title: Dist. 9, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 187 -->

### Dub. I.

In parte ista incidunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicitur: *Non est aliud Pater, aliud Filius, aliud Spiritus sanctus, quamvis personaliter* etc. Videtur enim falsum quod dicitur, quia bene sequitur: Petrus est albus homo, ergo est animal album, quia idem significat *albus* et *album*: ergo pari ratione, quia idem significat[^3] *alius* et *aliud*, sequitur: est alius, ergo est aliud ens[^7]. Si tu dicas, quod non est simile de hoc nomine *alius* et de hoc nomine *aliud*[^8]; contra: bene sequitur: est alius homo, ergo est aliud animal: ergo a simili illud sequitur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quia in Deo est singularis alietas, quia alietas est suppositi cum omnimoda unitate naturae: ideo singulari modo oportet exprimi. Et quoniam masculinum genus importat quandam distinctionem vel discretionem[^9], ideo respicit personam; sed neutrum propter indistinctionem respicit naturam: et ideo *alius* importat alietatem in persona, *aliud*[^10] in natura, et ideo in divinis non idem significant.

Posset etiam dici, quod in creaturis *aliud* significat[^11], cum dico: *iste est alius ab illo*, et *aliud*, cum dico: *est aliud*; et unum sequitur ad aliud. Non sic in divinis; et non est simile de albo, quia *album* imponitur a forma speciali, quae est albedo.[^1][^2][^4][^5][^6]

<!-- page 188 -->

### Dub. II.

Item dubitatur secundo de hoc quod dicit: *Coaeternae sibi sunt tres personae.* Videtur falsum, quia si coaeternae, et[^12] aeternae: ergo tres aeterni, quod est contra Symbolum, ubi dicitur: «Non tres aeterni»; et iterum contra rationem, quia numerus pluralis multiplicat formam. Unde non vere dicitur: tres sunt dii.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod nomen significans substantiam in divinis reperitur secundum triplicem modum. Quoddam enim significat[^13] substantiam et per modum substantiae, ut nomen substantivum, ut *Deus*; et tale nullo modo plurificatur nec dicitur pluraliter, sive sit substantivum, sive substantivatum; ut[^14] hoc nomen *aeternus*; sic accipitur in Symbolo. Quaedam significant substantiam per modum adiacentiae, sicut nomina adiectiva adiective retenta[^15]; et talia, quia trahunt numerum a substantivis, dicuntur pluraliter, et de genere talium sunt verba et participia. Alia sunt nomina, quae important substantiam in adiacentia, connotando intra relationem mutuam, qualia sunt *coaeterni*[^16]; et talia ex duplici causa possunt dici pluraliter, tum ratione consignificationis sive modi significandi, tum ratione connotationis. Et sic patet, quod nulla est contradictio.

Quod[^17] autem obiicitur, quod pluralis numerus plurificat formam; dicendum, quod hoc non est verum in adiectivis[^18].

### Dub. III.

*Qui hoc dicit, non intelligit, natum esse* etc.

Hic ponit Magister quatuor rationes demonstrantes, Filium coaeternum Patri, et ita argumentum Arii non valere[^19]: *Filius est natus, ergo non est aeternus*.

*Prima* sumta est a simili et est talis: splendor est eiusdem durationis cum igne sive aequalis, et tamen est generatus ab igne: ergo multo fortius, cum Filius sit splendor Patris, quamvis ab ipso generetur, erit ei coaeternus: ergo conclusio praedictae rationis est falsa, et illa consequentia est interimenda[^20]: si natus est, erat quando non erat. Sed contra: Si emanatio procedens a Deo est ei coaeterna, sicut emanatio procedens a creatura est ei coaequaeva[^21]: ergo cum res exierint a Deo, videtur quod ab aeterno.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod egressus splendoris[^22] a luce vel igne est egressus connaturalis; et talis est egressus Filii a Patre, non autem egressus creaturae a Creatore, immo est voluntarius; et argumentum est bonum in proposito.

Item, *si Dei Filius*, inquit Augustinus, *virtus et sapientia*. Haec est secunda ratio Augustini: Filius Dei est virtus et sapientia: ergo si non est aeternus, aliquando fuit Deus sine virtute et sapientia; sed hoc est impossibile: ergo etc. Sed contra hanc rationem sic obiicitur: si enim sequitur: si Pater non habet sapientiam genitam, non est sapiens, videtur quod sit sapiens sapientia genita, quod expresse negat Augustinus in sexto *de Trinitate*[^23].

**Respondeo:** Augustinus istam rationem redarguit in sexto *de Trinitate*[^24], ostendens, illam procedere ex malo intellectu verbi; attamen, quia Magister adducit eam, potest dici, quod ratio valet, non quia Pater sit sapiens Filio, qui est sapientia genita, sed quia eadem[^25] est sapientia genita et ingenita; et ita, si una incipit, et alia.

*Eidem quoque Arianicae quaestioni.* Haec est tertia ratio quam adducit, et est Ambrosii, sumta ab auctoritate Isaiae: *Ante me non est Deus, et post me non erit*: ergo nec Pater ante Filium, nec Filius post Patrem. Sed contra: In divinis personis est ordo; sed ordo non est nisi prioris ad posterius: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut infra patebit[^26], non est ibi ordo durationis, quo alter est prior altero, sed ordo originis, quo alter ex altero.

*Invicem enim in se, Pater in Filio, et Filius*

<!-- page 189 -->

*in Patre cognoscitur.* Haec est quarta ratio et est talis: relativa simul sunt natura[^27]; sed Pater et Filius sunt relativa: ergo simul; sed Pater est aeternus: ergo Filius coaeternus. *Probatio*, quod Pater est aeternus: quia, si prius fuit Deus et postea Pater, mutatus est[^28]. Sed contra istam rationem potest argui pari ratione: prius fuit Deus et postea Dominus: ergo mutatus est.

**Respondeo:** Aliqui volunt dicere, quod ista ratio valet, quia generatio est de substantia generantis; et ideo si incipit generare, substantia mutatur. Sed hoc non videtur, quia generatio in divinis non dicit motum. Alii dicunt, quod quia genitus est consubstantialis gignenti, si mutatur genitus, et gignens; sed genitus mutatur, si de novo generatur: ergo et generans per consequens. Alius modus dicendi est, quod paternitas veram dicit habitudinem in Patre, non sic creatio vel dominatio; et ideo paternitas adveniens[^29] mutat, non sic dominatio.

Sed nulla praedictarum rationum[^30] dat vigorem huic rationi contra haereticos, quia haereticus dicebat, quod Filius non erat coaeternus, ac per hoc nec consubstantialis, nec idem in substantia. Propter hoc notandum, quod praedicta ratio bona est contra haereticum, facta eius suppositione; quia haereticus dicebat Patrem et Filium differentes in substantia et natura, sicut in generatione carnali[^31]. Pari ratione contra eum dicit Ambrosius: cum ita sit, quod Pater iste mutetur accessione generationis, qui generat alium in substantia; et in divinis similiter Pater generat alium in substantia: ergo accessione generationis mutatur, ut[^32] iste.

Quocumque tamen modo dicatur, non est magnum periculum, quia non omnia argumenta, quae fiunt ad veritatem, sunt necessaria.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Vox silet non mea tantum, sed et Angelorum.* Videtur enim male dicere *Angelorum*, quia vox non est nisi habentium organa et respirationem; sed Angeli haec non habent. Si dicas, quod habent voces spirituales, non prolatas, sicut dicit Damascenus[^34], quod *tradant sibi intelligentias suas sine voce prolatas*; quaero, quae sit necessitas vocis spiritualis, et quis modus loquendi, et quis modus audiendi?[^33]

**Respondeo:** Breviter hic dicendum est — quia hoc extra principale propositum est quantum ad partem istam — quod necessitas est locutionis[^35]; quia sicut unicuique naturae rationali data est voluntas libera, sic conscientia secreta. Unde sicut non potest aliquis voluntatem alterius in aliud vertere, sed solum inducere, nisi ipsa se inclinet, praeter solum Deum, in cuius manu sunt corda hominum: ita nemo potest conceptiones alterius cognoscere, sed solum coniicere, praeter Deum, nisi ipsa intelligentia exprimat; et ipsa expressio *locutio* nuncupatur. Ratio autem huius est, quia solus Deus format mentem et quantum ad intellectum et quantum ad affectum; et modus loquendi similis est modo addiscendi. Sicut enim nos per sensum addiscimus, ita quod species per interiorem sensum pervenit ad intellectum, sic exprimimus; quia verbum cogitationis internae unitur voci[^36] in excogitatione et postmodum voci sensibili in pronuntiatione, et ex hoc fit expressio in actu. Angelus autem unica virtute facit quod nos pluribus. Unde Angelus, sicut per applicationem speciei innatae ad ipsum cognoscibile ipsum cognoscit, sic ordinando speciem innatam ad alium Angelum cognoscentem, conceptus suos aperit; similiter alius mutua conversione recipit; et sic unus loquitur, alter audit. Simile est de duobus speculis sibi oppositis, si voluntarie possent abscondere aliis et offerre[^37] quae in se relucent.

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Dicamus ergo verius, semper natus; et ratio sua est, ut Deus aeternus et perfectus valeat designari.* Sed contra hoc est, quod inter omnia tempora praesens maiorem convenientiam habet cum aeternitate; quia verius dicitur *est* de Deo, quam *fuit* et *erit*, sicut exponit Augustinus, sicut habitum est in praecedenti distinctione[^38]. Et ratio huius est, quia praesens dicit ens in actu, alia tempora non.

<!-- page 190 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, sicut supra tactum est[^39], quod verba diversorum temporum dicta de Deo non significant aliquos temporales actus, sed important durationem divini esse sine initio, ut praeteritum; sine intervallo, ut praesens; sine termino, ut futurum. Et quia omnia ista aeque vere reperiuntur in Deo, ideo omnia aeque vere dicuntur de eo[^40].

Sed tamen, quia multi erraverunt in generatione quantum ad initium, pauci vel nulli quantum ad intervallum vel terminum: ideo sacri Doctores, ut ora haereticorum obstruerent, eam[^41] per verbum praeteriti temporis, quod semper significat ut praeteritum, et ita nunquam habere principium, expresserunt.

Alia ratio est, quia nos generationem divinam manuductione quadam intelligimus per generationem, quae circa nos est; et quia videmus in hac generatione, quia genitus, dum generatur, est imperfectus, ne crederet posse aliquis, quod Dei Filius esset imperfectus semper[^42], ideo decreverunt dici *semper genitus*.

Dicendum ergo, quod quantum est ex parte rei, aeque vere ac proprie dicitur unum, sicut reliquum. Quod vero dicit Gregorius, dicit quantum ad maiorem fidei explanationem, ne error habeat locum; et sic exponit Magister.[^43] Magis ergo convenit dicere: *semper genitus*, quam *semper generatur*. Nec est simile de hoc verbo *est* et *fuit*; quia hoc verbum *est* significat per modum quietis, et ideo *esse*, dum est, perfectum est; sed hoc verbum *generari* penes haec inferiora per modum *fieri*; et[^44] quia in pluribus hoc verum est, quod aliquid, dum fit, non habet esse perfectum, ideo non est simile secundum rationem intelligentiae.

### Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Ego hodie genui te*, quia potest intelligi de die, quo ex matre natus est; sed hoc nihil videtur valere, quia secundum hanc generationem non habuit patrem, sed tantum matrem[^45].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod illud verbum intelligendum est causaliter; secundum enim generationem ex matre dicitur genuisse, quia fecit generari. Similis est expositio super illud Matthaei tertio[^46]: *Potens est de lapidibus illis suscitare filios Abrahae*; Glossa: «In huius rei testimonium Deus de Sara genuit filium, id est, fecit generari».

### Dub. VII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Origenes: *Splendor autem non semel nascitur et desinit.* Contra: si hoc simile rectum est, videtur quod Filius non semel nascatur: ergo quaeritur, quare magis generatio Filii assimilatur splendori quam aliis rebus, maxime cum non generetur a luce splendor nisi ad praesentiam corporis obiecti? Et praeterea, Filius dicitur *lux*[^47]; non ergo splendor lucis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod generatio Filii habet in se perfectam conformitatem, coaeternitatem et aequalitatem[^48]; et quia in creatura una simul haec non possumus invenire, ideo capimus ex multis, et ideo multas illi assimilamus. Quantum ergo ad *conformitatem* similis est generationi verbi[^49], quod est proles perfecte repraesentans illum, a quo est. Quantum ad *coaeternitatem* similis est egressui splendoris a luce, in quo est coaevitas[^50], propter lucis actualitatem. Quantum ad *aequalitatem* similis est generationi viventis ex vivente, qui generat sibi aequale[^51] omnino; et sic diversimode comparatur a Sanctis. Comparat igitur Origenes ad egressum splendoris, non quantum ad iterationis assimilationem, sed quantum ad privationem intermissionis sive interpolationis.

Et nota, quod differunt splendor, radius et lumen, cum omnia dicant influentiam a luminoso: quia *radius* dicit emissionem secundum diametralem distantiam; *lumen*, secundum circumferentiam, utrumque[^52] tamen in profundum transparentis; *splendor* dicit repercussionem ad corpus non transparens, tersum et limitatum. Sed tamen hic Origenes vocat splendorem lumen progrediens a luce.

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Filius est *lux*; dicendum, quod lux habet in se naturam manifestandi; et ita respicit cognitionem et appropriatur Filio; habet in se vim multiplicandi sive generandi splendorem; et ita appropriatur Patri.[^53]

<!-- page 191 -->

### Dub. VIII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hilarius, quod *cum sacramento scientiae suae ex eo nascitur.* Videtur enim secundum hoc, quod Pater secundum sacramentum scientiae generat Filium: ergo scientia est ratio generandi.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Hilarius vocat hic[^54] *sacramentum* sacrum secretum; dicit autem, Filium nasci cum sacramento scientiae, quia Filii generatio non tantum sacra, sed etiam secreta est, non, inquam, Deo secreta, sed nobis, quia nos eam non comprehendimus; ipse autem[^55] perfecte novit eam. Ideo dicit *cum sacramento* etc.

### Dub. IX.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quod ex vivo vivum natum est habet nativitatis perfectum sine novitate naturae.* Videtur enim falsum, quia puer nascitur de patre et matre viventibus, et tamen utrumque habet, scilicet imperfectionem et novitatem.

**Respondeo:** Ratio Hilarii, sicut patet per litteram sequentem[^56], intelligenda est de vivo per essentiam; ubi enim est vivens per essentiam, non fit ex non vivo vivens, sicut fit in vivente per participationem, ubi non generatur vivum ex vivo nisi per non vivum, ut patet, quia homo non generatur ex homine nisi mediante semine.

### Dub. X.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Neque ex derivatione, sed ex virtute nativitas est.* Videtur contrarium, quia secundum Dionysium[^57] et Anselmum Pater se habet ad Filium et Spiritum sanctum, ut fons, et illi ut rivi; sed rivus est a fonte per derivationem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod nativitas, quae est per derivationem, attenditur quantum ad transmutationem aliquam circa illud quod transmutatur, et ita dicit passionem quandam, ac per hoc infirmitatem[^58]; sed vivens, quod est vita, est actus purus, et ita vita pura, in qua non est infirmitas, sed pura actualitas; et ideo vult Hilarius dicere, quod Pater generans est totus[^59] vita, et quod generat non est per vel demutationem, quae attenditur in derivatione, sed per omnimodam virtutem: ergo Filius genitus est virtus, non per mutationem natus.

### Dub. XI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Ubi Pater auctor est, ibi et nativitas est.* Videtur quod improprie dicit[^60], quia auctoritas dicit causalitatem; sed haec non recipitur in divinis: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod auctoritas dicit quandam principalitatem sive auctoritatem[^61] in persona, quae nihil habet ab alio, sed ab ipso omnes; et ista auctoritas in Patre est innascibilitas; unde non dicit causalitatem, sed privationem principii, et per hoc summam principalitatem.

### Dub. XII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quod vero ab aeterno natum est, id, si non aeternum natum est* etc; et innuit Hilarius hic tale argumentum: si Filius non est generatus sive natus ab aeterno, generatio eius non est aeterna; et si hoc[^62], Pater non generat ab aeterno: ergo Pater non est aeternus: ergo qui derogat aeternitati Filii, derogat aeternitati Patris. Sed ista ratio non videtur valere, quia similiter ego arguam ex parte Creatoris et creaturae: si[^63] creatura non est aeterna, non ab aeterno creavit Deus, et ita non est Creator aeternus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod non est simile, sicut patet ex sequenti[^64] eius quod Hilarius supponit, quod esse Patrem sit proprie proprium illius personae: ergo cum tale semper conveniat, aut aliter res non habet esse perfectum, sequitur de necessitate: aut Filius est aeternus, aut Pater ab aeterno non habet esse perfectum. Creare vero, etsi solius Dei sit, tamen ratione connotati habet imperfectionem coniunctam, secundum quam non tantum impossibile, sed etiam non intelligibile est, aliquid ab aeterno creari[^65].

### Dub. XIII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Sed se ipsum demutare nascendo*; quia secundum hoc, cum Filius Dei prius esset et postea ex Virgine natus sit[^66]: ergo esset mutatus.

<!-- page 192 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ipse Hilarius intelligit secundum eandem naturam, secundum quam prius erat. Si enim secundum eandem naturam prius erat et postea natus est, necesse est, quod secundum illam naturam mutatus sit; sed si secundum aliam, oportet mutationem fieri in illa natura, sed non in persona, cum illa natura non dicat aliquid in persona, sed magis aliquid cum persona. Unde nulla fit mutatio in alia natura.

---

english:
### Dub. I.

In this part doubts arise concerning the text [of the Master], and first there is a doubt about what is said: *The Father is not other, the Son other, the Holy Spirit other, although personally* etc. For what is said seems false, because it well follows: Peter is a white man (*albus homo*), therefore he is a white animal (*animal album*), since *albus* and *album* signify the same thing: therefore by parity of reasoning, since *alius* and *aliud* signify the same thing, it follows: he is another (*alius*), therefore he is another being (*aliud ens*)[^7]. If you say that the case of the noun *alius* and the noun *aliud* is not similar[^8]; on the contrary: it well follows: he is another man, therefore he is another animal: therefore by similar reasoning that follows[^3].

**I respond:** It must be said that, because in God there is a singular otherness, since the otherness is of supposit with complete unity of nature: therefore it must be expressed in a singular manner. And since the masculine gender imports a certain distinction or discreteness[^9], therefore it regards the person; but the neuter, on account of indistinction, regards the nature: and therefore *alius* imports otherness in person, *aliud*[^10] in nature, and so in the divine [persons] they do not signify the same.

It could also be said that in creatures *aliud* signifies[^11], when I say: *this one is other than that one*, and *aliud*, when I say: *it is another thing*; and one follows upon the other. Not so in the divine [persons]; and the case of *white* is not similar, because *album* is imposed from a special form, namely whiteness.[^1][^2][^4][^5][^6]

<!-- page 188 -->

### Dub. II.

Likewise, secondly there is a doubt about what he says: *The three persons are coeternal to one another.* It seems false, because if [they are] coeternal, [they are] also[^12] eternal: therefore three eternals, which is against the [Athanasian] Creed, where it is said: «Not three eternals»; and again against reason, because a plural number multiplies the form. Hence it is not truly said: there are three gods.

**I respond:** It must be said that a noun signifying substance in the divine is found according to a threefold mode. For one [kind] signifies[^13] substance and after the mode of substance, like a substantive noun, as *God*; and such [a noun] is in no way pluralized nor said in the plural, whether it be substantive or used as a substantive[^14], as this noun *eternal*; thus it is taken in the Creed. Certain [nouns] signify substance after the mode of adjacency, like adjectival nouns retained adjectivally[^15]; and such [nouns], because they draw number from substantives, are said in the plural, and verbs and participles are of this kind. Other [nouns] are those which import substance in adjacency, connoting an internal mutual relation, such as *coeternal* (*coaeterni*)[^16]; and such [nouns] can be said in the plural for a twofold cause, both by reason of consignification or mode of signifying, and by reason of connotation. And so it is plain that there is no contradiction.

As for what[^17] is objected, that a plural number pluralizes the form; it must be said that this is not true in adjectives[^18].

### Dub. III.

*He who says this does not understand that to be born* etc.

Here the Master sets down four arguments demonstrating the Son to be coeternal to the Father, and thus that the argument of Arius is not valid[^19]: *The Son is born, therefore he is not eternal*.

The *first* is taken from a similitude and is such: a splendor is of the same duration as the fire — or equal — and yet is generated from the fire: therefore much more so, since the Son is the splendor of the Father, although he is generated from him, he will be coeternal to him: therefore the conclusion of the aforesaid argument is false, and that consequence is to be done away with[^20]: if he is born, there was [a time] when he was not. But on the contrary: If an emanation proceeding from God is coeternal to him, just as the emanation proceeding from a creature is coaeval[^21] to it: therefore since things have gone forth from God, it seems that [they have done so] from eternity.

**I respond:** It must be said that the going-forth of a splendor[^22] from a light or fire is a connatural going-forth; and such is the going-forth of the Son from the Father, but not the going-forth of a creature from the Creator — rather, it is voluntary; and the argument is good for the matter at hand.

Likewise, *if the Son of God*, says Augustine, *[is] virtue and wisdom*. This is the second argument of Augustine: The Son of God is virtue and wisdom: therefore if he is not eternal, at some [time] God was without virtue and wisdom; but this is impossible: therefore etc. But against this argument it is objected thus: for if it follows: if the Father does not have begotten wisdom, he is not wise, it seems that he is wise by begotten wisdom, which Augustine expressly denies in the sixth book *On the Trinity*[^23].

**I respond:** Augustine refutes that argument in the sixth book *On the Trinity*[^24], showing that it proceeds from a bad understanding of the word; nevertheless, because the Master adduces it, it can be said that the argument holds, not because the Father is wise by the Son, who is begotten wisdom, but because the same[^25] is begotten and unbegotten wisdom; and so, if the one begins, the other [does] also.

*To the same Arian question* [also]. This is the third argument which he adduces, and it is Ambrose's, taken from the authority of Isaiah: *Before me there is no God, and after me there will be none*: therefore neither [is] the Father before the Son, nor the Son after the Father. But on the contrary: In the divine persons there is order; but order is only of prior to posterior: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as will appear below[^26], there is no order of duration there, by which one is prior to the other, but an order of origin, by which one is from the other.

*For mutually in himself, the Father in the Son, and the Son*

<!-- page 189 -->

*is known in the Father.* This is the fourth argument and is such: relatives are simultaneous in nature[^27]; but Father and Son are relatives: therefore simultaneous; but the Father is eternal: therefore the Son is coeternal. *Proof* that the Father is eternal: because, if he was first God and afterwards Father, he is changed[^28]. But against this argument one can argue by parity of reasoning: he was first God and afterwards Lord: therefore he is changed.

**I respond:** Some wish to say that this argument holds, because generation is from the substance of the one generating; and therefore if he begins to generate, the substance is changed. But this does not seem [right], because generation in the divine [persons] does not signify motion. Others say that, because the begotten is consubstantial with the begetter, if the begotten is changed, the begetter is also; but the begotten is changed if he is newly generated: therefore the generator [is changed] consequently. Another way of speaking is, that paternity declares a true relation in the Father, but creation or lordship does not so; and therefore paternity supervening[^29] alters, but lordship does not.

But none of the foresaid arguments[^30] gives force to this argument against the heretics, because the heretic was saying that the Son was not coeternal, and through this neither consubstantial nor the same in substance. On account of this it should be noted that the foresaid argument is good against the heretic, given his supposition; for the heretic was saying that the Father and the Son were different in substance and nature, as in carnal generation[^31]. By parity of reasoning Ambrose says against him: since it is so that that [carnal] father is changed by the access of generation, who generates another in substance; and in the divine [persons] similarly the Father generates another in substance: therefore he is changed by the access of generation, as[^32] that one [is].

In whatever way it be said, however, there is no great danger, because not all arguments which are made for [the sake of] truth are necessary.

### Dub. IV.

Likewise there is a question about what he says: *The voice falls silent, not only mine, but also the angels'.* For it seems wrongly said *of the angels*, because there is no voice except of those having organs and respiration; but the angels do not have these. If you say that they have spiritual voices, not uttered aloud, as Damascene says[^34], that *they communicate their intelligences to one another without an uttered voice*; I ask, what is the necessity of a spiritual voice, and what is the mode of speaking, and what is the mode of hearing?[^33]

**I respond:** Briefly it must here be said — since this is outside the principal proposition so far as this part is concerned — that there is a necessity of speech[^35]; because as to each rational nature there is given a free will, so there is a secret conscience. Hence as no one can turn the will of another to something else, but only induce [it], unless it itself inclines itself, except God alone, in whose hand are the hearts of men: so no one can know the conceptions of another, but only conjecture them, except God, unless the intelligence itself expresses [them]; and that expression is called *speech*. The reason of this is, that God alone forms the mind both as to intellect and as to affection; and the mode of speaking is similar to the mode of learning. For as we learn through sense, in such a way that the species comes through the interior sense to the intellect, so we express; because the word of inner thought is joined to the voice[^36] in cogitation, and afterwards to the sensible voice in pronunciation, and from this expression in act comes about. The angel, however, by a single power does what we [do] by many. Hence the angel, as by the application of an innate species to the very knowable thing he knows it, so by ordering the innate species to another knowing angel, he opens his concepts; similarly the other by mutual conversion receives [them]; and so the one speaks, the other hears. It is similar to two mirrors set opposite to each other, if they could voluntarily hide from others and offer[^37] [to others] what is reflected in themselves.

### Dub. V.

Likewise there is a question about what he says: *Let us therefore say more truly, ever-born; and his reason is, that he may be designated as the eternal and perfect God.* But against this it is [argued] that among all tenses the present has greater agreement with eternity; because *is* is more truly said of God than *was* and *will be*, as Augustine expounds, as was held in the preceding distinction[^38]. And the reason of this is that *present* signifies a being in act, the other tenses [do] not.

<!-- page 190 -->

**I respond:** It must be said, as was touched on above[^39], that verbs of various tenses said of God do not signify any temporal acts, but import the duration of the divine being without beginning, as the past; without interval, as the present; without term, as the future. And because all these things are equally truly found in God, therefore they are all equally truly said of him[^40].

But nevertheless, because many have erred concerning generation as to its beginning, [but] few or none as to its interval or term: therefore the holy Doctors, in order to stop the mouths of the heretics, expressed it[^41] by a verb of the past tense, which always signifies as past, and thus as never having a beginning.

Another reason is, that we understand the divine generation by a certain leading-by-the-hand, through the generation that is about us; and because we see in this generation that the begotten, while he is being generated, is imperfect, lest anyone could believe that the Son of God were always imperfect[^42], therefore they decreed to say *always begotten*.

It must therefore be said that, so far as is on the side of the thing, the one is just as truly and properly said as the other. As for what Gregory says, he says it as to a greater explanation of the faith, lest error find a place; and so the Master expounds it.[^43] Therefore it is more fitting to say *always begotten* than *always being begotten*. Nor is the case of the verb *is* and *was* similar; because the verb *is* signifies after the mode of rest, and therefore *to be*, while it is, is perfect; but the verb *to be generated* among these lower things [signifies] after the mode of *becoming*; and[^44] because in many cases it is true that something, while it is becoming, does not have perfect being, therefore the case is not similar according to the account of understanding.

### Dub. VI.

Likewise there is a question about what he says: *Today I have begotten thee*, because this can be understood of the day on which he was born of [his] mother; but this seems to be of no avail, because according to this generation he had no father, but only a mother[^45].

**I respond:** It must be said that this word is to be understood causally; for according to the generation from the mother he is said to have begotten, because he caused [him] to be generated. Similar is the exposition upon that text of Matthew 3[^46]: *He is able from these stones to raise up sons to Abraham*; the Gloss: «In testimony of this matter God begot a son from Sara, that is, caused [him] to be generated».

### Dub. VII.

Likewise there is a question about what Origen says: *But a splendor is not born once and ceases.* On the contrary: if this similitude is correct, it seems that the Son is not born once: therefore it is asked, why is the generation of the Son rather likened to a splendor than to other things, especially since splendor is not generated from a light except in the presence of an opposing body? And besides, the Son is called *light*[^47]; therefore [he is] not the splendor of light.

**I respond:** It must be said that the generation of the Son has in itself perfect *conformity*, *coeternity* and *equality*[^48]; and because in a creature we cannot find these together in one, therefore we take from many, and so we liken him to many. As to *conformity* therefore he is similar to the generation of a word[^49], which is an offspring perfectly representing the one from whom it is. As to *coeternity* he is similar to the going-forth of a splendor from a light, in which there is coaeval[^50], on account of the actuality of the light. As to *equality* he is similar to the generation of a living from a living, who generates one altogether equal[^51] to himself; and thus in diverse ways he is compared by the Saints. Therefore Origen compares [it] to the going-forth of a splendor, not as to a likeness of iteration, but as to the privation of intermission or interruption.

And note that *splendor*, *ray*, and *light* differ, since all signify an influence from the luminous: because a *ray* signifies emission according to diametrical distance; *light* (*lumen*), according to the circumference, both[^52] however into the depth of the transparent; *splendor* signifies the reflection back to a non-transparent, clean, and limited body. But nevertheless here Origen calls the light proceeding from the light a *splendor*.

To that, then, which is objected, that the Son is *light*; it must be said that light has in itself the nature of manifesting; and so it regards cognition and is appropriated to the Son; it has in itself the power of multiplying or generating splendor; and so it is appropriated to the Father.[^53]

<!-- page 191 -->

### Dub. VIII.

Likewise there is a question about what Hilary says, that *with the sacrament of his knowledge he is born from him*. For it seems according to this that the Father generates the Son according to the sacrament of knowledge: therefore knowledge is the ground of generating.

**I respond:** It must be said that Hilary here[^54] calls *sacrament* a sacred secret; and he says that the Son is born with the sacrament of knowledge, because the generation of the Son is not only sacred but also secret — not, I say, secret to God, but to us, because we do not comprehend it; but he himself[^55] perfectly knows it. Therefore he says *with the sacrament* etc.

### Dub. IX.

Likewise there is a question about what he says: *That which is born living from a living thing has the perfection of birth without newness of nature.* For it seems false, because a child is born from a living father and a living mother, and yet both have, namely, imperfection and newness.

**I respond:** The argument of Hilary, as appears through the following text[^56], is to be understood of the living by essence; for where there is a living [thing] by essence, the living does not come about from a non-living, as it comes about in a living [thing] by participation, where the living is not generated from the living except through the non-living, as is plain, because a man is not generated from a man except by means of seed.

### Dub. X.

Likewise there is a question about what he says: *Nativity is not from derivation but from power.* The contrary seems [to be the case], because according to Dionysius[^57] and Anselm the Father stands to the Son and the Holy Spirit as a fount, and they to him as rivers; but a river is from the fount by derivation.

**I respond:** It must be said that nativity which is by derivation is regarded as to some change concerning that which is changed, and so signifies a certain passion, and through this an infirmity[^58]; but the living, which is life, is pure act, and thus pure life, in which there is no infirmity but pure actuality; and therefore Hilary wishes to say that the Father, in generating, is wholly[^59] life, and what he generates is not through change or transmutation, which is regarded in derivation, but through omnimodal power: therefore the begotten Son is power, born not through change.

### Dub. XI.

Likewise there is a question about what he says: *Where the Father is author, there also is nativity.* It seems he speaks improperly[^60], because authority signifies causality; but this is not received in the divine [persons]: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that authority signifies a certain principality or authority[^61] in a person which has nothing from another, but from itself all [others have]; and that authority in the Father is innascibility; hence it does not signify causality, but the privation of a principle, and through this the highest principality.

### Dub. XII.

Likewise there is a question about what he says: *But that which has been born from eternity, if it has not been born eternal* etc.; and Hilary here implies such an argument: if the Son is not generated or born from eternity, his generation is not eternal; and if this[^62], the Father does not generate from eternity: therefore the Father is not eternal: therefore he who detracts from the eternity of the Son detracts from the eternity of the Father. But this argument does not seem to hold, because similarly I will argue on the part of the Creator and the creature: if[^63] the creature is not eternal, God did not create from eternity, and so the Creator is not eternal.

**I respond:** It must be said that the case is not similar, as is plain from the consequence[^64] of what Hilary supposes, that to be Father is properly proper to that person: therefore since such [an attribute] always belongs [to him], or otherwise the thing does not have perfect being, it follows of necessity: either the Son is eternal, or the Father from eternity does not have perfect being. But to create, even though it belong to God alone, nevertheless by reason of the connoted has an imperfection joined with it, according to which it is not only impossible, but also not intelligible, that anything be created from eternity[^65].

### Dub. XIII.

Likewise there is a question about what he says: *But to alter himself by being born*; because according to this, since the Son of God existed before and afterwards was born of the Virgin[^66]: therefore he would be changed.

<!-- page 192 -->

**I respond:** It must be said that Hilary himself understands [this] according to the same nature according to which he existed before. For if according to the same nature he existed before and afterwards was born, it is necessary that he be changed according to that nature; but if according to another [nature], the change must come to be in that nature, but not in the person, since that nature does not say something in the person, but rather something with the person. Hence no change comes about in the other nature.

---

la: Ita vetustiores mss. et ed. 1, dum Vat. cum cod. cc *ipse est Filius et purus*. Paulo ante unus alterve cod. ut PQ cum ed. 1 *sua* loco *sui*.

en: So the older mss. and ed. 1, while the Vatican [edition] with cod. cc [reads] *ipse est Filius et purus*. A little before, one or another cod. like PQ with ed. 1 [reads] *sua* in place of *sui*.

en: The Vatican reading *simile* in place of *simul sint* is corrected from the mss. and ed. 1.

en: For Augustine's words see above in the objection itself. — Then ed. 1 [reads] *dicatur* in place of *dicitur*. A little before, on the testimony of the mss. and ed. 1 we have substituted *perfecte* for *perfecto*.

en: The Vatican [edition], against the mss., [reads] *ista*.

en: That is, which always is. — A little further on after *nec tamen semper* the Vatican [edition], by way of explanation, adds *eius productio*, which is absent from the mss. and ed. 1.

la: Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 hic et paulo ante *significant*.

en: The Vatican [edition], against the mss. and ed. 1, [reads] *significant* here and a little before.

la: Vat. praeter fidem mss. et sex primarum edd. *aliud ens*.

en: The Vatican [edition], without the support of the mss. and the first six editions, [reads] *aliud ens*.

la: Codd. antiquiores inter se non consentiunt; alii enim ut T W cum ed. 1 omittunt *distinctionem vel*, alii autem ut AFGHIKSVXYZ etc. *vel discretionem*.

en: The older codices do not agree among themselves; for some, as T W with ed. 1, omit *distinctionem vel*, but others, as AFGHIKSVXYZ etc., [omit] *vel discretionem*.

la: Vat. repetit hic *alietatem*, quod deest in mss. et ed. 1.

en: The Vatican [edition] here repeats *alietatem*, which is absent from the mss. and ed. 1.

la: Ed. 1 *significatur* et paulo post *consequitur* loco *sequitur*. — Plura de hac re vide supra d. 4. q. 2.

en: Ed. 1 [reads] *significatur* and a little after *consequitur* in place of *sequitur*. — See more on this matter above, d. 4, q. 2.

la: Unus alterque cod. ut PQ *ergo* loco *et*.

en: One or another cod. like PQ [reads] *ergo* in place of *et*.

la: Ita plurimi antiquiores codd., dum Vat. cum ed. 1 et cod. cc legit *Quaedam enim significant*.

en: So very many older codices, while the Vatican [edition] with ed. 1 and cod. cc reads *Quaedam enim significant*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc, interpunctione mutata, loco *ut* ponit *et*. — Sub voce *substantivatum* intellige adiectivum vel aliud nomen loco substantivi adhibitum.

en: The Vatican [edition] with cod. cc, with the punctuation changed, puts *et* in place of *ut*. — Under the term *substantivatum* understand an adjective or other noun put in place of a substantive.

la: Pro non congruo vocabulo *tenta* ope mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *retenta*; mox antiquioribus mss. cum ed. 1 consentientibus, lectionem perturbatam Vat. et cod. cc correximus ponendo *quia* pro *quae*.

en: In place of the unsuitable word *tenta*, with the help of the mss. and ed. 1 we have substituted *retenta*; then, the older mss. agreeing with ed. 1, we have corrected the disturbed reading of the Vatican [edition] and cod. cc by putting *quia* in place of *quae*.

la: Nonnulli codd. ut H M Y ee cum ed. 1 addunt *et huiusmodi*. Paulo post fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 pro *significationis* substituimus *consignificationis*, quod primam rationem, scilicet quatenus sunt adiectiva seu important substantiam in adiacentia, distinctius exhibet; secunda ratio fundatur in connotata mutua relatione.

en: Some codices, as H M Y ee with ed. 1, add *et huiusmodi*. A little after, on the testimony of the older mss. and ed. 1, in place of *significationis* we have substituted *consignificationis*, which more distinctly exhibits the first ground, namely insofar as they are adjectives or import substance in adjacency; the second ground is founded in the connoted mutual relation.

la: Ed. 1 *Ad illud quod obiicitur*. Mox cod. dd *multiplicat* loco *plurificat*.

en: Ed. 1 [reads] *Ad illud quod obiicitur*. Then cod. dd [reads] *multiplicat* in place of *plurificat*.

la: De hac solutione vide infra d. 24. a. 1. q. 2. Cfr. etiam Alex. Hal., S. p. 1. q. 49. m. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2, et S. 1. q. 39. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic circa litteram.

en: On this solution see below, d. 24, a. 1, q. 2. Cfr. also Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. 1, q. 49, m. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, and *Summa* 1, q. 39, a. 3. — B. Albert, here a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Vat. hic addit *quod tale est*, quae tamen verba desunt in codd. et ed. 1. Nonnulli codd. ut EFIKWYZ *valet* pro *valere*. Mox post *ergo non* supplevimus ex mss. et ed. 1 *est*.

en: The Vatican [edition] here adds *quod tale est*, but these words are absent from the codices and ed. 1. Some codices, as EFIKWYZ, [read] *valet* for *valere*. Then after *ergo non* we have supplied *est* from the mss. and ed. 1.

la: Fide mss. et ed. 1 expunximus hic superflue additum *et*, e contra paulo infra post *consequentia* adiecimus *est*.

en: On the testimony of the mss. and ed. 1 we have expunged the superfluously added *et* here, and on the contrary a little further on after *consequentia* we have added *est*.

la: Codd. inter se dissentiunt, alii enim ut EFINUXZ habent *coaeva* loco *coaequaeva*, alii ut A G K S T W dd ff falso addunt *coaeterna*, sicut et ed. 1 falso habet *coaeva et coaeterna*.

en: The codices disagree among themselves; for some, as EFINUXZ, have *coaeva* in place of *coaequaeva*, others, as A G K S T W dd ff, falsely add *coaeterna*, just as ed. 1 also falsely has *coaeva et coaeterna*.

la: Vat. praeter fidem mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 hic addit *a sole*, et paulo infra post *talis est* contra vetustiores codd. et ed. 1 habet *egressio* loco *egressus*.

en: The Vatican [edition], without the support of the mss. and editions 1, 2, 3, here adds *a sole*, and a little further on after *talis est*, against the older codices and ed. 1, has *egressio* in place of *egressus*.

la: Cap. 1. n. 1. Vide etiam ibid. VII. c. 1. n. 2. et XV. c. 7. n. 12.

en: Ch. 1, n. 1. See also ibid. VII, c. 1, n. 2, and XV, c. 7, n. 12.

la: Ed. 1 addit *sapientia*. — Plura hac de re vide infra d. 32. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Ed. 1 adds *sapientia*. — See more on this matter below, d. 32, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Dist. 20. a. 2. q. 1. et 2. — Paulo infra multi codd. ut AFGHIKTVWX etc. *prius* loco *prior*.

en: D. 20, a. 2, q. 1 and 2. — A little further on, many codices, as AFGHIKTVWX etc., [read] *prius* in place of *prior*.

la: Aristot., *de Praedicam.* c. *de Relativis*. — Mox post *simul* fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *sed* loco *si* et *Probatio* pro *Probatur*.

en: Aristotle, *Categories*, chapter *On Relatives*. — Then after *simul*, on the testimony of the older mss. and ed. 1, we have substituted *sed* in place of *si* and *Probatio* in place of *Probatur*.

la: Est ratio Ambrosii, quae habetur in lit. Magistri c. 2. in fine.

en: It is the argument of Ambrose, which is found in the text of the Master, c. 2, at the end.

la: Fide plurium mss. ut HIKM etc. et ed. 1 substituimus *adveniens* loco *veniens*.

en: On the testimony of several mss., as HIKM etc., and ed. 1, we have substituted *adveniens* in place of *veniens*.

la: Cod. D *responsionum*. Mox cod. Y *haereticum* pro *haereticos*. Paulo infra in Vat. contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 post *coaeternus* additur *Patri* et pro *nec* habetur *non*, ac post *idem* omittitur *in*.

en: Cod. D [reads] *responsionum*. Then cod. Y [reads] *haereticum* for *haereticos*. A little further on in the Vatican [edition], against the older codices and ed. 1, after *coaeternus* there is added *Patri* and in place of *nec* it has *non*, and after *idem* the word *in* is omitted.

la: Auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 delevimus hic superflue repetitum *carnalis*.

en: On the authority of the mss. and ed. 1 we have deleted the superfluously repeated *carnalis* here.

la: Vat., obnitentibus mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, *et* loco *ut*.

en: The Vatican [edition], with the mss. and editions 1, 2, 3 against [it], [reads] *et* in place of *ut*.

la: Hoc dubium fusius explicatur hic q. 3.

en: This doubt is more fully explained here, q. 3.

la: Libr. II. *de Fide orthod.* c. 3: *Sed sine ulla prolati sermonis ope mutuo sibi sensa sua communicant et consilia.*

en: Book II, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 3: *But without any aid of an uttered word they mutually communicate to one another their senses and counsels.*

la: Sequimur codd. YZ, dum multi cum ed. 1 ponunt, sed non ita bene *quia necessitas locutionis*, Vat. autem cum praecedentibus coniungendo legit: *quae sit in Angelis necessitas locutionis*.

en: We follow codd. YZ, while many with ed. 1 put — but not so well — *quia necessitas locutionis*, while the Vatican [edition], joining [it] with the preceding, reads: *quae sit in Angelis necessitas locutionis*.

la: In cod. T a secunda manu additum est *intelligibili*.

en: In cod. T by a second hand the word *intelligibili* has been added.

la: Fide plurium mss. ut FHPQ cc dd ee substituimus bonam lectionem *offerre* pro *auferre*, loco cuius cod. Y ponit *ostendere* et ed. 1 *afferre*. — Plura de locutione Angelorum vide II. Sent. d. 10. a. 3. q. 1.

en: On the testimony of several mss., as FHPQ cc dd ee, we have substituted the good reading *offerre* for *auferre*, in place of which cod. Y puts *ostendere* and ed. 1 *afferre*. — See more on the speech of angels in II Sent. d. 10, a. 3, q. 1.

la: Parte 1. lit. Magistri c. 1. et dub. 7. — Mox ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus particulam *Et*, quam etiam paulo superius post *fuit* substituimus loco *aut*.

en: Part 1, text of the Master, c. 1 and dub. 7. — Then from the older mss. and ed. 1 we have added the particle *Et*, which also a little above after *fuit* we have substituted in place of *aut*.

la: In praeced. dist. loco paulo supra citato. Cfr. etiam hic q. 4. — Fide vetustiorum mss. et ed. 1 expunximus post *Dicendum* superflue additum *quod*. Paulo infra cod. E *motus* pro *actus*.

en: In the preceding distinction at the place cited just above. Cfr. also here q. 4. — On the testimony of the older mss. and ed. 1 we have expunged the *quod* superfluously added after *Dicendum*. A little further on cod. E [reads] *motus* for *actus*.

la: Vat. contra plures codd. ut AGISTVXZ etc. cum ed. 1 *Deo*.

en: The Vatican [edition], against several codices, as AGISTVXZ etc., with ed. 1, [reads] *Deo*.

la: Mss. cum ed. 1 omittunt *eam*, certe supplendum.

en: The mss. with ed. 1 omit *eam*, which is certainly to be supplied.

la: Restituimus ex mss. et ed. 1 hic non bene omissum *semper*.

en: We have restored from the mss. and ed. 1 the *semper* not well omitted here.

la: Hic, c. 2.

en: Here, c. 2.

la: Supplevimus ope mss. et sex primarum edd. particulam *et*.

en: We have supplied, with the help of the mss. and the first six editions, the particle *et*.

la: Cod. X ultimam propositionis partem sic exhibet: *generationem pater non genuit, sed tantum mater*. Mox post *Dicendum* fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus *quod*.

en: Cod. X presents the last part of the proposition thus: *the father did not beget the generation, but only the mother*. Then after *Dicendum*, on the testimony of the older mss. and ed. 1, we have added *quod*.

la: Vers. 9, in quo textu Vulgata post *est* addit *Deus* et pro *illis* habet *istis*. Glossam vide apud Lyranum in hunc locum. — Paulo ante supplevimus ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 post *Similis* verbum *est*.

en: V. 9, in which text the Vulgate after *est* adds *Deus* and in place of *illis* has *istis*. See the Gloss in Lyra at this place. — A little before, we have supplied from the older mss. and ed. 1, after *Similis*, the verb *est*.

la: Ioan. I, 9. — In Vat. ante *praeterea* deest *Et*, quod tamen in vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1 habetur.

en: John 1:9. — In the Vatican [edition] before *praeterea* the word *Et* is missing, which nevertheless is found in the older mss. and ed. 1.

la: Cod. T *coaequalitatem*.

en: Cod. T [reads] *coaequalitatem*.

la: Unus alterque cod. ut M Y addit *ex mente*.

en: One or another cod., as M Y, adds *ex mente*.

la: Praeferimus lectionem paucorum mss. ee, ff et ed. 1 *coaevitas* pro *coaeternitas*, utpote quae in se verior est.

en: We prefer the reading of a few mss. ee, ff and ed. 1 *coaevitas* in place of *coaeternitas*, inasmuch as it is more true in itself.

la: Cod. W *simile*. Paulo infra cod. V *terminationis* loco *iterationis*.

en: Cod. W [reads] *simile*. A little further on cod. V [reads] *terminationis* in place of *iterationis*.

la: In Vat., obnitentibus mss. et ed. 1, *utrinque*, et mox *transferentis* loco *transparentis*. Paulo infra post *corpus* duce cod. O adiecimus *non*, quae lectio et in se probatur et ex auctoritate confirmatur aliorum auctorum v. g. B. Albert., hic a. 8. et 21; Scot., II. Sent. d. 13. q. unica; Richard. a Med., II. Sent. d. 13. a. 2. q. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1. ad 4 etc. — De differentia inter lucem, lumen, colorem cfr. infra d. 17. p. 1. q. 1. in corp.

en: In the Vatican [edition], with the mss. and ed. 1 against [it], [it reads] *utrinque*, and then *transferentis* in place of *transparentis*. A little further on after *corpus*, with cod. O leading, we have added *non*, which reading both commends itself in itself and is confirmed by the authority of other authors, e.g. B. Albert, here a. 8 and 21; Scotus, II Sent. d. 13, q. unica; Richard of Mediavilla, II Sent. d. 13, a. 2, q. 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 1, ad 4 etc. — On the difference between *lux*, *lumen*, [and] *color* cfr. below d. 17, p. 1, q. 1, in corp.

la: Plura de hac similitudine sumta a splendore exhibent Alex. Hal., S. p. 1. q. 42. m. 5. a. 3, et ceteri auctores paulo supra allegati et Aegid. R., hic circa lit.

en: More on this similitude taken from splendor is given by Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. 1, q. 42, m. 5, a. 3, and the other authors alleged a little above, and Aegidius Romanus, here on the text.

la: Vat. contra plurimos codd. et ed. 1 minus bene *hoc*.

en: The Vatican [edition], against most codices and ed. 1, less well [reads] *hoc*.

la: Aliqui codd. ut AITZ bb cc *enim*; ed. 1 *vero*.

en: Some codices, as AITZ bb cc, [read] *enim*; ed. 1 [reads] *vero*.

la: Quae Hilarii verba vide in lit. Magistri c. 4. post medium. — Mox plures codd. ut FHITXYZ etc. cum ed. 1 *intelligitur* loco *intelligenda est*.

en: For these words of Hilary see in the text of the Master, c. 4, after the middle. — Then several codices, as FHITXYZ etc., with ed. 1, [read] *intelligitur* in place of *intelligenda est*.

la: *De Div. Nom.* c. 2. § 5: *Pater fons in supersubstantiali Deitate.* Anselm., *de Fide Trin.* c. 8. et *de Process. Spiritus S.* c. 17, ubi haec similitudo fuse exponitur.

en: *On the Divine Names*, c. 2, § 5: *The Father [is] the fount in the supersubstantial Deity.* Anselm, *On the Faith of the Trinity*, c. 8, and *On the Procession of the Holy Spirit*, c. 17, where this similitude is at length expounded.

la: Multi codd. ut ACFGHIKLRSTUV etc. cum subnexis non cohaerenter *informitatem*.

en: Many codices, as ACFGHIKLRSTUV etc., with what follows, [read] not coherently *informitatem*.

la: Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 minus apte *tota*. Mox cod. M *ita quod* pro *et quod*. Paulo infra post *demutationem* in Vat. additur *seu diminutionem*, quod abest ab antiquis mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3.

en: The Vatican [edition], against the mss. and ed. 1, less aptly [reads] *tota*. Then cod. M [reads] *ita quod* for *et quod*. A little further on after *demutationem*, in the Vatican [edition] there is added *seu diminutionem*, which is absent from the old mss. and editions 1, 2, 3.

la: Vat. *dicat*. Mox cod. Y *reperitur* loco *recipitur*.

en: The Vatican [edition] [reads] *dicat*. Then cod. Y [reads] *reperitur* in place of *recipitur*.

la: Cod. Z addit *sive auctoritatem*.

en: Cod. Z adds *sive auctoritatem*.

la: In cod. M additur *ergo*.

en: In cod. M *ergo* is added.

la: Fide codd. F T Y substituimus *si* pro *sed*. Mox verbis *ab aeterno* codd. WXY cum ed. 1 praemittunt *ergo*, Vat. cum aliquibus mss. *enim*; cod. H ponit *quia non ab aeterno*; multi codd. ut A F G T V etc. quamlibet particulam omittunt.

en: On the testimony of codd. F T Y we have substituted *si* for *sed*. Then before the words *ab aeterno* codd. WXY with ed. 1 prefix *ergo*, the Vatican [edition] with some mss. [prefixes] *enim*; cod. H puts *quia non ab aeterno*; many codices, as A F G T V etc., omit any such particle.

la: Cod. W *consequenti*.

en: Cod. W [reads] *consequenti*.

la: De quo vide II. Sent. d. 1. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2.

en: On which see II Sent. d. 1, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Vat. cum ed. 1, mutata interpunctione, sic, at codd. AFGHIKT etc. exhibent textum nostrum.

en: The Vatican [edition] with ed. 1, with the punctuation changed, [reads] thus, while codices AFGHIKT etc. exhibit our text.

translators_notes: - **2026-07-17 (J4 Class D/E repair):** Health scan flagged `[^55]` as duplicated in both Latin and English bodies (defs=65, la=66, en=66). Checked first for the known §2 backtick-blockquote false positive — the file's Apparatus intro note does contain a backtick-quoted range (`` `[^1]`–`[^66]` ``), but that text lives entirely inside the `## Apparatus` section, not `## Latin`/`## English`, so it does not inflate the la/en anchor counts; ruled out as the cause here. Confirmed a genuine defect via printed p.191 (pdf p.293, `raw/vision/vol1/p-191.png`, 400dpi): Dub. VIII's Respondeo carries two distinct printed superscripts, page-local ¹ (after *hic*) and ² (after *autem*). Footer ¹ reads "Vat. contra plurimos codd. et ed. 1 minus bene hoc." (a *hic*/*hoc* variant) — this note had NO apparatus def anywhere in the chunk; it was dropped, likely during the earlier 2026-05-12 polish-pass renumbering documented in `transcription_status` (phantom `[^54]` deleted, `[^55]`–`[^66]` shifted down by one — this footnote's slot was apparently lost in that shift). Footer ² reads "Aliqui codd. ut AITZ bb cc enim; ed. 1 vero." — this matches the existing `[^55]` def exactly, and was correctly bound to the *autem* anchor already; only the *hic* anchor was wrongly also labeled `[^55]` instead of getting its own marker. Fix: reused the vacant `[^54]` slot (confirmed truly absent from body+apparatus, not a live duplicate) — retargeted the *hic* anchor (Latin line ~118, English line ~246) from `[^55]` to `[^54]`, and transcribed the missing footer note verbatim from p.191 as new `[^54]` (added before `[^55]` in the apparatus, La./En.). `[^55]` at the *autem* anchor is unchanged. No Latin/English body wording touched — only marker tokens and one new apparatus entry. Post-fix health check: defs=66, la=66, en=66, label sets identical, no dupes.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 10

title_alt: Distinctio X — textus Magistri Sententiarum

title_alt: Distinction X — text of the Master of the Sentences

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 192 -->

### Distinctio X.

#### Cap. I.
*De Spiritu sancto, quod amor Patris et Filii proprie dicitur, cum sit in Trinitate amor, qui est Trinitas, sicut Verbum proprie dicitur sapientia, et tamen tota Trinitas dicitur sapientia.*

Nunc post Filii aeternitatem de Spiritu sancto, quantum Deo donante videre conceditur, disseramus. Spiritus sanctus amor est sive caritas sive dilectio Patris et Filii. Unde Augustinus in decimo quinto libro de Trinitate[^1] ait: « Spiritus sanctus nec Patris est solius nec Filii est solius, sed amborum, et ideo communem qua invicem se diligunt Pater et Filius nobis insinuat caritatem ».

Ioannes autem in Epistola canonica[^2] ait: *Deus caritas est.* « Non dixit: Spiritus sanctus caritas est; quod si dixisset, absolutior esset sermo, et non parva pars quaestionis decisa; sed quia dixit: *Deus caritas est,* incertum est[^3], et ideo quaerendum, utrum Deus Pater sit caritas, an Filius, an Spiritus sanctus, an Deus ipsa Trinitas, quia et ipsa non tres dii, sed unus est Deus ». Ad quod Augustinus in eodem libro ita dicit[^4]: « Nescio, cur, sicut sapientia et Pater dicitur et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, et simul omnes non tres, sed una sapientia, non ita et caritas dicatur Pater et Filius et[^5] Spiritus sanctus, et simul omnes una caritas. Non ideo tamen quisquam nos inconvenienter aestimet caritatem appellare Spiritum sanctum, quia et Deus Pater et Deus Filius potest caritas nuncupari, sicut proprie Verbum Dei etiam sapientia Dei dicitur, cum et Pater et Spiritus sanctus sit sapientia ».

« Si ergo proprie aliquis horum trium caritas nuncupari debet, quis aptius quam Spiritus sanctus? ut scilicet in[^6] illa summa simplicique natura non sit aliud substantia, et aliud caritas, sed substantia ipsa sit caritas, et caritas ipsa sit substantia, sive in Patre sive in Filio sive in Spiritu sancto, et tamen Spiritus sanctus proprie caritas nuncupetur ». Ecce his verbis aperte ostendit[^7] Augustinus, quod in Trinitate caritas aliquando refertur ad substantiam, quae communis est trium personarum et tota in singulis, aliquando specialiter ad personam Spiritus sancti; sicut sapientia Dei aliquando pro substantia divina, aliquando pro Filio proprie accipitur; et hoc in multis fieri reperitur.

#### Cap. II.
*Quod eadem nomina proprie et universaliter accipiuntur.*

« Pluribus enim exemplis doceri potest, multa rerum vocabula et universaliter poni, et proprie quibusdam rebus adhiberi, sicut Legis nomine aliquando simul omnia veteris Instrumenti[^8] significantur eloquia, aliquando autem proprie vocatur Lex, quae data est per Moysen ». Multa alia suppetunt exempla, sed in re aperta vitanda est longitudo sermonis. Sicut ergo unicum Dei Verbum proprie vocamus nomine sapientiae, cum sit universaliter et Spiritus sanctus et Pater ipsa sapientia; ita Spiritus sanctus proprie nuncupatur vocabulo caritatis[^9], cum sit et Pater et Filius universaliter caritas ».

« Sed Dei Verbum, id est unigenitus Dei Filius, aperte dictus est Dei sapientia ore Apostoli dicentis[^10][^12] Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam. Spiritus autem sanctus ubi sit dictus caritas, invenimus, si diligenter Ioannis Apostoli eloquium[^11][^13] scrutemur, qui cum dixisset: *Diligamus invicem, quia dilectio ex Deo est,* adiunxit: *Et omnis, qui diligit, ex Deo natus est, quia Deus dilectio est.* Hic manifestavit se dixisse, eam dilectionem esse Deum, quam dixit ex Deo. Deus ergo ex Deo est dilectio; sed quia et Filius ex Deo Patre natus est, et Spiritus sanctus ex Deo Patre procedit, quem potius eorum hic debeamus accipere dictum esse dilectionem, merito quaeritur. Pater enim solus ita Deus

<!-- page 193 -->

est, ut non sit ex Deo; et ideo dilectio, quae ita Deus est, ut ex Deo sit, non ipse Pater est, sed aut Filius, aut Spiritus sanctus. Sed in consequentibus cum Dei dilectionem commemorasset Ioannes[^14], *qua dilexit nos,* et hinc hortatus esset, ut et nos invicem diligamus, atque ita *Deus in nobis maneat,* quia utique dilectionem Deum dixerat, statim, volens de hac re apertius aliquid eloqui, inquit: *In hoc cognoscimus, quia in ipso manemus, et ipse in nobis, quia de spiritu suo dedit nobis.* Spiritus itaque sanctus, de quo dedit nobis, facit nos in Deo manere, et ipsum in nobis. Hoc autem facit dilectio. Ipse igitur est Deus dilectio[^15]. Deus igitur Spiritus sanctus, qui procedit ex Deo, significatur ubi legitur: *Deus dilectio est, et dilectio ex Deo est*[^16] ». Ecce his verbis aperte dicit Augustinus, Spiritum sanctum esse caritatem Patris et Filii; et in tantum quoque sermonem produxit, ut videatur dixisse, Spiritum sanctum non solum esse dilectionem Patris et Filii, qua se invicem et nos diligunt, sed etiam dilectionem, qua diligimus Deum. Sed utrum ipse sit caritas, qua nos diligimus Deum, in sequenti explicabitur[^17].

Nunc vero quod incepimus ostendere curemus, scilicet Spiritum sanctum dilectionem esse sive amorem Patris et Filii, quo scilicet Pater diligit Filium et Filius Patrem. De hoc Hieronymus super decimum septimum Psalmum[^18] ait: « Spiritus sanctus nec Pater est nec Filius, sed dilectio, quam habet Pater in Filium et Filius in Patrem ». Augustinus quoque in sexto libro de Trinitate[^19] ait: « In omnibus aequalis est Patri Filius et est unius eiusdemque substantiae. Quapropter etiam Spiritus sanctus in eadem unitate substantiae et aequalitate consistit ».

« Sive enim sit unitas amborum, sive sanctitas, sive caritas, manifestum est, quod non aliquis duorum est quo uterque coniungitur, quo genitus a gignente diligatur genitoremque suum diligat, sintque non participatione, sed essentia sua, neque dono superioris alicuius, sed suo proprio servantes unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis[^20] ». Ecce hic habes Spiritum sanctum esse quo Filius diligitur a Patre et Pater a Filio, et quo illi duo servant unitatem pacis. « Spiritus ergo sanctus, ut ait Augustinus in eodem, commune est aliquid Patris et Filii, quidquid illud est. At ipsa communio consubstantialis et coaeterna est, quae si amicitia convenienter dici potest, dicatur, sed aptius dicitur caritas; et haec quoque substantia, quia Deus substantia est, et *Deus caritas est*[^21]. Tria ergo sunt et non amplius: unus diligens eum qui de illo est, et unus diligens eum de quo est, et ipsa dilectio, quae si nihil est, quomodo Deus dilectio est? Si non est substantia, quomodo Deus substantia est? »

#### Cap. III.
*Quod Spiritus sanctus, sicut Patri et Filio est communis, ita commune nomen habet proprium.*

Hic notandum est, quod sicut Spiritus sanctus in Trinitate specialiter dicitur caritas, quae est Patris et Filii unio, ita et nomen tenet proprie, quod Patri et Filio communiter quodam modo congruit. Unde Augustinus in quinto decimo libro de Trinitate[^22]: « Si caritas, inquit, qua Pater diligit Filium, et Patrem diligit Filius, ineffabilem communionem demonstrat amborum, quid convenientius, quam ut ille proprie dicatur caritas, qui spiritus est communis ambobus? Hoc enim sanius creditur et intelligitur, ut non solum Spiritus sanctus caritas sit in illa Trinitate, sed non frustra proprie caritas nuncupetur, propter illa quae dicta sunt; sicut non solus in illa Trinitate vel spiritus est vel sanctus, quia et Pater spiritus et Filius similiter spiritus, et Pater sanctus et Filius sanctus, et tamen ipse non frustra dicitur Spiritus sanctus. Qui enim est communis ambobus, id vocatur ipse proprie, quod ambo communiter. Alioquin si in illa Trinitate solus Spiritus sanctus est caritas, profecto et Filius non solius Patris, sed etiam Spiritus sancti Filius invenitur. Ait enim Apostolus[^23] de Deo Patre: *Transtulit nos in regnum Filii caritatis suae.* Si ergo non est in illa Trinitate caritas Dei nisi Spiritus sanctus, Filius est etiam Spiritus sancti. Sed quia hoc absurdissimum est, restat ut non solus ibi sit caritas Spiritus sanctus, sed propter illa, de quibus satis disserui, proprie sic vocatur ».

---

english:
### Distinction X.

#### Chap. I.
*On the Holy Spirit: that he is properly called the love of the Father and the Son, since in the Trinity love — which is the Trinity itself — exists, just as the Word is properly called wisdom, and yet the whole Trinity is called wisdom.*

Now, after [the discussion of] the Son's eternity, let us discourse concerning the Holy Spirit, in so far as God grants us to see. The Holy Spirit is the love or charity or affection of the Father and the Son. Whence Augustine, in the fifteenth book of *On the Trinity*[^1], says: "The Holy Spirit is neither of the Father alone nor of the Son alone, but of both, and therefore he insinuates to us the common charity by which the Father and the Son love one another."

And John in his canonical Epistle[^2] says: *God is charity.* "He did not say: The Holy Spirit is charity; for if he had said this, the discourse would be more conclusive, and no small part of the question would be settled; but because he said: *God is charity,* it is uncertain[^3], and therefore it must be asked, whether God the Father is charity, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or God the Trinity itself, since these are not three gods but one God." To which Augustine, in the same book, thus says[^4]: "I do not know why, just as wisdom is said both of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and all together not three but one wisdom, charity is not in the same way said of the Father and of the Son and of[^5] the Holy Spirit, and all together one charity. Yet not for that reason should anyone hold us to call the Holy Spirit charity inappropriately, since both God the Father and God the Son can be called charity, just as the Word of God is properly called also the Wisdom of God, although both the Father and the Holy Spirit are wisdom."

"If, then, any one of these three is properly to be called charity, who more fittingly than the Holy Spirit? — namely, that in[^6] that supreme and simple nature substance is not one thing and charity another, but substance itself is charity, and charity itself is substance, whether in the Father or in the Son or in the Holy Spirit, and yet the Holy Spirit is properly called charity." Behold, by these words Augustine plainly shows[^7] that in the Trinity charity is sometimes referred to the substance, which is common to the three persons and whole in each, and sometimes specially to the person of the Holy Spirit; just as the wisdom of God is sometimes taken for the divine substance, sometimes properly for the Son; and this is found to occur in many [terms].

#### Chap. II.
*That the same names are taken both properly and universally.*

"For by many examples it can be taught that many names of things are both put universally and applied properly to certain things, just as by the name of the Law sometimes are signified all the utterances of the Old Testament[^8] together, but sometimes that is properly called the Law which was given through Moses." Many other examples are at hand, but in a clear matter prolixity of speech is to be avoided. Therefore, just as we properly call the only Word of God by the name of wisdom, although universally both the Holy Spirit and the Father are wisdom itself; so the Holy Spirit is properly called by the name of charity[^9], although both the Father and the Son are universally charity."

"But the Word of God, that is, the only-begotten Son of God, has been openly called the Wisdom of God by the mouth of the Apostle, who says[^10][^12] that Christ is *the power of God and the wisdom of God.* Where, however, the Holy Spirit is called charity, we find, if we diligently search the discourse of John the Apostle[^11][^13], who, when he had said: *Let us love one another, since love is from God,* added: *And everyone who loves is born of God, since God is love.* Here he made it manifest that he had said that to be God which he had said to be from God. God therefore is from God love; but since both the Son is born from God the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father, which of them ought we rather to take here to have been called love, is rightly asked. For the Father alone is so God

<!-- page 193 -->

that he is not from God; and therefore the love which is so God as to be from God is not the Father himself, but either the Son or the Holy Spirit. But in what follows, when John[^14] had recalled God's love by which *he loved us,* and from this had exhorted that we also should love one another, and so *God may abide in us* — for he had certainly called love God — at once, wishing to speak more openly on this matter, he says: *In this we know, that we abide in him, and he in us, since he gave us of his Spirit.* The Holy Spirit, then, of whom he gave us, makes us abide in God, and Him in us. But this love does. He therefore is God love[^15]. Therefore the Holy Spirit, who is God and who proceeds from God, is signified where it is read: *God is love, and love is from God*[^16].*" Behold, by these words Augustine plainly says that the Holy Spirit is the charity of the Father and the Son; and he extended his discourse so far that he seems to have said that the Holy Spirit is not only the love of the Father and the Son by which they love one another and us, but also the love by which we love God. But whether he himself is the charity by which we love God will be explained in the sequel[^17].

Now, however, let us take care to show what we have begun, namely, that the Holy Spirit is the love or affection of the Father and the Son, that is, by which the Father loves the Son and the Son the Father. Concerning this, Jerome on the seventeenth Psalm[^18] says: "The Holy Spirit is neither Father nor Son, but the love which the Father has toward the Son and the Son toward the Father." Augustine also, in the sixth book of *On the Trinity*[^19], says: "In all things the Son is equal to the Father and is of one and the same substance. Wherefore also the Holy Spirit subsists in the same unity of substance and equality."

"For whether it be the unity of both, or the holiness, or the charity, it is manifest that he is not some one of the two by whom each is joined, by whom the begotten is loved by the begetter and loves his begetter, and they are not by participation, but by their own essence, nor by the gift of any superior, but by their own proper [gift] keeping the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace[^20]." Behold, here you have the Holy Spirit to be that by which the Son is loved by the Father and the Father by the Son, and by which those two preserve the unity of peace. "The Holy Spirit, therefore, as Augustine says in the same [book], is something common to the Father and the Son, whatever it is. But that very communion is consubstantial and coeternal, which, if it can fittingly be called friendship, let it be so called, but it is more aptly called charity; and this also is substance, since God is substance, and *God is charity*[^21]. There are therefore three and no more: one loving him who is from him, and one loving him from whom he is, and the love itself, which, if it is nothing, how is *God love*? If it is not substance, how is God substance?"

#### Chap. III.
*That the Holy Spirit, just as he is common to the Father and the Son, so has a common name as proper.*

Here it must be noted that, just as the Holy Spirit in the Trinity is specially called charity — which is the union of the Father and the Son — so also he holds as proper the name which fits the Father and the Son commonly in a certain way. Whence Augustine in the fifteenth book of *On the Trinity*[^22]: "If charity," he says, "by which the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father, demonstrates the ineffable communion of both, what more fitting than that he be properly called charity who is the spirit common to both? For this is more soundly believed and understood, that not only is the Holy Spirit charity in that Trinity, but not in vain is he properly called charity, because of those things which have been said; just as he is not the only one in that Trinity who is either spirit or holy, since both the Father is spirit and the Son likewise spirit, and the Father is holy and the Son holy, and yet he himself is not in vain called the Holy Spirit. For he who is common to both is himself properly called by that which both are commonly. Otherwise, if in that Trinity the Holy Spirit alone is charity, then the Son is found to be the Son not of the Father alone but also of the Holy Spirit. For the Apostle says[^23] of God the Father: *He has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his charity.* If, therefore, in that Trinity there is no charity of God except the Holy Spirit, the Son is also [Son] of the Holy Spirit. But since this is most absurd, it remains that not only is the Holy Spirit there charity, but, on account of those things of which I have sufficiently discoursed, he is properly so called."

---

la: Cap. 17. n. 27. et 28. — In princip. dist. post *Nunc* codd. DE addunt *vero.*

en: Ch. 17, nn. 27 and 28. — At the beginning of the distinction, after *Nunc,* codices DE add *vero.*

la: 1. Ioan. 4, 16. — Omnia, quae sequuntur in hoc cap., excepta sunt ex Augustino, loc. cit. n. 27-31.

en: 1 John 4:16. — All that follows in this chapter is excerpted from Augustine, at the cited place, nn. 27–31.

la: Edd. cum cod. A addunt *est.* Deinde ante *Augustinus* Vat. et ed. 4 ponunt *hoc* pro *quod.*

en: The editions, with codex A, add *est.* Then, before *Augustinus,* the Vatican edition and ed. 4 read *hoc* in place of *quod.*

la: In Vat. desideratur *ipse,* quod in mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 habetur.

en: In the Vatican edition the word *ipse* is missing, although it is present in the manuscripts and in editions 1, 2, 3, 6.

la: Vat. et ed. 4 omittunt *et.* — Infra ante *Filius* cod. C et ed. 8 omittunt *Deus*; in fine huius textus ante *sapientia* codd. BCD et edd. 1, 8 *sint* pro *sit.*

en: The Vatican edition and ed. 4 omit *et.* — Below, before *Filius,* codex C and ed. 8 omit *Deus*; at the end of this text, before *sapientia,* codices BCD and editions 1, 8 read *sint* in place of *sit.*

la: Vat. cum cod. cc repetit hic *naturam,* quod deest in antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1. Paulo infra post *persona* adiungunt aliqui codd. ut I T *est.*

en: The Vatican edition, together with codex cc, here repeats *naturam,* which is absent from the older manuscripts and from ed. 1. A little below, after *persona,* some codices, such as I and T, add *est.*

la: Vat. perperam omittit *in.* In fine huius textus Vat. et pleraeque edd. *nuncupatur* pro *nuncupetur,* refragantibus Augustino, codd. A C E et ed. 8.

en: The Vatican edition wrongly omits *in.* At the end of this text, the Vatican edition and most other editions read *nuncupatur* in place of *nuncupetur,* against Augustine, codices A, C, E, and ed. 8.

la: Fide plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 loco *illa* posuimus *alia,* sub qua intellige divinam naturam.

en: On the authority of most manuscripts and of ed. 1, in place of *illa* we have set *alia,* under which understand the divine nature.

la: Vat. *dicit,* contradicentibus mss. et edd. 1, 8. Mox solae edd. 1, 8 adiiciunt *est* post *tota.*

en: The Vatican edition reads *dicit,* against the manuscripts and editions 1, 8. Soon after, only editions 1, 8 add *est* after *tota.*

la: Vat. cum edd. 1, 4, 6, 8 *Testamenti,* sed omnes codd. ceteraeque edd. cum originali contradicunt.

en: The Vatican edition, with editions 1, 4, 6, 8, reads *Testamenti,* but all the manuscripts and the other editions, with the original [text of Augustine], contradict [this reading].

la: Vat. cum omnibus edd., exceptis 1, contra codd. et originale *proprio vocabulo caritas.* Deinde Vat. ceteraeque edd. exceptis 1, 8, contra codd. BDE omittunt *et* ante *Pater.*

en: The Vatican edition, with all editions except ed. 1, against the codices and the original, reads *proprio vocabulo caritas.* Then the Vatican edition and the other editions except 1 and 8, against codices BDE, omit *et* before *Pater.*

en: 1 Corinthians 1:24.

la: 1. Ioan. 4, 7. Vulgata: *quia caritas ex Deo est... Deus caritas est.*

en: 1 John 4:7. The Vulgate reads: *quia caritas ex Deo est... Deus caritas est* ("since charity is from God... God is charity").

la: Ibid. v. 11-13. — Vat. sola inepte *quia* pro *qua.*

en: Ibid. vv. 11–13. — The Vatican edition alone, ineptly, reads *quia* in place of *qua.*

la: Vat. cum ceteris edd. contra originale: *Ipse ergo Deus est dilectio.*

en: The Vatican edition, with the other editions against the original, reads: *Ipse ergo Deus est dilectio* ("He therefore is God love").

la: Omnia in hoc capitulo sunt ex Augustino, XV. de Trin. c. 17. n. 30. et 31. — Paulo ante finem textus post *Deus dilectio* Vat. cum paucis codd. omittit *est.*

en: All in this chapter is from Augustine, *On the Trinity* XV, ch. 17, nn. 30 and 31. — A little before the end of the text, after *Deus dilectio,* the Vatican edition with a few codices omits *est.*

la: Infra dist. XVII. — Vat. contra mss. et edd. 1, 5, 8 omittit *dilectionem* post *sed etiam,* et hic cum ed. 1 legit *explicatur* pro *explicabitur.*

en: Below, distinction XVII. — The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and editions 1, 5, 8, omits *dilectionem* after *sed etiam,* and here, with ed. 1, reads *explicatur* in place of *explicabitur.*

la: Vers. 1. — Antea post *Nunc* edd. 1, 8 *ergo* pro *vero.*

en: Verse 1. — Earlier, after *Nunc,* editions 1 and 8 read *ergo* in place of *vero.*

la: Cap. 4. et 5. n. 6. et 7; ex ultimo cap. etiam sequentis huius capituli textus excerpti sunt. In fine primi textus pro *consistit* cod. D et edd. 1, 8 *subsistit* [small typographic glyph, ACCEPT-ILLEGIBLE], quod magis placeret, si faveret Augustinus.

en: Ch. 4 and ch. 5, nn. 6 and 7; from the last chapter, also, the texts of the chapter following here are excerpted. At the end of the first text, in place of *consistit,* codex D and editions 1, 8 [read] *subsistit* [followed by a small typographic glyph in the printed footer; ACCEPT-ILLEGIBLE — not a Latin word], which would please more, if Augustine were to favor it.

la: Ephes. 4, 8. — Paulo ante pro *sintque* mss. ACDE *suntque* ac forte melius. Deinde codd. AC incipiunt sequentem textum verbis: *Spiritus quoque* pro *Spiritus ergo.*

en: Ephesians 4:8. — A little before, in place of *sintque,* manuscripts ACDE [read] *suntque,* and perhaps better. Then codices AC begin the following text with the words: *Spiritus quoque* in place of *Spiritus ergo.*

la: 1. Ioan. 4, 16. — Vat. et ed. 4 post *nihil est* perperam omittunt; *quomodo Deus dilectio est, si non est substantia.*

en: 1 John 4:16. — The Vatican edition and ed. 4, after *nihil est,* wrongly omit: *quomodo Deus dilectio est, si non est substantia* ("how is God love, if it is not substance").

la: Cap. 19. n. 37. — Cod. C brevius: *Filius Patrem* loco *Patrem diligit Filius.* Mox codd. BCD et edd. 1, 8 cum originali pro *ineffabilem* legunt *ineffabiliter,* et sic hoc adverbio determinari videtur *diligit.* Denique in fine huius propositionis cod. E et cod. 8 *communis amborum* pro *communis ambobus.*

en: Ch. 19, n. 37. — Codex C [reads] more briefly: *Filius Patrem* in place of *Patrem diligit Filius* ("the Son the Father" instead of "the Father, the Son loves the Father"). Soon after, codices BCD and editions 1, 8, with the original, in place of *ineffabilem,* read *ineffabiliter,* and thus by this adverb the verb *diligit* appears to be determined. Finally, at the end of this proposition, codex E and ed. 8 [read] *communis amborum* in place of *communis ambobus.*

la: Col. 1, 13. — Vat. cum pluribus edd. ante *Trinitate* ponit *ista* pro *illa*; postea idem fit ab edd. 3, 5, 9 post *sed propter.*

en: Colossians 1:13. — The Vatican edition, with several editions, before *Trinitate* sets *ista* in place of *illa*; afterward the same is done by editions 3, 5, 9 after *sed propter.*

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. 10, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem X — Divisio textus

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction X — Division of the text

source_text:
<!-- page 194 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM X.

*De aeterna processione Spiritus sancti quantum ad personam quae procedit.*

Nunc post Filii aeternitatem de Spiritu sancto, quantum Deo donante, ak-[?: OCR/print breaks off mid-sentence]

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de generatione Filii, hic autem agit de processione Spiritus sancti. Et quia gemina est processio Spiritus sancti[^1], aeterna et temporalis, primo agit de processione aeterna, secundo de temporali, infra, distinctione decima quarta: *Praeterea notandum, quod gemina est processio Spiritus sancti* etc. Et quoniam processio Spiritus sancti tripliciter potest comparari, scilicet ad personam ad quam est, et ad principium a quo est, et ad generationem a qua differt, ideo haec pars habet tres; in quarum prima Magister agit de processione Spiritus sancti quantum ad personam, quae procedit; in secunda, quantum ad principium a quo, infra, distinctione undecima: *Hic dicendum est, Spiritum sanctum esse a Patre et Filio*; in tertia vero agit de ipsa per comparationem ad generationem, a qua distinguitur, infra, distinctione decima tertia: *Post haec considerandum est, quantum a talibus, quales nos sumus.*

Item, prima pars, quae continet praesentem distinctionem, habet quatuor. In prima dicit, quod Spiritus sanctus procedit ut amor sive caritas vel dilectio; et hoc probat auctoritate Augustini. In secunda vero, quia hoc[^2] erat dubium, quod Spiritus sanctus esset caritas, movet quaestionem et solvit, ibi: *Et ideo quaerendum, utrum Deus Pater.* In tertia vero solutionem per auctoritatem confirmat, tum quantum ad distinctionem, quae est per communem acceptionem et propriam, tum etiam quantum ad veritatem, ibi: *Pluribus enim exemplis doceri potest* etc. In quarta vero et ultima praedictae solutionis assignat rationem ostendens, quod[^3] Spiritus sanctus proprie dicatur caritas, cum caritas sit nomen commune, et hoc ibi: *Hic notandum est, quod sicut Spiritus sanctus in Trinitate.*

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad evidentiam eorum quae dicuntur de Spiritu sancto, in hac parte duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de modo procedendi ipsius Spiritus sancti[^4].

Secundo de proprietate ipsius.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primum est, utrum in divinis sit necesse ponere personam procedentem per modum liberalitatis.

Secundum, utrum sit necesse ponere personam procedentem per modum amoris.

Tertium, si[^5] sit necesse ponere personam procedere per modum mutuae caritatis.

---

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION X.

*On the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit with respect to the person who proceeds.*

Now after [treating] the eternity of the Son, [the Master proceeds to treat] of the Holy Spirit, insofar as God grants… [?: OCR breaks off mid-sentence at `ak-`]

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the generation of the Son; here, however, he treats of the procession of the Holy Spirit. And because the procession of the Holy Spirit[^1] is twofold, eternal and temporal, he first treats of the eternal procession, secondly of the temporal, below, in distinction fourteen: *Furthermore, it must be noted that the procession of the Holy Spirit is twofold,* etc. And since the procession of the Holy Spirit can be compared in three ways — namely, to the person to whom it is, and to the principle from which it is, and to the generation from which it differs — therefore this part has three [sections]; in the first of which the Master treats of the procession of the Holy Spirit with respect to the person who proceeds; in the second, with respect to the principle from which [it is], below, in distinction eleven: *Here it must be said that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son*; and in the third he treats of [the procession] itself by comparison with generation, from which it is distinguished, below, in distinction thirteen: *After these things, it must be considered, insofar as [is possible] for those such as we are.*

Likewise, the first part, which contains the present distinction, has four [sections]. In the first he says that the Holy Spirit proceeds as love or charity or affection; and he proves this by the authority of Augustine. In the second, because this[^2] was a matter of doubt, namely that the Holy Spirit was charity, he raises the question and resolves it, there: *And therefore it is to be asked whether God the Father.* In the third he confirms the resolution by authority, both with respect to the distinction, which is according to common and proper acceptation, and also with respect to the truth, there: *For it can be taught by many examples,* etc. In the fourth and last he assigns the reason for the aforesaid resolution, showing that[^3] the Holy Spirit is properly called charity, since charity is a common name, and this there: *Here it must be noted that, just as the Holy Spirit in the Trinity.*

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the elucidation of the things which are said concerning the Holy Spirit, in this part two things are principally inquired.

First, it is asked about the mode of proceeding of the Holy Spirit[^4] himself.

Second, about his property.

Concerning the first, three [questions] are asked.

The first is, whether in divine [matters] it is necessary to posit a person proceeding by way of liberality.

The second, whether it is necessary to posit a person proceeding by way of love.

The third, whether[^5] it is necessary to posit a person to proceed by way of mutual charity.

---

la: Cod. A et ed. 1 addunt *scilicet*.

en: Codex A and edition 1 add *scilicet* ("namely").

la: Ex mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 substituimus hoc loco *hic*. Mox post *sanctus* ex pluribus codd. ut T Y bb cum ed. 1 posuimus *esset* pro *erat*.

en: From the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3 we have substituted *hic* ("this") in this place. Soon after, [the word] *sanctus*, from many codices such as T, Y, bb, together with edition 1, we have put *esset* for *erat*.

la: Ed. 1 *quare*.

en: Edition 1 [reads] *quare* ("wherefore").

la: Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 omittit *sancti*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and edition 1, omits *sancti* ("Holy").

la: Pauci codd. ut X Y *utrum*. Mox cod. V *procedentem* loco *procedere*.

en: A few codices such as X, Y [read] *utrum* ("whether"). Soon after, codex V [reads] *procedentem* in place of *procedere*.


title: Dist. 10

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem X: De aeterna processione Spiritus sancti quantum ad personam quae procedit

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction X: On the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit with respect to the person who proceeds

source_text:
<!-- page 194 -->

## Distinctio X.

### Commentarius in Distinctionem X.

*De aeterna processione Spiritus sancti quantum ad personam quae procedit.*

> *«Nunc post Filii aeternitatem de Spiritu sancto, quantum Deo donante,»* etc.

---

english:
<!-- page 194 -->

## Distinction X.

### Commentary on Distinction X.

*On the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit with respect to the person who proceeds.*

> *«Now, after [treating of] the eternity of the Son, [we shall treat] of the Holy Spirit, insofar as God grants it,»* etc.

---

translators_notes:
The chunk holds only Bonaventure's prefatory matter for d.10: the running
heading (DISTINCTIO X.), the section heading (COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM
X.), the editorial subtitle naming the topic of d.10, and the opening words
of the Lombard incipit lemma which Bonaventure is about to comment on. The
printed lemma terminates with `etc.` after `donante,` — Quaracchi truncates
the citation here (the OCR's `ak-` was a misread of `etc.`, resolved
2026-05-12 via 600dpi PDF eyes-on of p.194 incipit line). The substantive
*divisio textus* begins in the next chunk (`bon-sent-I-d10-divisio.md`, raw
line 38253).