title: Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 555 -->

### Articulus I.
#### *De locutione: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto.*

### Quaestio I.
#### *Utrum Pater et Filius diligant se Spiritu sancto.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each entry gives first the Latin source text (**La.**), then the English rendering (**En.**).

Quod autem[^1] sit admittenda, ostenditur auctoritate et ratione.

1. Primo auctoritate sic: Augustinus sexto de Trinitate[^2]: «Non est aliquis duorum, quo genitus a gignente diligitur genitoremque suum diligit»: ergo est aliquis, et non est Pater vel Filius, ergo est Spiritus sanctus.

2. Item, Hieronymus super Psalmum decimum septimum[^3]: «Spiritus sanctus est amor Patris ad Filium et Filii ad Patrem»; sed amore qui est Patris ad Filium, Pater amat Filium, et e converso: ergo etc.

3. Item, Bernardus *de Amore Dei*[^4]: «Amas te, inquit, amabilis Domine, cum a Patre et Filio procedit Spiritus sanctus, amor Patris ad Filium, et Filii ad Patrem, et tantus amor, ut sit unitas».

4. Item, ratione ostenditur sic: Magister Hugo de sancto Victore facit talem rationem in epistola quadam ad Bernardum[^5]: «Si recte diceris amare amore, qui a te procedit, cur non Pater et Filius recte dicuntur amare amore, qui ab ipsis procedit»? — Et iterum ibidem: «Si Spiritus sanctus esset amor cordis tui, sicut Patris et Filii, quis, quaeso, posset negare, Spiritu sancto, hoc est amore tuo, te diligere»?

5. Item, alia ratione videtur sic: sicut se habet verbum ad dicere, sic amor ad diligere; sed Pater Verbo suo, quod ab ipso procedit, dicit se et omnia[^6], quia Pater Verbo suo, quod ab ipso procedit, se ipsum declarat: ergo Pater et Filius amore, qui ab ipsis procedit, se ipsos diligunt.

6. Item, sicut filius non potest produci nisi generando, sic nec amor nisi diligendo: ergo Pater et Filius diligendo se producunt Spiritum sanctum[^7], qui est amor personalis: aut igitur diligendo amore, qui est Spiritus sanctus, aut qui non est Spiritus sanctus. Si amore, qui non est Spiritus sanctus, aut amor ille est essentialis, aut personalis: non personalis, quia tunc essent duae personae in divinis, quibus conveniret amor proprie, quod est impossibile; similiter nec essentialis, quia ille est Spiritus sanctus. Et iterum, si essentialis, tunc ergo, cum conveniat Spiritui sancto, Spiritus sanctus similiter produceret. Restat igitur, quod producant Spiritum sanctum diligendo se amore, qui est Spiritus sanctus: aut igitur diligendo se, aut diligendo aliud a se. Non aliud, quia tunc aliud exigeretur ad productionem Spiritus sancti: ergo diligendo se Spiritu sancto, producunt Spiritum sanctum: ergo Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto.

**Contra:**

1. Diligere idem est quod velle bonum[^8], et velle idem est quod esse: ergo cum haec sit falsa: Pater et Filius sunt Spiritu sancto, haec similiter: diligunt se Spiritu sancto.

2. Item, sicut se habet *sapere* ad Patrem respectu Filii, ita *diligere* ad Patrem et Filium respectu Spiritus sancti; sed haec est falsa: Pater est sapiens sapientia genita: ergo et illa similiter.

3. Item, omne plurale infert singulare; sed haec est falsa: Pater diligit se Spiritu sancto: ergo et prima. Si dicas, quod *diligere* tenetur notionaliter; contra: nulla notione contingit mutuo reflecti unam personam super aliam[^9]; sed secundum dilectionem est mutua reflexio in praedicta locutione: ergo *diligere* non tenetur notionaliter: ergo idem quod prius.

4. Item, nulla notio convenit tribus; sed *diligere Spiritu sancto* convenit tribus. Nam Pater diligit Spiritu sancto, et Filius diligit Spiritu sancto, et Spiritus sanctus diligit Spiritu sancto, quia se ipso: ergo non tenetur notionaliter: ergo idem quod prius.

5. Item, Pater et Filius eodem amore diligunt se et nos; sed dilectio Dei ad nos est essentialis, cum connotet effectum in creatura: ergo similiter cum dicitur: *diligunt se*.

6. Item, si tenetur notionaliter, quaero, pro qua notione? Non est dare nisi spirationem: aut ergo *active*, aut *passive*. Si *active*: ergo idem est *diligunt se* quod *spirant*; sed haec est falsa: *spirant Spiritu sancto*[^10], ergo et prima. Si *passive*; contra: illa non praedicatur de Patre et Filio, sed de solo Spiritu sancto. Si dicas, quod denominative praedicatur; contra: omnis proprietas, quae de persona praedicatur in divinis in concretione, praedicatur et in abstractione[^11]: ergo cum processio non conveniat Patri et Filio in abstractione: ergo nec denominative.

<!-- page 556 -->

### Conclusio.

> *Ista locutio falsa est, si tenetur essentialiter; vera autem, si tenetur notionaliter.*

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam notandum, quod quidam praedictam locutionem simpliciter negaverunt et dixerunt, omnes consimiles retractatas esse a beato Augustino in sua simili, in hac scilicet: «Pater est sapiens sapientia genita[^12]». — Sed haec solutio non potest stare, quia non solum Augustinus eam dicit, sed etiam alii Sancti, quorum dicta Augustinus non retractat.

Ideo fuerunt alii, qui eam simpliciter concesserunt dicentes, hanc locutionem debere intelligi per *appropriationem*, non per *proprietatem*, ut sit sensus: Pater et Filius diligunt se amore, qui appropriatur Spiritui sancto. — Sed ista solutio non potest stare, quia tunc similiter haec esset concedenda: Pater et Filius sunt boni Spiritu sancto; cum Spiritui sancto approprietur bonitas, quae tamen nullo modo conceditur. Igitur prima opinio non potest stare, quae simpliciter tales locutiones negat, cum multiplex auctoritas eas dicat; similiter sequens, quae eas simpliciter concedit, non potest stare, cum multiplex ratio contradicat.

Restat igitur eligere opinionem mediam, scilicet quod uno modo sit vera, alio modo falsa. Nam hoc quod est *diligere* potest teneri *essentialiter*, vel *notionaliter*. Secundum quod tenetur essentialiter, sic dicit complacentiam voluntatis, quae communis est tribus. Secundum quod tenetur notionaliter, sic dicit voluntatis fecunditatem ad producendam personam ex se, quae quidem fecunditas solum est in duobus, quamvis voluntas sit in tribus. Si ergo teneatur essentialiter, falsa est locutio, quia tunc sequitur, quod Pater et Filius sunt Spiritu sancto[^13]. Et in hoc sensu pronomen cum verbo construitur reciproce. Si autem notionaliter, vera est, sicut probant rationes ad oppositum. Et in hoc sensu pronomen construitur cum verbo retransitive. Unde sensus est: Pater et Filius diligunt se, id est, Pater diligit Filium et Filius Patrem; et tunc vera est locutio, quia amor, qui est Spiritus sanctus, est amor nectens Patrem cum Filio et e converso; et tunc non licet inferre: ergo Pater diligit se Spiritu sancto.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

Ex hoc patent tria prima. Nam primum, secundum, tertium procedit secundum quod *diligere* tenetur essentialiter; *secundum* similiter, nam *sapere* non dicitur notionaliter, sicut *diligere*, sed vel est commune, vel appropriatum; *tertium* similiter, quia procedit secundum quod obliquus construitur reciproce, et tunc *diligere* tenetur essentialiter.

*Ad illud quod obiicitur*, quod non possit teneri notionaliter; intelligendum est, quod sicut generatio dupliciter potest significari, uno modo, ut dicit *emanationem*, alio modo, ut dicit *modum emanandi* superaddita expressione: et primo modo per hoc verbum *generare*, secundo modo per hoc verbum *dicere* significatur, sic et spiratio dupliciter potest significari. Primo modo per hoc verbum quod est *spirare*; secundo modo per hoc verbum quod est *diligere*. Quemadmodum enim *dicere* importat generationem et ulterius quandam expressionem circa personam, sic et *diligere*. Unde sicut *dicere* importat actum generandi et declarandi sive exprimendi, et ratione actus declarandi dicitur: Pater se dicit Verbo, hoc est, se declarando sive exprimendo generat Verbum, vel generando Verbum se exprimit Verbo; sic et in proposito *diligere* importat actum connectendi sive concordandi et spirandi, et ratione actus connectendi dicitur: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto, hoc est, invicem concordando spirant Spiritum sanctum, vel spirando Spiritum sanctum invicem connectuntur. Ex his patent obiecta.

*Quod enim obiicitur de mutua reflexione*, patet responsio, quia haec est ratione actus essentialis cointellecti.

*Ad illud quod obiicitur*, quod *diligere Spiritu sancto* convenit tribus et dicitur respectu creaturae; dicendum, quod non convenit tribus ratione spirationis, quam importat; et ideo, quamvis dicatur respectu creaturae, non tamen dicitur essentialiter omnino, sed connotat aliquid essentiale; dicit tamen notionem ratione respectus, quem importat ad personam, sicut supra dictum est de Verbo et Dono.

*Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur*, pro qua notione stat: patet, quod stat pro communi spiratione; tamen non licet pro eo ponere verbum *spirandi*, quia alio modo importat illam notionem. Unde sicut conceditur haec: *Pater dicit Verbo*, non tamen haec: *Pater generat Filio*, et tamen *dicere* importat ipsam generationem; sic in proposito intelligendum est.

<!-- page 557 -->

english:
<!-- page 555 -->

### Article I. *On the manner of speaking: "The Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit."*
### Question I. *Whether the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit.*

That this manner of speaking[^1] is to be admitted is shown from authority and from reason.

1. *First*, by authority thus: Augustine, *On the Trinity* VI[^2]: "There is not someone of the two by whom the begotten is loved by the begetter and loves his own begetter": therefore there is someone, and he is not the Father or the Son, therefore he is the Holy Spirit.

2. Likewise, Jerome on Psalm seventeen[^3]: "The Holy Spirit is the love of the Father toward the Son and of the Son toward the Father"; but by the love which is of the Father toward the Son, the Father loves the Son, and conversely: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, Bernard *On the Love of God*[^4]: "You love yourself, he says, lovable Lord, when from the Father and the Son there proceeds the Holy Spirit, the love of the Father toward the Son, and of the Son toward the Father, and so great a love that it is unity."

4. Likewise, by reason it is shown thus: Master Hugh of St. Victor makes such an argument in a certain letter to Bernard[^5]: "If you are rightly said to love by the love which proceeds from you, why are not the Father and the Son rightly said to love by the love which proceeds from them?" — And again in the same place: "If the Holy Spirit were the love of your heart, as he is of the Father and of the Son, who, I ask, could deny that you love yourself by the Holy Spirit, that is, by your love?"

5. Likewise, by another argument it appears thus: as *word* is to *to speak*, so *love* is to *to love*; but the Father by his Word, which proceeds from him, speaks himself and all things[^6], because the Father by his Word, which proceeds from him, makes himself manifest: therefore the Father and the Son, by the love which proceeds from them, love themselves.

6. Likewise, just as a son cannot be produced except by generating, so neither can love except by loving: therefore the Father and the Son, by loving, produce the Holy Spirit[^7], who is personal love: either, then, by loving by the love which is the Holy Spirit, or by [a love] which is not the Holy Spirit. If by a love which is not the Holy Spirit, that love is either essential or personal: not personal, since then there would be two persons in the divine to whom love would belong properly, which is impossible; nor likewise essential, since that [essential love] is the Holy Spirit. And again, if essential, then since it would belong to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit similarly would produce. It remains, therefore, that they produce the Holy Spirit by loving by the love which is the Holy Spirit: either, then, by loving themselves, or by loving something other than themselves. Not something other, since then something other would be required for the production of the Holy Spirit: therefore by loving themselves by the Holy Spirit, they produce the Holy Spirit: therefore the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit.

**On the contrary:**

1. *To love* is the same as *to will the good*[^8], and *to will* is the same as *to be*: therefore since this is false, "the Father and the Son are by the Holy Spirit," this is likewise false: "they love each other by the Holy Spirit."

2. Likewise, as *to know* is to the Father with respect to the Son, so *to love* is to the Father and the Son with respect to the Holy Spirit; but this is false: "the Father is wise by begotten wisdom": therefore that one likewise.

3. Likewise, every plural implies a singular; but this is false: "the Father loves himself by the Holy Spirit": therefore the first one as well. If you say that *to love* is taken notionally; on the contrary: by no notion does it happen that one person is reflected mutually upon another[^9]; but according to love there is mutual reflection in the foregoing locution: therefore *to love* is not taken notionally: therefore the same as before.

4. Likewise, no notion belongs to the three; but *to love by the Holy Spirit* belongs to the three. For the Father loves by the Holy Spirit, and the Son loves by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit loves by the Holy Spirit, since [he loves] by himself: therefore it is not taken notionally: therefore the same as before.

5. Likewise, the Father and the Son love themselves and us by the same love; but God's love toward us is essential, since it connotes an effect in the creature: therefore likewise when it is said: "they love each other."

6. Likewise, if it is taken notionally, I ask, for which notion? There is none to give except spiration: either then *actively*, or *passively*. If *actively*: then *they love each other* is the same as *they spirate*; but this is false: *they spirate by the Holy Spirit*[^10], therefore the first one as well. If *passively*; on the contrary: that [passive spiration] is not predicated of the Father and the Son, but of the Holy Spirit alone. If you say that it is predicated denominatively; on the contrary: every property which is predicated of a person in the divine in the concrete is predicated also in the abstract[^11]: therefore since procession does not belong to the Father and the Son in the abstract: therefore neither denominatively.

<!-- page 556 -->

### Conclusion.

> *This manner of speaking is false, if it is taken essentially; but true, if it is taken notionally.*

**I respond:** For the understanding of what has been said, it must be noted that some have simply denied the foregoing locution and have said that all such [locutions] were retracted by blessed Augustine in another similar to this one, namely: "the Father is wise by begotten wisdom"[^12]. — But this solution cannot stand, since not only does Augustine speak it, but also other Saints, whose statements Augustine does not retract.

Therefore there were others who simply conceded it, saying that this locution must be understood by *appropriation*, not by *property*, so that the sense is: the Father and the Son love each other by the love which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. — But this solution cannot stand either, since then this likewise would have to be conceded: "the Father and the Son are good by the Holy Spirit"; since goodness is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, which nevertheless is in no way conceded. Therefore the first opinion cannot stand, which simply denies such locutions, since manifold authority asserts them; likewise the next, which simply concedes them, cannot stand, since manifold reason contradicts.

It remains, therefore, to choose a middle opinion, namely that in one way it is true, in another way false. For *to love* can be taken *essentially* or *notionally*. According as it is taken essentially, so it expresses the complacency of the will, which is common to the three. According as it is taken notionally, so it expresses the fecundity of the will toward producing a person from itself, which fecundity indeed is only in the two, although the will is in the three. If, then, it is taken essentially, the locution is false, since then it follows that the Father and the Son are by the Holy Spirit[^13]. And in this sense the pronoun is construed reciprocally with the verb. But if notionally, it is true, as the reasons for the opposite prove. And in this sense the pronoun is construed retransitively with the verb. Whence the sense is: the Father and the Son love each other, that is, the Father loves the Son and the Son the Father; and then the locution is true, since the love which is the Holy Spirit is the love connecting the Father with the Son and conversely; and then it is not permitted to infer: therefore the Father loves himself by the Holy Spirit.

**To the arguments on the affirmative side:**

From this the first three are clear. For the first, second, third proceed according as *to love* is taken essentially; the *second* likewise, since *to know* is not said notionally as *to love* is, but is either common or appropriated; the *third* likewise, since it proceeds according as the oblique is construed reciprocally, and then *to love* is taken essentially.

*To that which is objected*, that it cannot be taken notionally; it must be understood that just as generation can be signified in two ways — in one way, as it expresses *emanation*, in another way, as it expresses the *mode of emanating* with a superadded expression: and in the first way by this verb *to generate*, in the second way by this verb *to speak* — so spiration likewise can be signified in two ways. In the first way by this verb which is *to spirate*; in the second way by this verb which is *to love*. For just as *to speak* imports generation and further a certain expression with respect to a person, so also *to love*. Whence as *to speak* imports the act of generating and of declaring or expressing, and by reason of the act of declaring it is said: the Father speaks himself by the Word, that is, by declaring or expressing himself he generates the Word, or by generating the Word he expresses himself by the Word; so also in the case proposed *to love* imports the act of connecting or harmonizing and of spirating, and by reason of the act of connecting it is said: the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit, that is, by mutually harmonizing they spirate the Holy Spirit, or by spirating the Holy Spirit they are mutually connected. From these the [other] objections are clear.

*To that which is objected concerning mutual reflection*, the response is clear, since this is by reason of an essential act co-understood [therein].

*To that which is objected*, that *to love by the Holy Spirit* belongs to the three and is said with respect to the creature; it must be said that it does not belong to the three by reason of the spiration which it imports; and therefore, although it be said with respect to the creature, nevertheless it is not said wholly essentially, but connotes something essential; yet it expresses a notion by reason of the relation which it imports to a person, as was said above of the Word and the Gift.

*To that which is objected last*, for which notion it stands: it is clear that it stands for common spiration; nevertheless it is not allowed to substitute for it the verb *to spirate*, since that imports the same notion in another way. Whence just as this is conceded: *the Father speaks by the Word*, but not this: *the Father generates by the Son*, although *to speak* imports generation itself; so it must be understood in the case proposed.

<!-- page 557 -->

la: Vat. addit: *Et determinat cum hoc, quod in Trinitate est dilectio, quae est Trinitas, et in Spiritu sancto est dilectio, quae non est Trinitas. Et hoc ibi: Et sicut in Trinitate.* — Supple cum Vat. *ista locutio*: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto.

en: The Vatican [edition] adds: "And he determines this together with the fact that in the Trinity there is a love which is the Trinity, and in the Holy Spirit there is a love which is not the Trinity. And this is at: *And just as in the Trinity*." — Supply with the Vatican [edition] *this locution*: "the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit."

la: Cap. 5. n. 7, de quo vide hic *lit. Magistri*, c. 1.

en: Chapter 5, n. 7, on which see here the *text of the Master*, c. 1.

la: Vers. 1. Vide supra d. 10. c. 2.

en: Verse 1. See above d. 10, c. 2.

la: Intellige opus *de Contemplando Deo*, c. 7. n. 14, qui liber falso tribuebatur S. Bernardo. In ipso textu post verbum *Domine* originale addit *in te ipso*.

en: Understand the work *On Contemplating God*, c. 7, n. 14, which book was falsely attributed to St. Bernard. In the text itself, after the word *Domine*, the original adds *in te ipso* ["in you yourself"].

la: Habetur apud Richard. de S. Vict. in opere, quod inscribitur: «*Quomodo Spiritus est amor Patris et Filii*», ubi et sequens textus invenitur, qui verbotenus transcriptus est, excepto solo verbo *esset*, cuius loco originale exhibet *diceretur*.

en: It is found in Richard of St. Victor, in the work entitled "*How the Spirit is the love of the Father and of the Son*," where the following text is also found, which has been transcribed verbatim, except only for the word *esset*, in place of which the original gives *diceretur*.

la: Codd. L interiiciunt *secundum Anselmum in Monologio*, de quo cfr. supra d. 27. p. II. q. 2. fundam. 4. Ibidem et in seqq. quaest. istius dist. quae hic sequuntur explanata invenies. — Vat., suffragante solo cod. cc, praetermittit verba omnia usque ad conclusionem *ergo etc.* Eadem Vat. in initio huius argumenti pro *ratione* videtur substituit *ratio formatur*.

en: Codices L insert "*according to Anselm in the Monologion*," concerning which cf. above d. 27, p. II, q. 2, *fundamentum* 4. There and in the following questions of this distinction you will find what follows here explained. — The Vatican [edition], with codex cc alone in support, omits all the words up to the conclusion *ergo etc.* The same Vatican [edition], at the beginning of this argument, in place of *ratione* seems to substitute *ratio formatur*.

la: Pro *Spiritum sanctum* codd. L aa *amorem*.

en: In place of *Spiritum sanctum*, codices L aa [read] *amorem*.

la: Aristot., II. Rhetor. c. de Amore (c. 4.): *Est igitur amare velle alicui bona.* — Post verba subsequentia *et velle* supple *in Deo.* — Immediate post verbo *esse* codd. aa bb adiungunt: *ergo eo quo Pater et Filius se diligunt, sunt; sed non sunt Spiritus sanctus, etc.*

en: Aristotle, *Rhetoric* II, c. *On Love* (c. 4): "*To love, then, is to wish goods to someone.*" — After the subsequent words *et velle* supply *in Deo*. — Immediately after the word *esse*, codices aa bb add: "therefore by that by which the Father and the Son love each other, they are; but they are not the Holy Spirit, etc."

la: Scotus, hic q. 1. n. 1, hoc ita proponit: *Nullus actus notionalis est conversivus in idem agens, a quo est vel procedit, propter distinctionem, quam talis actus requirit inter agens et terminum.*

en: Scotus, here q. 1, n. 1, proposes this thus: "No notional act is convertible upon the same agent from which it is or proceeds, on account of the distinction which such an act requires between agent and term."

la: Pro *Spiritu sancto* Vat. cum uno et altero cod. *se*. — Mox post *illa* supple: *spiratio passiva*, vel cum Vat. *notio*.

en: In place of *Spiritu sancto*, the Vatican [edition] with one or another codex [reads] *se*. — Soon after *illa* supply: *passive spiration*, or with the Vatican [edition] *notion*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 27. p. I. a. 1. q. 1, et de praedicatione denominativa vide supra d. 5. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2, nec non pag. 473, nota 1. — Pro verbis *in abstractione* et *in concretione*, quae in hac propositione occurrunt, multi codd. substituunt *abstracte* (aliqui *abstractive*) et *concrete* (nonnulli *concretive*).

en: Cf. above d. 27, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, and on denominative predication see above d. 5, a. 1, q. 1, ad 2, and also p. 473, n. 1. — In place of the words *in abstractione* and *in concretione*, which occur in this proposition, many codices substitute *abstracte* (some *abstractive*) and *concrete* (some *concretive*).

la: De qua cfr. hic *lit. Magistri*, c. 2. *notula*. Dicta aliorum Sanctorum, quorum mox fit mentio, invenies hic in *fundamentis*.

en: Concerning which cf. here the *text of the Master*, c. 2, *notula*. The statements of the other Saints, of whom mention is shortly made, you will find here in the *fundamenta*.

la: Forsasse lectio genuina est, quae habetur in cod. T: *Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto, cui appropriatur amor*, cui lectioni favere videntur multi codd., in quibus invenitur *cui appropriatur* pro *qui appropriatur*. — Maior pars codd. et ed. 1 sic: *cui Spiritui sancto appropriatur bonitas*; minus congrue. — Plures codd. cum primis edd. *Spiritus sanctus*. — De duplici constructione, reciproca scilicet et retransitiva, notamus, quod constructio reciproca ea est, in qua actio verbi immediate regreditur ad substantiam, a qua egressus fuerat, v. g. *Socrates diligit se*; et facta hac constructione, sensus locutionis, de qua hic agitur, esset: *Pater diligit se*, et *Filius diligit se Spiritu sancto*; quod falsum est. Constructio autem retransitiva illa est, in qua actio verbi egreditur ab aliquo supposito in aliud, et iterum regreditur ad primum suppositum, v. g. *diligo te, ut tu diligas me*. Cfr. Priscian., XVII. *Grammat.* c. 10 et 17. — Intellige: *casus*, i.e. *accusativus se*.

en: Perhaps the genuine reading is that found in codex T: "*the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit, to whom love is appropriated*," which reading many codices seem to favour, in which is found *cui appropriatur* in place of *qui appropriatur*. — The major part of the codices and edition 1 [read] thus: *cui Spiritui sancto appropriatur bonitas*; less fittingly. — Several codices with the first editions [read] *Spiritus sanctus*. — On the twofold construction, namely the reciprocal and the retransitive, we note that the reciprocal construction is that in which the action of the verb returns immediately to the substance from which it had gone out, e.g. *Socrates loves himself*; and were this construction made, the sense of the locution here in question would be: *the Father loves himself*, and *the Son loves himself by the Holy Spirit*; which is false. But the retransitive construction is that in which the action of the verb goes out from some supposit into another, and again returns to the first supposit, e.g. *I love you, that you may love me*. Cf. Priscian, *Grammat.* XVII, c. 10 and 17. — Understand: *casus*, i.e., the accusative *se*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Haec quaestio supponit, Spiritum S. procedere per modum mutuae caritatis et ut nexus Patris et Filii, de quo supra d. 10. a. 1. q. 2-3, et a. 2. q. 2. — De sensu huius locutionis Petrus Lombardus (hic c. I.) nihil ausus est definire, multaeque exortae sunt opiniones, quarum quinque ab Alberto, novem a S. Thoma (in Comment. hic q. I. a. I.), tres hic a S. Bonaventura recensentur. Prima opinio hic posita, quod S. Augustinus hanc ipsam locutionem retractaverit, adscribitur cuidam Gotfredo; secundam sequitur Durandus, qui (hic q. 1.) dicit, quod «omnes praedictae propositiones sunt simpliciter falsae, si *diligere* sumatur notionaliter; si vero sumatur essentialiter, sic sunt verae, licet sint impropriae et ideo exponendae» (scil. ut accipiantur per appropriationem, quia amor appropriatur Spiritui S.). Haec sententia evertitur duobus argumentis positis in corp. (sed distinctis locis). Tertia opinio est Hugonis a S. Victore, cui S. Bonav., S. Thom., B. Albert., Alex. Hal. (falso ipsi attribuitur sententia Durandi), Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med. aliique suffragantur. Haec optime explicatur in solut. ad 3. (cfr. supra d. 27. p. II. q. 1, et d. 10. dub. 3.). — Scotus utitur fundamentis a S. Bonav. ad 3. iactis, distinguendo inter amorem essentialem et notionalem (sicut inter intelligere et dicere), et resolvit, locutionem esse falsam, tum si *diligere* sumatur pure essentialiter, tum si sumatur pure notionaliter; nihilominus eandem esse veram, si sumatur medio modo, ita ut sensus sit: producunt Spiritum S., habentem habitudinem quandam ad producentes, quorum ipse est amor. Idem arguit etiam contra rationes S. Thomae satis subtiliter. Cui placent hae disquisitiones subtiliores quam utiliores, videre eas potest apud Caietan. (ad S. I. q. 37. a. 2.); apud Commentatorem Scoti Lychetum (hic q. 1.); et Bada, controv. 17; Macedo, coll. 9. diff. 1, aliosque multos utriusque scholae auctores.

**II.** In solut. ad 5. negatur minor, scilicet quod dilectio Dei ad nos sit omnino essentialis, licet connotet aliquid essentiale. Expressius idem docetur a S. Thoma (loc. cit. ad 3.), ubi ait: «Dicendum, quod Pater non solum Filium, sed etiam se et nos diligit Spiritu S.». Scotus vero (loc. cit. n. 14.) iuxta viam suam hoc non approbat, et etiam Suarez putat, locutionem hanc non esse propriam nec facile usurpandam. De fundamento sententiae Angelici et Seraphici cfr. supra d. 27. p. II. q. 2, et d. 18. q. 2. 5. — Propositionem vero hanc: *Pater diligit se Spiritu S.*, Seraphicus (in fine corp.) non videtur concedere, quam tamen S. Thom. (S. I. q. 37. a. 2. ad 3.) et Scot. admittere non dubitant. S. Bonav. autem loquitur ibi de amore pure essentiali et de Spiritu S. personaliter, non autem de *diligere* quatenus «importat etiam personam productam per modum amoris, qui habet habitudinem rem dilectam» (ita S. Thom. ad loc. cit.). De *diligere* non omnino essentiali S. Bonav. tractat in solut. ad 4. 6, ubi disserit de *diligere* accepto notionaliter, et connotante aliquid essentiale, ac distincto a *spirare*, sicut *dicere* a *generare*. Nam termini *spirare* et *diligere* eandem quidem rem, sed diversa ratione significant. Differunt enim sicut *quo* persona producitur differt a *modo* huius productionis. Sed transitus a *re* ad *modum* est contra regulas logicae. Quoad solut. ad 6. cfr. S. Thom. loc. cit. ad 2.

**III.** Alii auctores hanc quaestionem simul tractant cum sequenti. Alex. Hal., de hac et seq. q. S. p. I. q. 67. m. 3. a. 3. — Scot., de hac et seq. q. hic et *Report.* q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 37. a. 2. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 1. 2; S. p. I. tr. 12. q. 50. m. 1. q. 3. *incid.* — Petr. a Tar., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Richard. a Med., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 1. 2. — Ægid. R., de hac et seq. q. hic 1. *princ.* q. 1. — Henr. Gand., de hac et seq. q. S. a. 61. q. 7. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — de Biel, hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** This question presupposes that the Holy Spirit proceeds by the mode of mutual charity and as the bond of the Father and the Son, concerning which see above d. 10, a. 1, q. 2–3, and a. 2, q. 2. — On the sense of this locution Peter Lombard (here c. 1) ventured to define nothing, and many opinions arose, of which five are reviewed by Albert, nine by St. Thomas (in *Comment.* here q. I, a. I), and three here by St. Bonaventure. The first opinion here set out, that St. Augustine retracted this very locution, is ascribed to a certain Gotfred; the second is followed by Durandus, who (here q. 1) says that "all the foregoing propositions are simply false, if *to love* be taken notionally; but if taken essentially, they are thus true, although they are improper and therefore must be expounded" (namely, that they be taken by appropriation, since love is appropriated to the Holy Spirit). This opinion is overthrown by two arguments set out in the body (but in distinct places). The third opinion is that of Hugh of St. Victor, to whom St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, B. Albert, Alex. Hal. (the opinion of Durandus is falsely attributed to him), Petr. a Tar., Richard a Med. and others give support. This is best explained in the solution to [argument] 3 (cf. above d. 27, p. II, q. 1, and d. 10, dub. 3). — Scotus uses the foundations laid by St. Bonaventure to [argument] 3, distinguishing between essential and notional love (just as between *to understand* and *to speak*), and resolves that the locution is false, both if *to love* be taken purely essentially, and if taken purely notionally; nevertheless it is true if taken in a middle way, so that the sense is: they produce the Holy Spirit, having a certain relation to the producers, of whom he himself is the love. He also argues quite subtly against the reasons of St. Thomas. Whoever finds these inquiries more subtle than useful pleasing can see them in Cajetan (on *S.* I, q. 37, a. 2); in the Scotist commentator Lychetus (here q. 1); and in Bada, *controv.* 17; Macedo, *coll.* 9, *diff.* 1, and many other authors of both schools.

**II.** In the solution to [argument] 5 the minor is denied, namely that God's love toward us is wholly essential, although it connotes something essential. The same is taught more expressly by St. Thomas (loc. cit. ad 3), where he says: "It must be said that the Father loves not only the Son, but also himself and us by the Holy Spirit." Scotus indeed (loc. cit., n. 14), according to his own way, does not approve this, and Suarez also thinks that this locution is not proper nor easily to be employed. On the foundation of the opinion of the Angelic and the Seraphic Doctor cf. above d. 27, p. II, q. 2, and d. 18, q. 2, 5. — But this proposition: *the Father loves himself by the Holy Spirit*, the Seraphic [Doctor] (at the end of the body) does not seem to concede, which nevertheless St. Thomas (*S.* I, q. 37, a. 2, ad 3) and Scotus do not hesitate to admit. But St. Bonaventure speaks there of love purely essential and of the Holy Spirit personally, not of *to love* insofar as "it imports also a person produced by the mode of love, who has a relation to the thing loved" (so St. Thomas at loc. cit.). Of *to love* not wholly essential St. Bonaventure treats in the solution to [arguments] 4, 6, where he discusses *to love* taken notionally, and connoting something essential, and distinct from *to spirate*, just as *to speak* [is distinct] from *to generate*. For the terms *to spirate* and *to love* signify the same thing indeed, but under a different account. For they differ as the *by-which* by which a person is produced differs from the *mode* of this production. But the transition from the *thing* to the *mode* is against the rules of logic. As to the solution to [argument] 6, cf. St. Thomas loc. cit. ad 2.

**III.** Other authors treat this question together with the following one. Alex. Hal., on this and the following question, *S.* p. I, q. 67, m. 3, a. 3. — Scot., on this and the following question here and *Report.* q. 1. — St. Thom., here q. 1, a. 1; *S.* I, q. 37, a. 2. — B. Albert., on this and the following question here a. 1, 2; *S.* p. I, tr. 12, q. 50, m. 1, q. 3, *incid.* — Petr. a Tar., on this and the following question here q. 1. — Richard a Med., on this and the following question here a. 1, 2. — Ægid. R., on this and the following question here 1 *princ.* q. 1. — Henr. Gand., on this and the following question *S.* a. 61, q. 7. — Durand., on this and the following question here q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 1. — de Biel, on this and the following question here q. 1, 2.

---

translators_notes: [Notes pending]


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 559 -->

### Quaestio II.
#### *In qua habitudine ille ablativus construatur, si dicitur: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each entry gives first the Latin source text (**La.**), then the English rendering (**En.**).

Secundo quaeritur, in qua habitudine construatur ille ablativus, cum sic dicitur: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto. Et quod in habitudine formae videtur:

1. Per simile, quia Petrus[^1] diligit amore a se procedente formaliter: ergo pari ratione Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto formaliter.

2. Item, nihil denominat aliquid, ad quod comparatur ut ad principium solum, nisi comparetur ut informans — nam quamvis cursus sit a Deo, non tamen Deus dicitur currere — sed amor est a Patre et Filio, et illo[^2] dicuntur amare: ergo amor est in ratione formae.

3. Item, omni nexu aliqui nectuntur formaliter; sed Spiritus sanctus est nexus: ergo aliqui illo necluntur, et non nisi Pater et Filius: ergo etc.

4. Item, omni albedine aliquis est albus formaliter, ergo omni amore aliquis est amans formaliter; sed non est amans formaliter amore, nisi ille cuius est amor: cum ergo Spiritus sanctus sit amor Patris et Filii, patet etc.

**Contra:**

1. Omne quod diligit formaliter alio a se, habet diligere solum per participationem: ergo si Pater et Filius diligunt formaliter alio a se, ergo diligunt per participationem. Sed hoc est inconveniens: ergo etc.

2. Item, si aliquis diligit aliquo formaliter, illo circumscripto, impossibile est intelligere amorem in eo sive ipsum amare: ergo si Pater et Filius[^3] diligunt se Spiritu sancto, impossibile est intelligere Patrem amare, non intellecto Spiritu sancto; sed hoc est falsum: ergo et primum.

3. Item, nulla hypostasis est forma; sed amor, qui est Spiritus sanctus, est hypostasis: ergo non est forma, ergo nullus illo amore diligit formaliter.

4. Item, nullum relativum potest esse forma sui correlativi — quia ex forma et formato fit unum, relativum autem distinguitur a correlativo — sed amor, qui est Spiritus sanctus, correlative se habet ad Patrem et Filium: ergo etc.

<!-- page 560 -->

5. Item, omnis forma est ante illud cuius est forma; ergo si Pater et Filius diligunt se[^4] Spiritu sancto formaliter, amor ille praecedit diligere Patris et Filii. Sed hoc falsum est, quia dilectio producitur: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> *Cum dicimus Patrem et Filium se Spiritu sancto diligere, ablativus ille construitur in ratione quasi effectus formalis, et ideo aliquo modo in ratione formae.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliquorum positio fuit, quod ablativus ille construitur in ratione signi, non in ratione formae. Nam Spiritus sanctus se habet per modum producti respectu dilectionis Patris et Filii, et ideo illius est signum. Unde dicunt, quod is est sensus locutionis: Pater et Filius diligunt se: et huius signum est, quia concorditer spirant Spiritum sanctum, qui est amor unicus et indivisus. — Sed haec positio non est sufficiens. Nam si ablativus posset construi vere in ratione signi cum verbo, tunc haec esset vera: Pater et Filius diligunt se amore creato, quia amor creatus signum est illius; quam nullus concedit. — Si dicas, quod istud non est signum ita[^5] propinquum; obiicitur, quod tunc haec esset vera simpliciter: Pater est sapiens sapientia genita, cum sapientia genita sit maxime signum sapientiae in Patre generante.

Aliorum positio fuit, quod ablativus ille construitur in ratione formae. Dicunt enim, quod *diligere se* nihil aliud est, dictum de Patre et Filio, quam invicem connecti. Et quoniam nexu formaliter connectuntur, et Spiritus sanctus est ille nexus, ideo, formaliter loquendo, ista est vera: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto, sicut haec formaliter est vera: Pater et Filius nectuntur nexu. Sed haec positio non potest omnino stare, quia, cum dicitur: Pater et Filius nectuntur, aut nectuntur dicit aliquid, quod sit in Patre et Filio a Spiritu sancto, aut quod est in eis ut principium Spiritus sancti. Si quod est in eis a Spiritu sancto: ergo Pater et Filius aliquid recipiunt a Spiritu sancto; si aliquid, cum non possint recipere partem, ergo totum: ergo sunt a Spiritu sancto, quod est inconveniens. Restat ergo, quod hoc quod est *nectuntur* dicat aliquid, quod est in Patre et Filio ut principium Spiritus sancti — quamvis enim sit passiva secundum modum[^6], activa est secundum rem — et si hoc, Spiritus sanctus comparatur ad connexionem ut ad principium, non ergo ut in ratione formae omnino.

Patet igitur, quod prima positio dicit minus sufficienter; secunda dicit nimis abundanter, quia nimis exprimit. Et prima fuit Magistri Simonis Tornacensis; secunda fuit Magistri Gulielmi Antisiodorensis. Et licet neutra sit omnino sufficiens, tamen utraque habet in se aliquid veritatis. Nam prima dicit, quod Spiritus sanctus se habet ad Patrem et Filium per modum producti; et hoc quidem verum est. Secunda dicit, quod amor comparatur ad amantes ut in ratione formae; et hoc quidem verum est.

Et ideo ex his duabus positionibus, quarum una est insufficiens et alia excedens, colligitur media positio sobria et sufficiens; videlicet quod ille ablativus construitur in ratione effectus formalis, si licet[^7] nominare effectum quod est ex principio. Et haec fuit positio Magistri Hugonis de sancto Victore[^8], qui hic clare vidit veritatem. Unde redarguit illos, qui reputant hanc quaestionem insolubilem. Unde dicit, quod, sicut cum dicitur: ego diligo te amore a me procedente, ibi est constructio in ratione effectus formalis; sic in proposito. In hoc tamen est differentia, quia amor a te procedens est in te requiescens ut uniens et inhaerens, quia est accidens; sed in divinis amor a Patre et Filio procedens est in eis requiescens ut uniens, non tamen ut inhaerens, quia non est accidens, sed substantia et hypostasis; et ideo adhuc minus habet rationem formae.

Concedendae ergo sunt rationes ad hoc inductae, quia ablativus habet aliquo modo rationem formae. — Quod tamen ultimo obiicitur, non valet, quia omnis albedo est forma; sed aliquis amor est hypostasis.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud ergo quod in contrarium obiicitur: si formaliter alio diligunt, ergo per participationem; dicendum, quod *diligere* alio per essentiam facit participationem, sed alietas personalis non. Unde Hugo: «Animus humanus amor non est, sed ab ipso procedit amor, ideo se ipso non diligit; Pater vero amor est et Spiritus sanctus eius amor est, ideo diligit se ipso; diligit etiam Spiritu sancto»; et ideo patet, quod non per participationem. — Et ideo patet sequens; quia enim Pater se ipso diligit amore essentiali, ideo potest intelligi amare Pater, Spiritu sancto non intellecto; non sic autem est de amore notionali.

<!-- page 561 -->

*Ad 3, 4.* Rationes sequentes procedunt de forma, secundum quod habet perfectum actum formae. Formae enim est inhaerere, et ideo non est hypostasis; ideo etiam non distinguitur. Ibi vero ablativus cadit ab actu formae, qui est inhaerere, et tenet actum formae, qui est unire.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod forma praecedit illud cuius est forma; dicendum, quod loquitur de forma, secundum quod habet rationem causae, quia sic praecedit; sed ablativus cadit a ratione causalitatis, quia construitur per modum effectus formalis. Patet ergo, quod quodam modo est ibi ratio formae, quodam modo ratio signi; et in hoc patet responsio ad omnia quaesita.

---

english:
<!-- page 559 -->

### Question II.
#### *In what relation that ablative is construed when it is said: The Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit.*

Second, it is asked in what relation that ablative is construed when it is said thus: *The Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit*. And that it is in the relation of form is shown:

1. By a parallel: because Peter[^1] loves formally by a love proceeding from himself: therefore by parity of reason the Father and the Son love each other formally by the Holy Spirit.

2. Likewise, nothing denominates a thing to which it is compared only as to a principle, unless it is compared as informing — for although a course is from God, yet God is not said to run — but love is from the Father and the Son, and they are said to love by it[^2]: therefore love is in the relation of form.

3. Likewise, by every bond persons are bonded formally; but the Holy Spirit is the bond: therefore certain persons are bonded by him, and none other than the Father and the Son: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, by every whiteness someone is white formally, therefore by every love someone is loving formally; but he is not loving formally by a love unless it is his own love: since therefore the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and the Son, the conclusion is plain.

**On the contrary:**

1. Everything that loves formally by something other than itself has love only by participation: therefore if the Father and the Son love formally by something other than themselves, therefore they love by participation. But this is unfitting: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, if anyone loves by something formally, that being taken away, it is impossible to understand love in him or his loving itself: therefore if the Father and the Son[^3] love each other by the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to understand the Father loving without the Holy Spirit being understood; but this is false: therefore so is the first.

3. Likewise, no hypostasis is a form; but the love which is the Holy Spirit is a hypostasis: therefore he is not a form, therefore no one loves formally by that love.

4. Likewise, no relative can be the form of its correlative — because from form and what is formed there comes one thing, but a relative is distinguished from its correlative — but the love which is the Holy Spirit stands relatively to the Father and the Son: therefore etc.

<!-- page 560 -->

5. Likewise, every form is prior to that of which it is the form; therefore if the Father and the Son love each other[^4] formally by the Holy Spirit, that love precedes the loving of the Father and the Son. But this is false, because the love is produced: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> *When we say that the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit, that ablative is construed in the relation as it were of a formal effect, and so in some way in the relation of form.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the position of certain ones was that that ablative is construed in the relation of a sign, not in the relation of form. For the Holy Spirit stands in the manner of something produced with respect to the love of the Father and the Son, and therefore he is its sign. Whence they say that this is the sense of the locution: *the Father and the Son love each other*: and the sign of this is that they concordantly spirate the Holy Spirit, who is the unique and undivided love. — But this position is not sufficient. For if the ablative could truly be construed in the relation of a sign with the verb, then this would be true: *the Father and the Son love each other by a created love*, because a created love is a sign of that love; which no one concedes. — If you say that that is not so[^5] proximate a sign; the objection is that then this would be true simply: *the Father is wise by the begotten wisdom*, since the begotten wisdom is most of all a sign of the wisdom in the begetting Father.

The position of others was that that ablative is construed in the relation of form. For they say that *to love each other*, said of the Father and the Son, is nothing else than to be mutually connected. And since they are connected formally by a bond, and the Holy Spirit is that bond, therefore, formally speaking, this is true: *the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit*, just as this is formally true: *the Father and the Son are bonded by a bond*. But this position cannot stand entirely, because, when it is said: *the Father and the Son are bonded*, either *being bonded* says something which is in the Father and the Son from the Holy Spirit, or which is in them as the principle of the Holy Spirit. If something which is in them from the Holy Spirit: therefore the Father and the Son receive something from the Holy Spirit; if something, since they cannot receive a part, therefore the whole: therefore they are from the Holy Spirit, which is unfitting. It remains, therefore, that this *being bonded* says something which is in the Father and the Son as the principle of the Holy Spirit — for although it is passive according to its mode[^6], it is active according to the thing — and if this, the Holy Spirit is compared to the connection as to a principle, therefore not entirely as in the relation of form.

It is plain, therefore, that the first position says less than is sufficient; the second says too abundantly, because it expresses too much. And the first was that of Master Simon of Tournai; the second was that of Master William of Auxerre. And although neither is entirely sufficient, yet each has in itself something of truth. For the first says that the Holy Spirit stands to the Father and the Son in the manner of something produced; and this indeed is true. The second says that love is compared to the lovers as in the relation of form; and this indeed is true.

And therefore from these two positions, of which one is insufficient and the other excessive, there is gathered a middle position, sober and sufficient; namely, that that ablative is construed in the relation of a formal effect, if it is permitted[^7] to name as an effect what is from a principle. And this was the position of Master Hugh of St. Victor[^8], who here clearly saw the truth. Whence he reproves those who reckon this question insoluble. Whence he says that, just as when it is said: *I love thee with a love proceeding from me*, there is a construction in the relation of a formal effect, so it is in the proposition. In this, however, there is a difference, because love proceeding from thee is resting in thee as uniting and inhering, since it is an accident; but in divine matters love proceeding from the Father and the Son is resting in them as uniting, yet not as inhering, since it is not an accident, but a substance and a hypostasis; and therefore it has even less of the relation of form.

The reasons brought forward to this effect are therefore to be conceded, since the ablative has in some way the relation of form. — But what is objected last does not hold, because every whiteness is a form; but some love is a hypostasis.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1, 2.* To what is objected to the contrary: if they love formally by something other [than themselves], therefore by participation; it must be said that *to love* by something other through essence makes participation, but personal otherness does not. Whence Hugh: «The human soul is not love, but love proceeds from it, therefore it does not love by itself; but the Father is love, and the Holy Spirit is his love, therefore he loves by himself; he loves also by the Holy Spirit»; and therefore it is plain that not by participation. — And from this what follows is plain; for since the Father loves by himself by an essential love, therefore the Father can be understood to love without the Holy Spirit being understood; but it is not so concerning notional love.

<!-- page 561 -->

*To 3, 4.* The following reasons proceed from form, according as it has the perfect act of form. For it belongs to a form to inhere, and therefore it is not a hypostasis; therefore also it is not distinguished. But there the ablative falls away from the act of form which is to inhere, and holds the act of form which is to unite.

*To 5.* To what is objected last, that form precedes that of which it is the form; it must be said that he is speaking of form according as it has the relation of cause, because thus it precedes; but the ablative falls away from the relation of causality, because it is construed in the manner of a formal effect. It is plain, therefore, that in some way there is here the relation of form, in some way the relation of a sign; and in this lies the response to all that has been asked.

---

la: Vat. *Pater*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *Pater* (Father).

la: Primi codd. *ideo*; mendose.

en: The first codices read *ideo* (therefore); erroneously.

la: Cod. bene subiicit *formaliter*, et subinde permulti codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt *se*.

en: A codex rightly subjoins *formaliter* (formally), and accordingly very many codices, together with the first edition, omit *se* (each other).

la: Permulti codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt *se*, ut supra.

en: Very many codices, together with the first edition, omit *se* (each other), as above.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc omittit *ita*; non bene.

en: The Vatican edition, together with codex cc, omits *ita* (so); not rightly.

la: Supple cum codd. aa bb *dicendi*. — Post proximum verbum *activa* Vat. interiicit *tamen*.

en: Supply with codices aa and bb *dicendi* (of saying / of grammatical voice). — After the next word *activa* (active) the Vatican edition interjects *tamen* (yet).

la: Pro *si licet* codd. GIKST bb *(s)liceat*, omisso *si*. Cod. Y hunc locum sic ampliatum exhibet: *effectus formalis, non secundum quod forma habeat materiam perficiendi, sed connectendi, ut liceat*.

en: For *si licet* (if it is permitted) codices GIKST bb read *liceat* (let it be permitted), omitting *si*. Codex Y exhibits this place expanded thus: «of a formal effect, not according as the form has matter to be perfected, but to be connected, that it may be permitted».

la: Non invenitur in Hugone, sed in opusculo impresso inter opera Richardi a S. Vict., cui titulus: *Quomodo Spiritus sanctus est amor Patris et Filii*, ubi legitur: «Similiter quod Pater Spiritu sancto diligere dicitur, non sic intelligitur, quasi Spiritus sanctus auctor et origo existat dilectionis, quae Pater est, et pro arbitrio amat quod amat, sed quod Pater eam dilectionem, qua Filius diligitur et Spiritus sanctus est, spirat et illius auctor et origo existat... Animus humanus amor non est, sed ab ipso amor procedit, et ideo se ipso non diligit, sed amore, qui a se ipso procedit. Pater vero amor est, et Spiritus sanctus eius amor est, et ideo Pater diligit se ipso, diligit Spiritu sancto; diligit se ipso amore, diligit suo amore... Si recte diligere diceris amore, qui de te procedit, cur Pater et Filius non recte dicantur diligere amore, qui ex ipsis procedit? Haeccine, frater, est illa quaestio, quam insolubilem putant, insolubilem et dicunt et scribunt?»

en: It is not found in Hugh, but in a little work printed among the works of Richard of St. Victor, with the title *In what manner the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and the Son*, where it reads: «Likewise, that the Father is said to love by the Holy Spirit is not understood as if the Holy Spirit existed as the author and origin of the love which the Father is, and at his pleasure loves what he loves, but rather that the Father spirates that love by which the Son is loved and which the Holy Spirit is, and is its author and origin... The human soul is not love, but love proceeds from it, and therefore it does not love by itself, but by the love which proceeds from itself. But the Father is love, and the Holy Spirit is his love, and therefore the Father loves by himself, he loves by the Holy Spirit; he loves by himself by love, he loves by his own love... If you are rightly said to love by the love which proceeds from you, why may not the Father and the Son rightly be said to love by the love which proceeds from them? Is this, brother, that question which they reckon insoluble, and call and write of as insoluble?»

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. 32, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 561 -->

### Articulus II.
#### *De locutione: Pater est sapientia genita, et de alia: Pater est potens virtute, quam genuit.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each entry gives first the Latin source text (**La.**), then the English rendering (**En.**).

Consequenter est quaestio principalis de hac locutione: Pater est sapiens sapientia genita. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum illa locutio sit admittenda. Secundo, ad intellectum[^1] huius, utrum sit haec admittenda: Pater est potens virtute, quam genuit.

### Quaestio I.
#### *Utrum recte dici possit: Pater est sapiens sapientia genita.*

Quod autem prima locutio sit admittenda, ostenditur hoc modo.

1. Primae ad Corinthios primo[^2]: *Christum dicimus Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam*; sed unusquisque est sapiens sua sapientia: ergo si Christus est sapientia Patris et est sapientia genita, Pater est sapiens sapientia genita.

<!-- page 562 -->

2. Item, Augustinus sexto *de Trinitate*[^3]: «Filius est ars quaedam omnipotentis et sapientis Dei, ubi omnia novit»; sed unusquisque artifex est sapiens sua arte: ergo Pater est sapiens Filio: ergo etc.

3. Item, hoc videtur ratione per simile: quia omnis amans, a quo procedit amor, est amans amore a se procedente: ergo omnis sapiens, a quo procedit sapientia, est sapiens sapientia a se emanante; sed Pater est huiusmodi: ergo etc.

4. Item, Augustinus decimo quinto *de Trinitate*[^4]: «Novit Deus Pater omnia in se ipso, et novit in Filio»; sed idem est nosse omnia et sapientissimum esse: si ergo omnia novit, non tantum se ipso, sed etiam Filio est sapiens.

5. Item, Deus Pater omnia dicit Verbo, sicut dicit Augustinus undecimo *Confessionum*[^5]: «Verbo tibi coaeterno dicis quaecumque dicis»; sed «dicere, ut dicit Anselmus, est intelligere»: ergo Pater omnia intelligit mediante Verbo: ergo cum idem sit esse sapientem et intelligere, patet etc.

**Contra:**

1. In divinis *sapere* est *esse*[^6]: ergo si Pater est sapiens sapientia genita, ergo est sapientia genita; hoc autem falsum est: ergo et primum.

2. Item, non intellecta generatione, adhuc est intelligere Deum sapientem: ergo sapientia genita non est ratio sapientiae Dei.

### Conclusio.

> *Locutio: Pater est sapiens sapientia genita, est simpliciter falsa.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sine distinctione, cum esse sapientem dicatur essentialiter, quod locutio est simpliciter falsa; et si alicubi legitur ab aliquo Sancto, est exponenda. Unde Augustinus in libro *Retractationum*[^7] illam retractat dicens, quod melius illam quaestionem in libro *de Trinitate* tractavit, ubi scilicet dicit contrarium ostendens, illam rationem non valere: si Pater fuit sine Filio, cum Filius sit eius sapientia, Pater fuit insipiens; quia sapientia non tantum convenit Filio, sed Patri et Filio et Spiritui sancto. Et hoc ipsum dicit *de Trinitate* in pluribus locis, sed maxime in sexto et decimo quinto[^8].

**Ad argumenta...**

*Ad 1, 2, 3.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Filius est sapientia et ars[^9] Patris; dicendum, quod ista conceditur: Filius est sapientia Patris sapientis: nec tamen ista: Pater est sapiens sapientia genita. Unde notandum, quod cum dicitur sapientia alicuius, hoc dicitur dupliciter: aut sicut subiecti, ut albedo Petri, aut sicut principii; genitivus enim originem importat[^10]. Quoniam ergo Filius est sapientia habens originem a Patre, ideo haec est vera: Filius est sapientia Patris. Cum autem dicitur: Pater est sapiens sapientia genita, ablativus construitur in ratione alicuius causalitatis, vel in habitudine formae vel principii, et maxime formae; et ideo falsa est, quia Filius nec forma nec principium est Patris. — Si tu quaeras, quare non construitur in ratione formalis effectus, sicut amor cum amante, a quo procedit[^11]; dicendum, quod non est simile. Et huius duplex est ratio, una communis, alia specialis: communis, quae sumta est a creaturis[^12], quoniam quidam sunt actus, qui dicunt motum a rebus ad animam, ut sapientia, quidam ab anima ad res, ut amare[^13]. Ideo comparatio amoris ad amantem est in ratione exeuntis, non in ratione impartientis, et ideo amor de se importat formam et effectum; sed sapientia, quia dicit ut ad intelligentem, non ut ab intelligente, ideo ablativus tantum importat formam, non effectum: et ideo est locutio falsa. — Alia ratio est specialis in divinis, quia amor procedens est amor proprie, non per appropriationem, et diligere est similiter dictum notionaliter, unde importat originem, ut supra monstratum est; sed sapientia semper essentialiter, et hoc quod est esse sapientem nullo modo dicitur notionaliter, quia nullo modo importat originem. Et ideo est locutio falsa.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Pater novit omnia in Filio; dicendum, quod differt dicere: novit Filio et in Filio. Nam cum dicitur: novit Filio, ablativus importat rationem formae vel principii cognoscendi; et ideo falsa est simpliciter. Haec tamen est distinguenda: novit in Filio, quia <!-- page 563 -->praepositio *in* cum suo casuali potest determinare hoc verbum *novit* in comparatione ad subiectum; et tunc est locutio falsa: est enim sensus, quod Filius sit Patri ratio cognoscendi. Vel potest verbum determinare in comparatione ad obiectum; et tunc vera est, et est sensus, quod Filius sit rebus cognitis ratio et exemplar et causa exemplandi. Et quod iste possit esse sensus locutionis, patet. Qui enim perfecte cognoscit aliquem, cognoscit omne quod est in illo: si ergo Pater perfecte cognoscit Filium, et in Filio sunt omnia, ergo omnia cognoscit in Filio. Nec tamen ex hoc sequitur, quod sit sapiens Filio, quia tunc significatur, quod Filius sit ratio cognoscendi ipsi Patri.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod Pater dicit omnia Verbo; dicendum, quod hoc quod est *dicere* importat originem, importat etiam effectum in creatura, quem efficit per Verbum[^14]; sed *intelligere* non importat de se nisi solummodo actum essentialem, ita quod nec importat de se respectum ad personam nec ad creaturam. Ideo non omnino idem est dicere *dicit omnia Verbo*, et *intelligit omnia Verbo*: dicere enim idem est quod intelligere, sed amplius importat.

english:
<!-- page 561 -->

### Article II.
#### *On the manner of speaking: "The Father is begotten wisdom," and on the other: "The Father is powerful by the power which he begot."*

Consequently there is a principal question concerning this manner of speaking: *The Father is wise with begotten wisdom*. And concerning this two questions are asked. First, it is asked whether that locution is to be admitted. Second, for the understanding[^1] of this, whether this is to be admitted: *The Father is powerful by the power which he begot*.

### Question I.
#### *Whether it can rightly be said: The Father is wise with begotten wisdom.*

That this first locution is to be admitted is shown in the following way.

1. *First* to the Corinthians, chapter 1[^2]: *We preach Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God*; but each one is wise by his own wisdom: therefore if Christ is the wisdom of the Father and is begotten wisdom, the Father is wise with begotten wisdom.

<!-- page 562 -->

2. Likewise, Augustine, *On the Trinity* VI[^3]: "The Son is a certain art of the omnipotent and wise God, in which he knows all things"; but each artisan is wise by his own art: therefore the Father is wise by the Son: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this seems [to follow] by reason from a parallel: because every lover, from whom love proceeds, is one who loves with a love proceeding from himself: therefore every wise one, from whom wisdom proceeds, is wise with a wisdom emanating from himself; but the Father is of this sort: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, Augustine, *On the Trinity* XV[^4]: "God the Father knows all things in himself, and knows [them] in the Son"; but to know all things and to be most wise are the same: if therefore he knows all things, not only by himself, but also by the Son he is wise.

5. Likewise, God the Father speaks all things by the Word, as Augustine says in *Confessions* XI[^5]: "By the Word coeternal to you, you say whatever you say"; but "to speak, as Anselm says, is to understand": therefore the Father understands all things by means of the Word: therefore since to be wise and to understand are the same, it is clear etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. In the divine [things] *to be wise* is *to be*[^6]: therefore if the Father is wise with begotten wisdom, then he is begotten wisdom; but this is false: therefore the first one [is also false].

2. Likewise, generation not being understood, it is still [possible] to understand God to be wise: therefore begotten wisdom is not the ground of God's wisdom.

### Conclusion.

> *The locution "The Father is wise with begotten wisdom" is simply false.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, without distinction, since *to be wise* is said essentially, this locution is simply false; and if it is read anywhere by some Saint, it must be expounded. Whence Augustine in the book of *Retractations*[^7] retracts it, saying that he treated that question better in the book *On the Trinity*, where indeed he says the contrary, showing that the [former] reasoning does not hold: that if the Father were without the Son, since the Son is his wisdom, the Father would have been unwise; for wisdom belongs not only to the Son, but to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And he says this same thing *On the Trinity* in many places, but most of all in book six and book fifteen[^8].

**To the arguments...**

*To 1, 2, 3.* To that which is objected, that the Son is the wisdom and art[^9] of the Father; it must be said that this is conceded: *The Son is the wisdom of the wise Father*; but not this: *The Father is wise with begotten wisdom*. Whence it must be noted that when *wisdom of someone* is said, this is said in two ways: either as of a subject, like *Peter's whiteness*, or as of a principle; for the genitive imports origin[^10]. Since therefore the Son is wisdom having origin from the Father, this is true: *The Son is the wisdom of the Father*. But when it is said: *The Father is wise with begotten wisdom*, the ablative is construed in the account of some causality, or in the relation of form or principle, and especially of form; and so it is false, because the Son is neither form nor principle of the Father. — If you ask why it is not construed in the account of formal effect, as love [is construed] with the lover from whom it proceeds[^11]; it must be said that it is not similar. And of this there is a twofold reason, one common, the other special: the common one, taken from creatures[^12], because some acts are which express motion from things to the soul, like wisdom, and some [express motion] from the soul to things, like loving[^13]. Hence the comparison of love to the lover is in the account of [something] going out, not in the account of [something] imparting, and therefore love of itself imports form and effect; but wisdom, since it is said as [going] toward one understanding, not as [going] from one understanding, therefore the ablative imports only form, not effect: and so the locution is false. — The other reason is special in the divine [things], because proceeding love is love properly, not by appropriation, and *to love* is similarly said notionally, whence it imports origin, as was shown above; but wisdom always [is said] essentially, and that which is *to be wise* is in no way said notionally, since it in no way imports origin. And therefore the locution is false.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that the Father knows all things in the Son; it must be said that there is a difference between saying "knows by the Son" and "knows in the Son." For when it is said "he knows by the Son," the ablative imports the account of form or principle of knowing; and therefore it is simply false. This, however, must be distinguished: "he knows in the Son," because <!-- page 563 -->the preposition *in* with its case-form can determine this verb *novit* in comparison to the subject; and then the locution is false: for the sense is that the Son is to the Father the ground of knowing. Or the verb can determine [it] in comparison to the object; and then it is true, and the sense is that the Son is to the things known the ground and exemplar and cause of being exemplified. And that this can be the sense of the locution is clear. For he who perfectly knows someone, knows everything which is in him: if therefore the Father perfectly knows the Son, and in the Son are all things, then he knows all things in the Son. Nor yet does it follow from this that he is wise by the Son, because then it would be signified that the Son is the ground of knowing for the Father himself.

*To 5.* To that which is objected last, that the Father speaks all things by the Word; it must be said that *to speak* imports origin, [and] also imports effect in the creature, which he produces through the Word[^14]; but *to understand* of itself imports nothing except an essential act alone, in such wise that it imports of itself neither a relation to a person nor to a creature. Therefore *to say "he speaks all things by the Word"* and *"he understands all things by the Word"* are not entirely the same: for *to speak* is the same as *to understand*, but imports more.

la: Ed. 1 *intelligentiam*.

en: Edition 1 [reads] *intelligentiam* ["the understanding"].

la: Vers. 24.

en: Verse 24.

la: Cap. 10. n. 11. Integrum textum vide supra *Magistri*, d. XXXI. c. 2.

en: Chapter 10, n. 11. For the full text see above the *text of the Master*, d. XXXI, c. 2.

en: Chapter 14, n. 23.

la: Cap. 7. n. 9. — Textus Anselmi invenitur in eius *Monolog.* c. 32: *Si nihil apud se (summus spiritus) diceret — cum sit illi sic dicere aliquid quod est intelligere — non aliquid intelligeret.* Cfr. et supra d. 27. p. II. q. 1. seq.

en: Chapter 7, n. 9. — The text of Anselm is found in his *Monologion*, c. 32: "*If [the supreme spirit] should say nothing within himself — since for him to say something is the same as to understand — he would not understand anything.*" Cf. also above d. 27, p. II, q. 1 seq.

la: August., VII. *de Trin.* c. 1. n. 1. 2. Vide hic *lit. Magistri*, c. 2.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* VII, c. 1, n. 1–2. See here the *text of the Master*, c. 2.

la: Libr. 1. c. 26, ubi hanc sententiam, in libr. 83 *Qq.* q. 23. prolatam, retractat. — Subinde plures codd. cum ed. 1 *recitat* pro *retractat*.

en: Book 1, c. 26, where he retracts this opinion, set forth in the book *83 Questions*, q. 23. — Then several codices with edition 1 [read] *recitat* in place of *retractat*.

la: Libr. VI. c. 1. n. 1. seqq., et XV. c. 7. n. 12. Cfr. etiam VII. c. 1–4.

en: Book VI, c. 1, n. 1ff., and XV, c. 7, n. 12. Cf. also VII, c. 1–4.

la: Pro *ars* Vat. et nonnulli codd. *virtus*; non bene, quia haec solutio respicit etiam secundam obiectionem, quae agit de arte.

en: In place of *ars*, the Vatican [edition] and several codices [read] *virtus*; not well, since this solution regards also the second objection, which deals with art.

la: Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. dub. 3, et d. 11. dub. 3. Vide et Scot., *Grammat. specul.* c. 19.

en: Cf. above d. 3, p. II, dub. 3, and d. 11, dub. 3. See also Scotus, *Grammatica speculativa*, c. 19.

la: De quo vide art. praec. q. 2.

en: On which see the preceding article, q. 2.

la: Vat. cum uno et altero cod. *distinguit* pro *distinguitur*, ut ex obiect. 1. patet.

en: The Vatican [edition], with one or another codex, [reads] *distinguit* in place of *distinguitur*, as is clear from objection 1.

la: Cfr. Aristot., III. *de Anima*, text. 38. 46. et 54. (c. 8–10.). Idem VI. *Metaph.* text. 8, (V. c. 4.) respectu obiecti horum actuum dicit, quod bonum et malum sint in rebus, sed verum et falsum in mente. — Paulo inferius Vat. cum cod. cc *dicitur* pro *dicit*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* III, text 38, 46, and 54 (c. 8–10). The same one, *Metaphysics* VI, text 8 (V, c. 4), with respect to the object of these acts says that good and evil are in things, but true and false in the mind. — A little below, the Vatican [edition] with codex cc [reads] *dicitur* in place of *dicit*.

la: Dist. 10. a. 2. q. 1, et hic a. 1. q. 1. — Paulo superius post *dictum* cod. addit *non essentialiter tantum, sed*.

en: Distinction 10, a. 2, q. 1, and here a. 1, q. 1. — A little above, after *dictum*, a codex adds *non essentialiter tantum, sed* ["not only essentially, but"].

latin_scholion:
**I.** Cum sapientia, quae est attributum essentiale et tribus divinis personis commune, approprietur Filio, qui vocatur sapientia genita, in hac quaestione tractatur de sapientia ut appropriata Filio. — Circa retractationem, quam fecit S. Augustinus, quaeritur, quo sensu intelligi debeat, cum non supponendum sit, illuminatum hunc doctorem unquam negasse, Patrem sapientem esse per suam essentialem sapientiam. Fortasse ipse antea crediderat, Patrem posse aliquo modo denominari sapientem a Sapientia genita, quod, ut valde improprium retractavit (cfr. hic dub. 3.).

**II.** De solut. ad 1. et significatione genitivi vide dub. 7. In solut. ad 1. S. Doctor duplicem sensum locutionis *nosse in aliquo* distinguit. Eandem distinctionem S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 1. ad 3.) sic explicat: «Videre in aliquo dicitur dupliciter: aut cuius cognitionem in eo accipit, sicut... discipulus in verbo magistri, dicto vel scripto; aut rem cognitam in alio repraesentatam intueri, sicut aedificator videt artem suam in domo, quam facit».

**III.** Conclusio constat apud omnes. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 67. m. 3. a. 2. § 3. — Scot., in utroque Scripto, hic q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; S. I. q. 39. a. 7. ad 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. 4; S. p. I. tr. 12. q. 50. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Ægid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 1. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 38. q. 2, a. 40. q. 6. n. 8. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. — Biel, hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Since wisdom, which is an essential attribute and common to the three divine persons, is appropriated to the Son, who is called *begotten wisdom*, in this question wisdom is treated as appropriated to the Son. — Concerning the retractation which St. Augustine made, it is asked in what sense it ought to be understood, since it must not be supposed that this enlightened Doctor ever denied that the Father is wise by his own essential wisdom. Perhaps he had previously believed that the Father could in some way be denominated wise from begotten Wisdom, which, as very improper, he retracted (cf. here dub. 3.).

**II.** On the solution to [argument] 1 and the signification of the genitive, see dub. 7. In the solution to [argument] 1 the holy Doctor distinguishes a twofold sense of the locution *to know in someone*. The same distinction is explained thus by St. Thomas (here q. 2, a. 1, ad 3): "*To see in something* is said in two ways: either [in him] from whom one receives knowledge of it, as a disciple [sees] in the word of the master, whether spoken or written; or to behold the thing known as represented in another, as a builder sees his art in the house which he makes."

**III.** The conclusion is established by all. Alex. Hal., *S.* p. I, q. 67, m. 3, a. 2, § 3. — Scotus, in both *Scripta*, here q. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1; *S.* I, q. 39, a. 7, ad 2. — B. Albert, here a. 3, 4; *S.* p. I, tr. 12, q. 50, m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 2, a. 1. — Richard a Med., here a. 2, q. 1. — Ægid. R., here 2 *princ.* q. 1. — Henr. Gand., *S.* a. 38, q. 2, a. 40, q. 6, n. 8. — Durand., here q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 2. — Biel, here q. 1.

---


title: Dist. 32, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 563 -->

### Quaestio II.
#### *Utrum recte dici possit: Pater est potens potentia sive virtute, quam genuit.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each entry gives first the Latin source text (**La.**), then the English rendering (**En.**).

Secundo quaeritur, utrum haec locutio sit admittenda: Pater est potens potentia, quam genuit, sive virtute. Et videtur quod sic:

1. Quia quicumque operatur per aliquem et non potest operari sine eo, habet potentiam ab eo; sed Pater operatur per Filium et non potest operari sine Filio[^1]: ergo etc.

2. Item, in divinis idem est virtus et operatio[^2]; ergo cum Pater operetur per Filium, potest per Filium; sed quicumque potest per alterum, est potens potentia illius: ergo Pater est potens potentia genita.

3. Item, sicut se habet nosse ad sapientiam, ita operari ad potentiam; sed bene sequitur: iste novit per illum, ergo est sapiens per illum[^3]: ergo bene sequitur: iste operatur per illum, ergo habet potentiam ab illo sive per illum: ergo etc.

4. Item, cum dicitur: Pater operatur per Filium, haec praepositio *per* aut importat causam, aut instrumentum. Non instrumentum, quia tunc Filius non vere cooperaretur Patri; et iterum, esset[^4] indigens, si ageret per instrumentum: ergo in ratione causae. Et si hoc, ergo Filius dat operari Patri: ergo et potentiam operandi[^5]. Si tu dicas quod non dicit rationem causalitatis sed subauctoritatis; cum ergo similiter habeat Spiritus sanctus subauctoritatem in operando, sicut Filius, qua ratione dicitur Pater operari per Filium, eadem ratione et per Spiritum sanctum. Si dicas, quod hoc est dictum per appropriationem; quaero rationem appropriandi. Cum enim operatio sit per potentiam, et potentia approprietur Patri, non Filio, non ergo Filio poterit appropriari[^6] operari per Filium.

<!-- page 564 -->

5. Item, cum immediata causa operationis sit voluntas, et illa approprietur Spiritui sancto, videtur, quod magis debeat dici[^7] *operari per Spiritum sanctum*, quam *per Filium*.

**Contra:**

1. Idem est me potentem quod me[^8]: ergo si Pater est potens potentia genita, ergo habet esse ab illa.

2. Item, potentia appropriatur Patri, ergo nec per proprietatem nec per appropriationem convenit Filio: ergo talis locutio magis est impropria quam ista: Pater est sapiens sapientia genita.

3. Item, potentia, qua aliquis est potens, secundum ordinem intelligendi antecedit posse; sed generatio secundum ordinem intelligendi sequitur posse: ergo haec est omnino falsa: Pater est potens potentia genita.

### Conclusio.

> *Locutio: Pater est potens potentia genita, est simpliciter falsa; sed alia est vera: Pater operatur per Filium.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod haec est simpliciter falsa: Pater est potens potentia genita, et magis impropria quam aliqua praedictarum. — Ad intelligentiam autem obiectorum notandum, quod haec regula consuevit dari de hac praepositione *per*, quod cum verbo absoluto importat auctoritatem, ut cum dicitur: *iste est bonus per illum*, vel *sapiens* vel *potens*. Cum verbo vero transitivo importat subauctoritatem, ut *rex punit per ballivum*[^9]. Dicendum est igitur, quod haec est falsa: Pater est potens per Filium; haec tamen est vera: Pater operatur per Filium. Et non valet argumentum: *operatur per illum, ergo potest per illum*, quia *per* primo importat causalitatem respectu effectus, et postmodum respectu Patris.

**Ad argumenta...**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod qui operatur per aliquem, potest per illum; dicendum, quod hoc falsum est, quia hoc non est, quod habeat potentiam ab illo, sed quod habet potentiam cum illo indivisam et dat illi posse; ideo per illum operatur et non potest sine illo.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non differt operatio et potentia in Deo; dicendum quod verum est per comparationem ad Deum; differt tamen quantum ad effectum connotatum.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sequitur: *novit per Filium, ergo est sapiens per Filium*[^10]: ergo etc.; dicendum, quod non est simile de *nosse* et *operari*. Quamvis enim *nosse* sit verbum transitivum, tamen non connotat effectum sicut *operari*; et ideo per non potest cum ipso importare subauctoritatem; ubi enim est subauctoritas, notatur, quod aliquid sit a duobus et ab uno per alterum. Et sic patet illud.

*Ad 4 et 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, utrum dicat rationem causae vel instrumenti; dicendum, quod neutrum dicit proprie, sed subauctoritatem, quae importat rationem utriusque quantum ad id quod est ibi completionis. — Quod obiicitur, quod Filio non appropriatur[^11] *operari per ipsum*, quod operatio est per virtutem, responsio est, quod virtus appropriatur Filio sicut et dicitur primae ad Corinthios primo[^12]: *Christum dicimus Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam*. Ratio autem, quare virtus Filio appropriatur, est, quia virtus est ultimum potentiae sive est potentia ultimata[^13]. Quoniam igitur Filius producitur a Patre secundum omnimodam perfectionem potentiae, quia generare est actus perfectae potentiae — «perfectum est enim unumquodque, quando potest generare tale quale ipsum est[^14]» — quia igitur Filius accipit potentiam producendi aeque perfectum, sicut ipse et Pater est, ut Spiritum sanctum: ideo virtus ei appropriatur; ideo dicitur virtus Patris et dextera[^15], et Pater operari per Filium.

Aliter potest dici, quod virtus dicit immediatiorem ordinationem ad actum quam potentia, quia potentia ordinatur ad opus per dispositionem, et Filio appropriatur dispositio, ideo et potentia disposita[^16]. Et sic patent omnia quaesita.

english:
<!-- page 563 -->

### Question II.
#### *Whether it can rightly be said: The Father is powerful with the power or virtue which he begot.*

Second, it is asked whether this locution is to be admitted: *The Father is powerful with the power, or with the virtue, which he begot*. And it seems that he is:

1. Because whoever works through someone and cannot work without him, has power from him; but the Father works through the Son and cannot work without the Son[^1]: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in the divine [things] virtue and operation are the same[^2]; therefore since the Father works through the Son, he can [act] through the Son; but whoever can [act] through another, is powerful with the power of that one: therefore the Father is powerful with begotten power.

3. Likewise, as *to know* stands to *wisdom*, so does *to work* to *power*; but it well follows: *this one knows through him, therefore he is wise through him*[^3]: therefore it well follows: *this one works through him, therefore he has power from him* or *through him*: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, when it is said: *The Father works through the Son*, this preposition *per* ("through") imports either cause or instrument. Not instrument, because then the Son would not truly cooperate with the Father; and again, [the Father] would be in need[^4], if he were to act through an instrument: therefore [it is] in the account of cause. And if so, then the Son gives to the Father the power to work: therefore also the power of working[^5]. If you say that it does not state an account of causality but of sub-authority; then since the Holy Spirit likewise has sub-authority in working just as the Son does, by whatever account the Father is said to work through the Son, by the same account [he works] also through the Holy Spirit. If you say that this is said by appropriation; I ask the reason for the appropriation. For since operation is through power, and power is appropriated to the Father, not to the Son, it will not therefore be possible for *to work through the Son* to be appropriated[^6] to the Son.

<!-- page 564 -->

5. Likewise, since the immediate cause of operation is the will, and this is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, it seems that one ought rather to say[^7] *to work through the Holy Spirit*, than *through the Son*.

**On the contrary:**

1. *Me being powerful* is the same as *me*[^8]: therefore if the Father is powerful with begotten power, then he has being from it.

2. Likewise, power is appropriated to the Father, therefore it belongs to the Son neither by proprietas nor by appropriation: therefore such a locution is more improper than this: *The Father is wise with begotten wisdom*.

3. Likewise, the power by which someone is powerful, according to the order of understanding, precedes the *being-able*; but generation, according to the order of understanding, follows the *being-able*: therefore this is wholly false: *The Father is powerful with begotten power*.

### Conclusion.

> *The locution "The Father is powerful with begotten power" is simply false; but the other is true: "The Father works through the Son."*

**I respond:** It must be said that this is simply false: *The Father is powerful with begotten power*, and more improper than any of the foregoing. — But for the understanding of the objections it must be noted that this rule is wont to be given concerning this preposition *per* ("through"), that with an absolute verb it imports authority, as when it is said: *that one is good through him*, or *wise* or *powerful*. But with a transitive verb it imports sub-authority, as *the king punishes through the bailiff*[^9]. It must therefore be said that this is false: *The Father is powerful through the Son*; this however is true: *The Father works through the Son*. And the argument is not valid: *he works through him, therefore he can [act] through him*, because *per* primarily imports causality with respect to the effect, and afterward with respect to the Father.

**To the arguments...**

*To 1.* To that which is first objected, that he who works through someone can [act] through him; it must be said that this is false, because the case is not that he has power from him, but that he has power undivided with him and gives to him the *being-able*; and so [the Father] works through him and cannot [work] without him.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that operation and power do not differ in God; it must be said that this is true by comparison to God; nevertheless they differ as to the connoted effect.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that it follows: *he knows through the Son, therefore he is wise through the Son*[^10]: therefore etc.; it must be said that the case of *knowing* and of *working* is not similar. For although *to know* is a transitive verb, it nevertheless does not connote an effect as *to work* does; and therefore *per* cannot import sub-authority along with it [i.e. with *to know*]; for where there is sub-authority, it is denoted that something is from two and from one through the other. And so that [point] is clear.

*To 4 and 5.* To that which is objected, whether [*per*] expresses an account of cause or of instrument; it must be said that it expresses neither properly, but sub-authority, which imports the account of both as far as concerns what there is in it of completion. — As for what is objected, that *to work through him* is not appropriated to the Son[^11], since operation is through virtue, the response is that virtue is appropriated to the Son, just as it is also said in First Corinthians, chapter 1[^12]: *We preach Christ the virtue of God and the wisdom of God*. And the reason why virtue is appropriated to the Son is that virtue is the ultimate of power, or is ultimate power[^13]. Since therefore the Son is produced by the Father according to every kind of perfection of power — for to generate is an act of perfect power, "for each thing is perfect when it can generate such as itself is"[^14] — since therefore the Son receives the power of producing what is equally perfect, just as he himself and the Father is, namely the Holy Spirit: therefore virtue is appropriated to him; therefore he is called the virtue of the Father and the right hand[^15], and the Father [is said] to work through the Son.

In another way it can be said that virtue expresses a more immediate ordination to the act than power does, because power is ordained to the work through disposition, and disposition is appropriated to the Son, [and] therefore also disposed power[^16]. And thus all the points sought are clear.

la: Cfr. hic *lit. Magistri*, c. 3. text. Hilarii, et August., VI. et VII. *de Trin.* in initio, et Richard. de S. Vict. in opusculo *Quomodo Spiritus sanctus est amor Patris et Filii.*

en: Cf. here the *text of the Master*, c. 3, the text of Hilary, and Augustine, *On the Trinity* VI and VII at the beginning, and Richard of St. Victor in the little work *How the Holy Spirit Is the Love of the Father and the Son.*

la: Vide supra pag. 135, nota 5. — Mox pro *potest per Filium* ed. 1 *est potens per Filium*.

en: See above p. 135, note 5. — Shortly afterward, in place of *potest per Filium* ("can [act] through the Son"), edition 1 [reads] *est potens per Filium* ("is powerful through the Son").

la: Plures codd. ut l W X Y bb addunt *sive ab illo*.

en: Several codices, like l W X Y bb, add *sive ab illo* ["or from him"].

la: Supple: *Pater*.

en: Supply: *the Father*.

la: Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 omittit *operandi*, et mox pro *subauctoritatis* substituit *subauctoritatem*, paucis codd. suffragantibus.

en: The Vatican [edition], against the witness of the manuscripts and edition 1, omits *operandi* ("of working"), and shortly afterward in place of *subauctoritatis* substitutes *subauctoritatem*, a few codices agreeing.

la: Intellige: *Patrem*. — Proxime ante pro *non ergo Filio* cum uno et altero cod. *non ergo Patri*; falso.

en: Understand: *the Father*. — Just before, in place of *non ergo Filio* ("therefore not to the Son"), with one or another codex [some read] *non ergo Patri* ("therefore not to the Father"); wrongly.

la: Supple cum ed. 4 *Pater*.

en: Supply, with edition 4, *the Father*.

la: Cfr. August., VI. et VII. *de Trin.* c. 4. seqq.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Trinity* VI and VII, c. 4ff.

la: Haec regula Praepositivo adscribitur supra d. 12. dub. 4, cum quo consentit Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 67. m. 3. a. 3. — Aliquanto superius post *auctoritatem* cod. Y addit *circa suum casuale*.

en: This rule is ascribed to Praepositivus above d. 12, dub. 4, with whom Alex. Hal., *S.* p. I, q. 67, m. 3, a. 3 agrees. — Somewhat earlier, after *auctoritatem*, codex Y adds *circa suum casuale* ["concerning its case-form"].

la: Haec conclusio: *ergo est sapiens per Filium* desideratur in Vat. nec non in pluribus codd.

en: This conclusion, *ergo est sapiens per Filium* ("therefore he is wise through the Son"), is missing in the Vatican [edition] and also in several codices.

la: Simul audi: *Patrem*. De hac sententia vide obiect. 4. in fine, ex qua etiam apparet, falsam esse lectionem Vat., a qua abest *non*. Aeque falsa est lectio codd. P Q, qui, omissa particula *non*, post *per ipsum* addunt *Patri non*. Lectio nostra nititur auctoritate cod. T. — Pro *obiicitur*, *quod* codd. P Q (T a recentiore manu) *obiicitur*, *quare*.

en: Hear at the same time: *the Father*. On this opinion see objection 4 at the end, from which it is also clear that the reading of the Vatican [edition], which omits *non*, is false. Equally false is the reading of codices P Q, which, omitting the particle *non*, after *per ipsum* add *Patri non*. Our reading rests on the authority of codex T. — In place of *obiicitur*, *quod*, codices P Q (T by a later hand) [read] *obiicitur*, *quare*.

la: Aristot., I. *de Caelo et Mundo*, text. 116. (c. 11.) ait: *Ἡ δὲ δύναμις τῆς ὑπεροχῆς ἐστιν*, i. e. «Virtus (potentia) vero ipsius excessionis (excellentiae) est». Quae verba exponens S. Thomas (lect. 25.) dicit: *Virtus rei non attribuitur nisi excellentiae i. e. secundum id attenditur virtus rei quod est excellentissimum omnium rerum in quod potest.* Et hoc est quod dicitur in alia translatione: «*virtus est ultimum potentiae*», quasi scilicet virtus rei determinetur secundum ultimum, in quod potest.

en: Aristotle, *On the Heavens* I, text 116 (c. 11), says: *Ἡ δὲ δύναμις τῆς ὑπεροχῆς ἐστιν*, that is, "But power belongs to excess (excellence) itself." Expounding these words, St. Thomas (lect. 25) says: *The virtue of a thing is attributed only to excellence, i.e. the virtue of a thing is reckoned according to that which is the most excellent of all things which it can [do].* And this is what is said in another translation: "*virtue is the ultimate of power*," as though virtue of a thing were determined according to the ultimate which it can [reach].

la: Vide supra pag. 180, nota 5. — Mox pro *ut* cod. K *scilicet*.

en: See above p. 180, note 5. — Shortly afterward, in place of *ut*, codex K [reads] *scilicet*.

la: Hilarius in exposit. Ps. 137, 7. n. 15. *de verbis* et *salvum me fecit dextera tua* ait: *Virtus significatur in dextera, et ideo Dominus, qui Dei virtus et Dei sapientia est, nonnumquam Dei dextera cognominatur, per quem adversus omnes inimicos in omnium tribulationum bello protegimur.* — In Vat. et nonnullis codd. verbis *et dextera* praemittitur *et brachium*, de quo August., Enarrat. in Ps. 43, n. 4: *Dextera tua, potentia tua, brachium tuum, ipse Filius tuus.*

en: Hilary in his exposition of Psalm 137, 7, n. 15, on the words *and your right hand has saved me*, says: *Virtue is signified in the right hand, and therefore the Lord, who is the virtue of God and the wisdom of God, is sometimes called the right hand of God, through whom we are protected against all enemies in the warfare of all tribulations.* — In the Vatican [edition] and several codices, before the words *and right hand* there is prefixed *and arm*, concerning which Augustine, *Enarrationes in Psalmos* on Ps. 43, n. 4: *Your right hand [is] your power, your arm, your very Son.*

la: Codd. F l aa bb addunt: *Per hoc etiam patet illud de voluntate (obiect. 5.), quia, sicut dicit Hugo, «voluntas non exit in opus nisi mediante virtute, et ideo virtus est etiam immediatior».*

en: Codices F l aa bb add: *By this also that [point] concerning the will (obj. 5) is clear, since, as Hugh says, "the will does not go out into the work except by means of virtue, and therefore virtue is even more immediate".*

latin_scholion:
**I.** In solut. ad 4. respondetur ad quaestionem, quare non dicatur, Patrem operari per Spiritum S., sicut dicitur, ipsum operari per Filium. Certum est, Patrem communicare Spiritui S. eandem agendi virtutem, quam communicat Filio. Ratio igitur, quare unum dicatur, alterum non, inde tantum erui potest, quod soli Filio approprietur virtus, pro quo S. Bonav. duplicem affert rationem.

**II.** De hac quaest. tractant B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. ad 5. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 39. q. 7. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** In the solution to [argument] 4, the question is answered why it is not said that the Father works through the Holy Spirit, just as it is said that he works through the Son. It is certain that the Father communicates to the Holy Spirit the same power of acting which he communicates to the Son. The reason therefore why the one is said and the other not, can only be drawn from this, that virtue is appropriated to the Son alone, for which St. Bonaventure offers a twofold reason.

**II.** On this question treat: B. Albert, here a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 2, a. 2. — Richard a Med., here a. 2, q. 1, ad 5. — Henr. Gand., *S.* a. 39, q. 7. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 4.

---

translators_notes:
**2026-07-17 J4 Class D/E repair (apparatus reconstruction from printed pp. 563–564, `raw/vision/vol1-pt2/p-563.png` and `p-564.png`, 400 dpi).**

The health scan flagged `[^4]` as a duplicate label (defs=10, la=11, en=11). Page-verified diagnosis showed this was not a simple duplicate but a **genuine Class-B-style content-loss case**: Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on *both* printed pages this chunk spans (p.563 has its own 1–8, p.564 its own 1–10), and the prior transcription (i) merged several distinct per-page footnotes into single chunk-level entries, (ii) picked up two footnotes (old `[^1]` "Cod. M adiicit ipse" and part of old `[^5]`, "Vat. cum cod. cc quem dicit per Verbum sive efficit") that actually belong to the **preceding quaestio** `bon-sent-I-d32-a2-q1.md` (anchored on p.563 in text above the "QUAESTIO II." heading, not in this chunk's body at all — confirmed no printed superscript exists at this chunk's "ab eo" location), and (iii) left one footnote (p.564 note¹, "Supple cum ed. 4 Pater") entirely untranscribed anywhere.

Full reconstruction: renumbered all markers sequentially 1–16 in body order, matching each anchor to its printed superscript by content against the page images. Net changes:
- Removed old `[^1]` ("Cod. M adiicit ipse") — no printed counterpart in this chunk; belongs to sibling `q1` (which is also missing it — flagged for a future session, not fixed here per scope).
- Removed the "Vat. cum cod. cc quem dicit per Verbum sive efficit" clause from old `[^5]` — same reason (p.563 note², belongs to `q1`).
- Split old `[^5]` into new `[^4]` ("esset" position, p.563 note⁶) and `[^5]` (p.563 note⁷).
- Split old `[^7]` (a 3-note merge) into new `[^8]`/`[^9]`/`[^10]`, correcting two digit transcription errors while at it: "c. 1. seqq." → "c. 4. seqq." and "dub. 1" → "dub. 4" (both verified against the printed footer).
- Added new `[^7]` (p.564 note¹, "Supple cum ed. 4 Pater") — this footnote had never been transcribed; new anchor placed after "dici" in argument 5, matching print.
- Split old `[^8]` into new `[^11]`/`[^12]`, correcting "obiect. 1" → "obiect. 4" (verified against print).
- Split old `[^10]` (a 3-note merge, printed out of body order) into new `[^14]`/`[^15]`/`[^16]`.
- Added new anchor `[^10]` at the "per Filium" position in *Ad 3* (p.564 note⁴) — this is the position that was wrongly double-labeled `[^4]` in the original file.
- Added new anchor `[^11]` at "appropriatur" (p.564 note⁵, previously present as merged text under old `[^8]` but with no anchor at its own printed location).

**Flagged, NOT fixed (out of scope — apparatus markers only, not wording):**
- Latin body reads "Idem est *me* potentem quod *me*" (Contra 1) where the printed page clearly reads "Idem est *esse* potentem quod *esse*." This is a pre-existing wording divergence from print, unrelated to the apparatus-marker defect being repaired here. Left as-is per instructions not to alter Latin wording; flagged for a future review pass.
- Sibling `bon-sent-I-d32-a2-q1.md` appears to be missing its own footnotes for p.563 notes ¹ ("Cod. M adiicit ipse") and ² ("Vat. cum cod. cc quem dicit per Verbum sive efficit") — confirmed absent from that file's apparatus. Hand-off note for whoever next works that chunk; not touched here.

Post-fix: defs=16, la=16, en=16, fully matched, no dupes/extras. `node scripts/build-content.mjs` reconfirmed 1815 translated / 1925 questions / 4 books (unchanged).