittitur* ("Then he is sent") etc.

la: Ex mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus *ad*, quod Vat., ut ex subnexis patet, male omittit. Cod. Z particulae *ad* praemittit *ab aliquo*, loco cuius cod. O habet *aliquo modo*.

en: From the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied *ad*, which the Vatican edition, as is plain from what follows, wrongly omits. Codex Z prefixes *ab aliquo* to the particle *ad*; in its place codex O has *aliquo modo*.

la: Unus alterve codex ut T cc *quem*.

en: One or another codex, such as T or cc, reads *quem* ["which / whom"].

la: Plures codd. ut F G I K T V Y aa bb ee ff cum ed. 1 omittunt *et*.

en: Several codices (F, G, I, K, T, V, Y, aa, bb, ee, ff) with ed. 1 omit *et*.

la: Sequimur lectionem maioris partis codd. ut A F G K S T V X Y cc ee ff et ed. 4, dum Vat. nomini *Terminum* praefigit *sed*, aliqui vero codd. ut I Z bb *et*, nonnulli demum ut H W post *Terminus* addunt *autem*. Mox post *dicat* cod. B adiungit *missi*, sed nimis arcte videtur.

en: We follow the reading of the majority of the codices (A, F, G, K, S, T, V, X, Y, cc, ee, ff) and ed. 4, while the Vatican edition prefixes *sed* to the noun *Terminum*; some codices (I, Z, bb) prefix *et*; finally a few (H, W) add *autem* after *Terminus*. Soon after *dicat* codex B adds *missi*, but the construction seems too tight.

la: Postulantibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1, substituimus *creatura* loco *creaturis*.

en: As required by the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted *creatura* ["in the creature", singular] for *creaturis* ["in creatures", plural].

la: Nempe: Filius. — Vat. cum cod. cc minus congrue et contra alios codd. et ed. 1 *ille* pro *iste*. Paulo ante plures codd. ut A H bb cum ed. 1 *quod* loco *quia*, quorum aliqui ut bb et ed. 1 dein post *nisi* ponunt *quia* pro *quod*. — Aliam expositionem verborum Gregorii vide in secunda parte huius distinctionis, dub. 2.

en: Namely: the Son. — The Vatican edition with codex *cc* less fittingly, and against the other codices and ed. 1, reads *ille* in place of *iste*. A little before, several codices (A, H, bb) with ed. 1 read *quod* in place of *quia*, and some of these (such as *bb* and ed. 1) afterwards put *quia* in place of *quod* after *nisi*. — For another exposition of Gregory's words, see in the second part of this distinction, *Dubium* 2.

la: Haec solutio respicit minorem tertiae et etiam maiorem quartae obiectionis; sed quod sequitur solvit maiorem tertiae.

en: This solution looks to the *minor* of the third [objection] and also to the *major* of the fourth; but what follows solves the *major* of the third.

la: Vat. *obiicitur*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *obiicitur* ["it is objected"].

la: Plures codd. ut A I S T *terminetur*. Paulo ante cod. W omittit *illa*.

en: Several codices (A, I, S, T) read *terminetur*. A little before, codex W omits *illa*.

la: Fide mss. et ed. 1 delevimus *sic*, quod Vat. vocabulo *verum* praefigit. — Nota, quod haec solutio respicit illam obiectionem, quae sub *Contra* in quarta principali continetur.

en: On the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, we have deleted *sic*, which the Vatican edition prefixes to the word *verum*. — Note that this solution looks back to that objection which is contained under *Contra* in the fourth principal [argument].

latin_scholion:
**I.** In conclusione omnes conveniunt, etiam ii, qui cum Alex. Hal. statuunt, missionem in suo principali significato dicere quid aeternum, nempe processionem aeternam. Ipse Alex. Hal. (loc. cit.) obiectum hic ultimo loco positum sic solvit: «De missione est loqui quantum ad principale significatum et quantum ad connotatum: ratione principalis significati est quid aeternum; ratione connotati est ex tempore. Cum autem aeternum coniungitur temporali in eodem termino, proprie loquendo, debet iudicari temporale, sicut, quando necessarium coniungitur contingenti, totum iudicatur contingens. Ideo in argumento isto est fallacia accidentis: missio est Deus; et Deus est aeternus: ergo missio est aeterna; quia aeternitas, quae est in principali significato missionis, infertur de connotato. Hoc enim nomen *aeternus*, cum sit adiectivum, determinat ipsum terminum et ponit rem suam ratione totalis significati».

**II.** Quoad ipsam quaestionem: Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 71. m. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 4. a. 3; S. I. q. 43. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic d. 15. p. II. prima princ. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** All agree on the conclusion, even those who, with Alexander of Hales, hold that mission in its principal signification asserts something eternal — namely, the eternal procession. Alexander of Hales himself (in the place cited) solves the objection placed last here as follows: «We must speak of mission with respect both to its principal signification and to what it connotes: by reason of the principal signification it is something eternal; by reason of what is connoted it is from time. Now when something eternal is conjoined with something temporal in the same term, properly speaking it must be judged temporal — just as, when the necessary is conjoined with the contingent, the whole is judged contingent. Therefore in this argument there is the fallacy of accident: mission is God; and God is eternal; therefore mission is eternal — for the eternity which is in the principal signification of mission is inferred of what is connoted. For this name *eternal*, since it is an adjective, determines the term itself and posits its content by reason of the total signification».

**II.** On the question itself: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. I, q. 71, m. 4. — St. Thomas, here q. 4, a. 3; *S.* I, q. 43, a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here d. 15, p. II, first principal q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

---


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

source_text:
<!-- page 262 -->

### QUAESTIO III.

*Utrum missio, passive accepta, sit totius Trinitatis, in specie Patris.*

Tertio quaeritur, cuius sit missio ut missi. Et videtur, quod sit totius Trinitatis.

1. Augustinus quarto de Trinitate[^1]: «Mittitur Filius, cum ex tempore cuiusquam mente percipitur». Sed tota Trinitas ex tempore mente percipitur: ergo tota Trinitas mittitur: ergo et Pater.

2. Item, mitti personam est ipsam de novo venire ad habitandum[^2]; sed tota Trinitas de novo

<!-- page 263 -->

venit ad habitandum in peccatore, cum gratia datur ei: ergo etc. Minor patet, Ioannis decimo quarto[^3]: *Ad eum veniemus* etc.

3. Item, missio connotat effectum in creatura; sed regula[^4] est, quod omne nomen connotans effectum dicitur essentialiter: ergo missio, passive dicta, dicitur essentialiter: sed quod essentialiter dicitur convenit toti Trinitati: ergo etc.

4. Item, quando aliquid mittitur, mittitur cum eo omne quod ei[^5] inseparabiliter est coniunctum; sed Pater est inseparabiliter coniunctus Filio: ergo quando mittitur Filius, mittitur et Pater.

5. Item, mittere et mitti aut sunt aequalis nobilitatis, aut non. Si aequalis: ergo qua ratione dicitur mittere de Patre, eadem ratione et mitti; si[^6] inaequalis: ergo mittens est maior misso: ergo Filius est inaequalis Patri.

**Contra:**

1. Augustinus secundo de Trinitate[^7]: «Pater nusquam legitur missus»; sed non debemus aliquid asserere de Deo, quod non habemus ex Scriptura: ergo mitti non convenit toti Trinitati.

2. Item, Augustinus[^8] dicit, quod Pater absurdissime dicitur missus; sed sermones veri non sunt absurdissimi, sed potius falsi: ergo mitti non vere dicitur de Patre.

3. Item, Augustinus[^9] dicit, quod mitti est cognosci esse ab alio; sed Pater non cognoscitur esse ab alio: ergo Pater non mittitur.

4. Item, omne mobile reducitur ad immobile[^10], ergo missibile ad immissibile: ergo in divinis est aliqua persona immissibilis, sed non nisi Pater: ergo etc.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Missio, passive accepta, nullatenus dici potest de Patre.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod missio, sicut patet ex ratione Augustini et melius infra patebit[^11], semper duo habet ex suo intellectu, scilicet emanationem et manifestationem per effectum. Quia ergo importat semper[^12] emanationem passive missio passive dicta, hinc est, quod cum Pater omnino careat principio, quod de ipso nullo modo potest dici missio passiva; unde non invenitur, et si inveniretur, esset tanquam falsa et velut impropria exponenda[^13].

**1. 2.** Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo et secundo[^14], quod missio est perceptio ab intellectu, vel inhabitatio de novo; dicendum, quod non dicit totam rationem missionis, sed solum a parte termini in[^15] quem; unde debet addi cum illis emanatio ab alio; et tunc non valet.

**3.** Ad illud quod obiicitur tertio, quod connotat[^16] effectum, ergo est essentiale; dicendum, quod nomen connotans effectum aut dicit solum respectum ad effectum, et tunc est pure essentiale, ut *creare*; aut dicit etiam cum hoc respectum ad personam, et sic potest esse notionale, sicut *creare per Filium* solius est Patris. Sic est de hoc quod est *mitti*, quia non dicit tantum comparationem missi ad suscipientem[^17] effectum, sed etiam ad principium. Significat enim, ipsum esse ab alio et in alium; et sic patet illud.

**4.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod inseparabilia simul mittuntur; dicendum, quod illud est verum de illa missione, quae est per separationem; sed de illa missione, quae est per distinctionem, non est dicere, quod simul[^18] mittantur necessario illi qui distinguuntur, sicut nec in alia missione illa quae separantur. Et quoniam Pater distinguitur a Filio, et missio in divinis dicit distinctionem; ideo non oportet, quod cum mittitur[^19] Filius, mittatur Pater.

**5.** Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod aequalis nobilitatis est mitti ut[^20] mittere; dicendum, quod *mitti* non removetur a Patre, quia dicit ignobilitatem, sed quia dicit emanationem et subauctoritatem, quae quamvis non sit ignobilitatis, tamen non convenit Patri[^21].

<!-- page 264 -->

english:
<!-- page 262 -->

### QUESTION III.

*Whether mission, taken passively, belongs to the whole Trinity — specifically to the Father.*

Third it is asked of whom mission belongs as the one sent. And it seems that it belongs to the whole Trinity.

1. Augustine, *On the Trinity* IV[^1]: «The Son is sent when from time he is perceived in someone's mind». But the whole Trinity is from time perceived in the mind: therefore the whole Trinity is sent: therefore the Father also.

2. Likewise, for a person to be sent is for him to come anew to indwell[^2]; but the whole Trinity comes anew

<!-- page 263 -->

to indwell in the sinner when grace is given to him: therefore etc. The minor [premise] is plain from John 14[^3]: *We will come to him* etc.

3. Likewise, mission connotes an effect in the creature; but it is a rule[^4] that every name connoting an effect is said essentially: therefore mission, passively spoken of, is said essentially: but what is said essentially belongs to the whole Trinity: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, when something is sent, there is sent with it everything that is inseparably joined to it[^5]; but the Father is inseparably joined to the Son: therefore when the Son is sent, the Father also is sent.

5. Likewise, *to send* and *to be sent* are either of equal nobility, or not. If of equal nobility: then for the same reason that *to send* is said of the Father, by the same reason *to be sent* [is said of him]; if[^6] unequal: then the one sending is greater than the one sent: therefore the Son is unequal to the Father.

**On the contrary:**

1. Augustine, *On the Trinity* II[^7]: «The Father is nowhere read as having been sent»; but we ought not to assert anything about God which we do not have from Scripture: therefore *to be sent* does not belong to the whole Trinity.

2. Likewise, Augustine[^8] says that it is *most absurd* to say that the Father is sent; but true statements are not most absurd, but rather false ones [are]: therefore *to be sent* is not truly said of the Father.

3. Likewise, Augustine[^9] says that *to be sent* is to be known to be from another; but the Father is not known to be from another: therefore the Father is not sent.

4. Likewise, every movable [thing] is reduced to an immovable[^10]; therefore [every] sendable to a non-sendable: therefore in the divine [persons] there is some person who cannot be sent — and this is none but the Father: therefore etc.

### CONCLUSION.

> Mission, taken passively, can in no way be said of the Father.

**I respond:** It must be said that mission, as is plain from Augustine's reasoning and will appear better below[^11], always has two things in its meaning — namely, emanation, and manifestation through an effect. Therefore since mission spoken of passively always imports emanation passively[^12], hence it follows that, since the Father is wholly without principle, passive mission can in no way be said of him; hence it is not found, and if it were found, it would have to be expounded as something false and as it were improper[^13].

**1. & 2.** Therefore to what is objected first and second[^14] — that mission is perception by the intellect, or new indwelling — it must be said that this does not state the whole account of mission, but only [its] part on the side of the term *to which*[^15]; whence there must be added with these the emanation from another; and then [the objection] does not hold.

**3.** To what is objected third — that it connotes[^16] an effect, therefore it is essential — it must be said that a name connoting an effect either asserts only a respect to the effect, and then it is purely essential, as *to create*; or it asserts also along with this a respect to a person, and so it can be notional, as *to create through the Son* belongs to the Father alone. So it is with *to be sent*, since it asserts not only a comparison of the one sent to the one receiving[^17] the effect, but also to the principle. For it signifies that he is from another and into another; and so the [objection] is plain.

**4.** To what is objected — that inseparable [things] are sent together — it must be said that this is true of that mission which is by separation; but of that mission which is by distinction, it cannot be said that those who are distinguished are necessarily sent together[^18], any more than in the other mission [are] those things which are separated. And since the Father is distinguished from the Son, and mission in the divine [persons] asserts distinction, therefore it is not necessary that, when the Son is sent[^19], the Father be sent [along with him].

**5.** To what is objected last — that *to be sent* is of equal nobility as[^20] *to send* — it must be said that *to be sent* is not removed from the Father because it asserts ignobility, but because it asserts emanation and *subauthority* [*subauctoritas*], which, although it is not [a mark] of ignobility, still does not belong to the Father[^21].

<!-- page 264 -->

la: Cap. 20. n. 28. — In fine argumenti post *ergo* ex aliquibus mss. ut H Q X adiecimus particulam *et*.

en: Chap. 20, n. 28 [of *De Trinitate* IV]. — At the end of the argument, after *ergo*, we have added the particle *et* from some manuscripts (H, Q, X).

la: Codd. aa bb melius *inhabitandum*.

en: Codices *aa* and *bb* read better, *inhabitandum* ["to dwell-within"].

la: Vers. 23.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc *ita* loco *regula*, sed obstat auctoritas aliorum codd. et ed. 1. Mox post *omne* ex pluribus codd. ut H M V aa bb ff cum ed. 1 adiecimus *nomen*, quod et infra in responsione habetur ab omnibus mss. Dein ed. 1 *notatis* loco *connotans*.

en: The Vatican edition with codex *cc* reads *ita* in place of *regula*, but the authority of the other codices and ed. 1 is against this. Soon after *omne*, from several codices (H, M, V, aa, bb, ff) with ed. 1, we have added *nomen*, which is also held below in the response by all the manuscripts. Then ed. 1 reads *notatis* in place of *connotans*.

la: Ex mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus indebite omissum *ei*, et paulo infra post *coniunctus* expunximus *cum*, loco cuius cod. W ponit *ipsi*.

en: From the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied *ei* ["to it"], improperly omitted; and a little further on, after *coniunctus*, we have expunged *cum*, in place of which codex W puts *ipsi*.

la: Vat., plurimis mss. et ed. 1 refragantibus, addit *est*.

en: The Vatican edition, with most manuscripts and ed. 1 disagreeing, adds *est*.

la: Cap. 5. n. 8. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Chap. 5, n. 8 [of *De Trinitate* II]. See here the *Letter of the Master*, c. 2.

la: Libr. IV. de Trin. c. 21. n. 32; vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 9.

en: Book IV of *On the Trinity*, c. 21, n. 32; see here the *Letter of the Master*, c. 9.

la: Libr. IV. de Trin. c. 20. n. 28; vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 7–9.

en: Book IV of *On the Trinity*, c. 20, n. 28; see here the *Letter of the Master*, c. 7–9.

la: Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 34. seqq. (c. 5.). — Mox post *primum ergo* cod. M cum ed. 1 adiicit *et*. Paulo infra fide plurimorum mss. et edd. 1, 4, 5 substituimus *aliqua* pro minus apto *alia*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text 34 ff. (c. 5). — Soon after *primum ergo*, codex M with ed. 1 adds *et*. A little further on, on the testimony of most manuscripts and editions 1, 4, 5, we have substituted *aliqua* for the less apt *alia*.

la: Quaest. seq. in corp. et ad 3. — Mox nonnulli codd. ut aa bb ff cum ed. 1 *de* loco *ex*, et dein cod. Y post *emanationem* explicative addit *passive*.

en: The following question, in the corpus and in reply 3. — Soon some codices (aa, bb, ff) with ed. 1 read *de* in place of *ex*, and then codex Y after *emanationem* adds *passive* by way of explanation.

la: Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus *semper*, et mox post *missio* ope plurium mss. ut A H I M T V aa bb ff supplevimus *passive*, qua lectione omnis ambiguitas tollitur. Ed. 1 omittit primum *passive*.

en: From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have added *semper* ["always"]; and soon after *missio*, with the help of several manuscripts (A, H, I, M, T, V, aa, bb, ff), we have supplied *passive*, by which reading every ambiguity is removed. Ed. 1 omits the first *passive*.

la: Praeferenda videtur lectio cod. T, in qua post *esset* addita particula *tanquam* deest, utpote quae verbo *exponenda* non bene adaptatur, pro qua unus alterve codex habet *inquam*. Cod. X *valde* loco *velut*. Cod. K *velut haeretica reprobanda* pro *velut impropria exponenda*.

en: The reading of codex T seems preferable, in which the particle *tanquam* added after *esset* is absent — since it does not adapt well to the verb *exponenda* — for which one or another codex has *inquam*. Codex X has *valde* in place of *velut*. Codex K has *velut haeretica reprobanda* ("to be rejected as heretical") in place of *velut impropria exponenda* ("to be expounded as improper").

la: Licet mss. cum ed. 1 omittant *et secundo*, retinuimus tamen, quia revera ad duo prima obiecta respondetur.

en: Although the manuscripts with ed. 1 omit *et secundo*, we have nevertheless retained it, since in fact reply is made to the first two objections.

la: Cod. T *ad*. In fine solutionis codd. L O loco *non valet* legunt *vera est*.

en: Codex T reads *ad*. At the end of the solution, codices L and O read *vera est* ["it is true"] in place of *non valet* ["it does not hold"].

la: Plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 *notat*.

en: Most codices with ed. 1 read *notat* ["it indicates"].

la: Cod. R *susceptionem seu*. In fine responsionis fide plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 post *patet* adiecimus *illud*.

en: Codex R reads *susceptionem seu* ("of receiving, or"). At the end of the response, on the testimony of most manuscripts and ed. 1, after *patet* we have added *illud*.

la: Auctoritate antiquiorum codd. et ed. 1 substituimus *simul* pro *sic*. Paulo ante codd. N R *verum* loco *dicere*. Cod. X praecedentem propositionem ita exhibet: *missione non est verum, quae est per distinctionem, non enim est dicere*. Paulo infra sub *alia missione* intellige illam, quae est per separationem, in qua *inseparabilia simul mittuntur, separata vero non*.

en: On the authority of the older codices and ed. 1, we have substituted *simul* ["together"] for *sic*. A little before, codices N and R read *verum* in place of *dicere*. Codex X displays the preceding proposition thus: *missione non est verum, quae est per distinctionem, non enim est dicere*. A little further on, by *the other mission* understand that which is by separation, in which *inseparable [things] are sent together, but separated [things] are not*.

la: Vat. cum aliquibus mss. *mittatur*, sed minus apte. Cod. T *si* loco *cum*. Mox post *mittatur* cod. Z addit *et*.

en: The Vatican edition with some manuscripts reads *mittatur*, but less aptly. Codex T reads *si* in place of *cum*. Soon after *mittatur* codex Z adds *et*.

la: Ed. 1 *et* loco *ut*.

en: Ed. 1 reads *et* in place of *ut*.

la: In cod. K additur *imo repugnat proprietati eius, quia Pater est non ab alio*.

en: In codex K it is added: *indeed it is repugnant to his property, because the Father is not from another*.

latin_scholion:
Conclusio est sententia communis; communiter etiam conceditur, Patri convenire manifestationem factam in aliquo effectu ipsi appropriato, v. g. in aliqua apparitione. Sed quia missio praeter hoc connotat in persona missa emanationem, et Pater non emanat, ideo haec eius manifestatio non est missio.

Ita Richard., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 73. m. 2. a. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 2; S. I. q. 43. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
The conclusion is the common opinion; it is also commonly granted that to the Father belongs *manifestation* made in some effect appropriated to him — for example, in some apparition. But because mission, besides this, connotes in the person sent an emanation, and the Father does not emanate, therefore this manifestation of his is not a mission.

So Richard [of Mediavilla], here a. 2, q. 1. — Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. I, q. 73, m. 2, a. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 2; *S.* I, q. 43, a. 4. — Bl. Albert, here a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here, second principal q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

---