title: Dist. 16, Art. 1, Q. 1

title_alt:
Quid sit missio visibilis
What the visible mission is

source_text:
<!-- page 279 -->

### Articulus Unicus. *De missione visibili Spiritus sancti.*

### Quaestio I. *Quid sit missio visibilis.*

Circa primum proceditur sic.

Ostenditur primo, quod visibilis missio non est aliud quam apparitio exterior.

1. Augustinus[^1] dicit, quod « tunc Spiritus sanctus vel Filius mittitur, cum ex tempore cuiusquam mente percipitur »: ergo tunc visibiliter mittitur, cum visibiliter percipitur; sed visibiliter percipitur, cum apparet in creatura visibili: ergo visibilis missio non est aliud quam apparitio.

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur per simile, quia mitti invisibiliter non est aliud quam per effectum invisibilem invisibiliter manifestari: ergo mitti visibiliter non est aliud quam per creaturam visibilem manifestari: hoc autem non est aliud quam visibiliter apparere: ergo etc.

3. Item, hoc iterum videtur exemplo, quia Spiritus sanctus in columbae specie dicitur missus ad Filium, sicut dicit Augustinus, et habetur in littera[^2]; sed tunc non fuit facta aliqua donatio Filio, quia plenus fuit semper Spiritu sancto: sed solum exterior apparitio: ergo etc.

**Sed contra:**

1. Quod missionis visibilis non sit tota ratio ipsa apparitio visibilis, videtur, quia[^3] Pater in subiecta creatura apparuit, et tamen non di-

<!-- page 280 -->

citur visibiliter missus: ergo plus est missio quam apparitio. *Maior* patet, quia Augustinus dicit secundo de Trinitate[^4]: « Temerarium est dicere, Deum Patrem Prophetis et Patribus per aliquas visibiles formas nunquam apparuisse ».

2. Item, Filius et Spiritus sanctus in veteri Testamento multoties apparuerunt visibiliter, et tamen tempore illo neuter dicitur visibiliter missus, sicut dicit Augustinus tertio de Trinitate[^5], ubi hanc quaestionem movet: ergo etc.

3. Item, omne quod visibiliter apparet, est corporale, cum sensu percipiatur; sed Deus, cum sit simplex, est omnino incorporalis: si ergo ad Deum non spectat visibiliter apparere, ergo si visibiliter mittitur, missio visibilis non est apparitio. Si dicitis, quod non apparet in se, sed in effectu; contra: sic apparet in omni creatura et semper et ubique: ergo secundum hoc visibiliter mittitur in omni creatura semper et ubique, quod stultum est dicere.

4. Item, ubi est missio, ibi est manifestatio personae, ut dicit Augustinus[^6]: sed per solam apparitionem nunquam est manifestatio, nisi adsit revelatio: ergo de ratione missionis visibilis non tantum est apparitio, sed etiam revelatio: ergo apparitio non est tota ratio.

### Conclusio.

> *Missio visibilis est apparitio, in qua manifestatur divinae personae emanatio et inhabitatio.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod missio visibilis praesupponit missionem tanquam superius, et superaddit differentiam, quae est *visibile*. Missio autem communiter dicta, ut dictum[^7] fuit supra in praecedenti distinctione, praesupponit circa missum emanationem et superaddit manifestationem. Et quoniam manifestatio emanationis, secundum quam attenditur missio, non fit nisi super eum, quem Spiritus sanctus inhabitat per effectum gratiae inhabitantis, hinc est, quod missio de ratione generali dicit manifestationem emanationis et inhabitationis.

Haec autem differentia *visibilis*, superadveniens missioni, contrahit ipsam quantum ad principale significatum, quod est manifestatio: ideo dicit manifestationem cum apparitione, sive apparitionem manifestantem personae emanantis inhabitationem[^8] vel personae inhabitantis emanationem.

Unde concedo, quod visibilis missio est apparitio; sed haec non est tota ratio, sed apparitio, in qua manifestatur divina persona non tantum ut operans, sed etiam ut inhabitans, nec tantum ut inhabitans, sed etiam ut emanans, quasi[^9] ab alio veniens. Per primum excludit apparitionem Dei in qualibet creatura, per secundum apparitionem in veteri Testamento, per tertium apparitionem Patris, quia Pater non apparuit ut emanans sive ab alio veniens. Filius vero vel Spiritus sanctus in veteri Testamento non apparuit ut inhabitans, sed ut se inhabitaturum praemonstrans; unde Angelus apparebat in illis creaturis in persona Dei. Et hoc probat Augustinus in libro tertio de Trinitate[^10] dicens: « Constat firmitate auctoritatis et probabilitate rationis, cum antiquis Patribus dicitur Deus apparuisse, voces illas ab Angelis esse factas ». Et adducit auctoritates Apostoli ad Galatas tertio[^11]: *Lex ordinata per Angelos*; et ad Hebraeos secundo[^12]: *Si enim qui per Angelos dictus est sermo* etc. Nec tamen dico, quod ista sit ratio, quare non est missus, quia apparitio fiebat ministerio angelico; quia sicut dicit Augustinus quarto de Trinitate[^13], probabile est, quod illa columba, in qua apparuit Spiritus sanctus, secundum ministerium Angeli moveretur. Unde idem in quarto libro de Trinitate[^14] in fine dicit: « Super hoc aliquid invenire difficile est, et temere affirmare non expedit. Quomodo tamen ista sine rationali vel intellectuali creatura potuerint fieri, non video ».

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

*Ad 1, 2.* Et ita patet, quod non quaelibet apparitio est missio, patet etiam responsio ad duas rationes primas.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur tertio, quod non sit apparitio, quia Deus est invisibilis; dicendum, quod *apparere* est dupliciter: vel in se, et sic convenit corporali; vel in alio, et hoc dupliciter: vel sicut causa in effectu, vel sicut signatum in signo; et hoc tertio modo missio est apparitio: et secundum hunc modum non convenit omni creaturae.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod apparitio non est manifestatio; dicendum, quod cum dicitur: *missio[^15] est manifestatio*, non intelligitur actu, sed habitu, quia aliquid fit vel ostenditur, in quo potest personae emanatio manifestari, et hoc quidem de se importat apparitio.

**Ad rationes pro parte affirmativa:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud autem quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod praecise sit apparitio; dicendum, quod non accipit totam rationem missionis, quia *mitti* non est tantum mente percipi, sed mente percipi ut ab alio emanans et in aliquo inhabitans.

*Ad 2.* Similiter ad illud: *mitti invisibiliter est manifestari per effectum invisibilem*; dicendum, quod manifestari non dicit totam rationem.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in missione Spiritus sancti in specie columbae non fuit nisi apparitio; dicendum, quod quamvis non fuerit ibi donatio Spiritus sancti, fuit tamen manifestatio prius dati et tunc inhabitantis in Christo et quiescentis et ab alio procedentis, et ita tota et perfecta ratio missionis; sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod qualiscumque apparitio sit missio visibilis; omnis tamen visibilis missio est apparitio.

english:
### Article Unique. *On the visible mission of the Holy Spirit.*

### Question I. *What the visible mission is.*

Concerning the first [point], we proceed thus.

It is shown first, that the visible mission is nothing other than an exterior apparition.

1. Augustine[^1] says that "the Holy Spirit or the Son is then sent, when he is perceived by the mind of someone in time": therefore he is then visibly sent, when he is visibly perceived; but he is visibly perceived, when he appears in a visible creature: therefore the visible mission is nothing other than an apparition.

2. Likewise, this same point is seen by similitude, because to be sent invisibly is nothing other than to be invisibly manifested through an invisible effect: therefore to be sent visibly is nothing other than to be manifested through a visible creature: but this is nothing other than to appear visibly: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this is seen again by example, because the Holy Spirit is said to have been sent in the form of a dove to the Son, as Augustine says, and as is held in the *littera*[^2]; but at that time no donation was made to the Son, because he was always full of the Holy Spirit: but only an exterior apparition: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. That the visible apparition itself is not the whole account of the visible mission appears, because[^3] the Father appeared in a subject creature, and yet is not said to be visibly sent: therefore the mission is more than the apparition. The *major* is clear, because Augustine says in the second [book] of *On the Trinity*[^4]: "It is rash to say that God the Father never appeared to the Prophets and Fathers through any visible forms".

2. Likewise, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament many times appeared visibly, and yet at that time neither is said to have been visibly sent, as Augustine says in the third [book] of *On the Trinity*[^5], where he raises this question: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, everything which appears visibly is corporeal, since it is perceived by sense; but God, since he is simple, is altogether incorporeal: if therefore it does not pertain to God to appear visibly, then if he is visibly sent, the visible mission is not an apparition. If you say, that he does not appear in himself, but in an effect; on the contrary: thus he appears in every creature and always and everywhere: therefore on this account he is visibly sent in every creature always and everywhere, which it is foolish to say.

4. Likewise, where there is mission, there is manifestation of the person, as Augustine says[^6]: but through apparition alone there is never manifestation, unless there be also revelation: therefore the account of visible mission is not only apparition, but also revelation: therefore apparition is not the whole account.

### Conclusion.

> *The visible mission is an apparition, in which the emanation and indwelling of a divine person are manifested.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the visible mission presupposes mission as something prior, and superadds the difference, which is *visible*. Now mission, taken commonly, as was said[^7] above in the preceding distinction, presupposes in the one sent an emanation and superadds manifestation. And since the manifestation of the emanation, according to which the mission is reckoned, does not occur except upon him whom the Holy Spirit indwells through the effect of indwelling grace, hence it is that mission, as to its general account, names the manifestation of an emanation and an indwelling.

Now this difference *visible*, supervening upon mission, contracts mission as to its principal signification, which is manifestation: hence it names manifestation with apparition, that is, an apparition manifesting the indwelling of an emanating person[^8], or the emanation of an indwelling person.

Whence I concede that the visible mission is an apparition; but this is not the whole account, but [it is] an apparition, in which a divine person is manifested not only as operating, but also as indwelling, and not only as indwelling, but also as emanating, as if[^9] coming from another. By the first [clause] he excludes the apparition of God in any creature whatsoever; by the second the apparition in the Old Testament; by the third the apparition of the Father, because the Father did not appear as emanating or as coming from another. The Son indeed or the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament did not appear as indwelling, but as foreshowing himself as one about to indwell; whence the Angel appeared in those creatures in the person of God. And this Augustine proves in the third book of *On the Trinity*[^10] saying: "It stands by the firmness of authority and by the probability of reason, that when God is said to have appeared to the ancient Fathers, those voices were made by Angels". And he adduces the authorities of the Apostle, to the Galatians chapter three[^11]: *The law was ordained by Angels*; and to the Hebrews chapter two[^12]: *For if the word spoken by Angels* etc. Nor however do I say, that this is the reason why he was not sent, namely because the apparition was made by angelic ministry; because as Augustine says in the fourth [book] of *On the Trinity*[^13], it is probable that that dove, in which the Holy Spirit appeared, was moved according to the ministry of an Angel. Whence the same in the fourth book of *On the Trinity*[^14] at the end says: "Concerning this it is difficult to discover anything, and it is not expedient to assert rashly. Yet how these things could have come to pass without a rational or intellectual creature, I do not see".

**To the arguments on the contrary:**

*To 1, 2.* And so it is clear, that not every apparition is mission, and the answer is also clear to the two first arguments.

*To 3.* As to what is objected in the third, that it is not an apparition, because God is invisible; it must be said, that *to appear* is twofold: either in itself, and thus it pertains to the corporeal; or in another, and this in two ways: either as a cause in an effect, or as a signified thing in a sign; and in this third way the mission is an apparition: and according to this mode it does not pertain to every creature.

*To 4.* As to what is objected last, that apparition is not manifestation; it must be said, that when it is said: *mission[^15] is manifestation*, it is not understood in act, but in habit, because something is made or shown, in which the emanation of a person can be manifested, and this indeed apparition of itself imports.

**To the arguments for the affirmative:**

*To 1.* As to what is objected on the contrary, that it is precisely apparition; it must be said, that this does not take up the whole account of mission, because *to be sent* is not only to be perceived by the mind, but to be perceived by the mind as emanating from another and indwelling in someone.

*To 2.* Similarly to that: *to be sent invisibly is to be manifested through an invisible effect*; it must be said, that to be manifested does not state the whole account.

*To 3.* As to what is objected, that in the mission of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove there was nothing but apparition; it must be said, that although there was not there a donation of the Holy Spirit, there was nevertheless a manifestation of the one already given and then indwelling in Christ and resting and proceeding from another, and thus the whole and perfect account of mission; but from this it does not follow, that any apparition whatsoever is a visible mission; nevertheless every visible mission is an apparition.

la: Libr. IV. de Trin. c. 20. n. 28. Vide in lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. 7-9.

en: *On the Trinity*, Book IV, ch. 20, n. 28. See in the *littera* of the Master [Lombard], d. XV, cc. 7–9.

la: Hic, c. I.

en: Here [d. XVI of Lombard], c. I.

la: Sequimur mss. et quinque primas edd. ponendo *quia* loco *sic*. Paulo infra post *ergo* multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 falso *prius* pro *plus*.

en: We follow the manuscripts and the first five editions in placing *quia* in place of *sic*. A little below, after *ergo*, many codices with editions 1, 2, 3 falsely [read] *prius* for *plus*.

la: Cap. 17. n. 32, in quibus verbis Vat. contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 nec non ed. operum Augustini omittit *Deum*.

en: [Augustine, *On the Trinity*, Book II,] ch. 17, n. 32, in which words the Vatican [edition], against the older codices and edition 1 as well as the edition of the works of Augustine, omits *Deum*.

la: Per totum et IV. c. 19. et 20. n. 23-30.

en: [*On the Trinity*, Book III,] throughout, and Book IV, cc. 19 and 20, nn. 23–30.

la: Libr. IV. de Trin. c. 20. n. 28: *Cum in carne manifestatus est Filius Dei, in hunc mundum missus est.*

en: *On the Trinity*, Book IV, ch. 20, n. 28: *When the Son of God was manifested in the flesh, he was sent into this world.*

la: Parte 1. q. 4. — Paulo ante fide plurium mss. ut HIMZ aa bb ff et ed. 1 supplevimus *dicta*, quod forte propter immediate sequentia verba *ut dictum* ex aliis codd. decidit, sed minus bene. Mox post *manifestationem* in cod. K additur *tanquam principale significatum suum*, quod concordat cum subnexis.

en: [d. XV,] Part 1, q. 4. — A little before, on the faith of several manuscripts (HIMZ, aa, bb, ff) and edition 1, we have supplied *dicta*, which perhaps fell out from the other codices on account of the immediately following words *ut dictum*, but less rightly. Soon after *manifestationem* in codex K is added *tanquam principale significatum suum*, which agrees with what follows.

la: Cod. K *manifestantem emanationem et inhabitationem*; aliqui codd. ut A S T V etc. post *manifestantem* incongrue omittunt *personae*.

en: Codex K [reads] *manifestantem emanationem et inhabitationem*; some codices, such as A, S, T, V etc., after *manifestantem* incongruously omit *personae*.

la: Ed. I *id est, quasi*.

en: Edition 1 [reads] *id est, quasi*.

la: Cap. 11. n. 27: *Constititque et probabilitate rationis, quantum homo vel potius quantum ego potui, et firmitate auctoritatis, quantum de Scripturis sanctis divina eloquia patuerunt, quod antiquis Patribus nostris ante incarnationem Salvatoris, cum Deus apparere dicebatur, voces illae ac species corporales per Angelos factae sunt.*

en: [*On the Trinity*, Book III,] ch. 11, n. 27: *And it stood, both by the probability of reason — as far as a man, or rather as far as I, was able — and by the firmness of authority — as far as the divine utterances of the holy Scriptures have made it plain — that to our ancient Fathers, before the incarnation of the Saviour, when God was said to appear, those voices and corporeal species were made through Angels.*

la: Vers. 19.

en: [Galatians 3,] verse 19.

la: Vers. 2.

en: [Hebrews 2,] verse 2.

en: [*On the Trinity*, Book IV,] ch. 21, n. 31.

la: Cap. 21. n. 31, in quo textu Vat. tamen *ista sive rationali sive intellectuali*, sed falso et contra plurimos codd. nec non ed. operum Augustini.

en: [*On the Trinity*, Book IV,] ch. 21, n. 31, in which text the Vatican [edition] however [reads] *ista sive rationali sive intellectuali*, but falsely and against most codices as well as the edition of the works of Augustine.

la: Vat. cum pluribus mss. hic addit *non*, quod tamen fide aliorum mss. ut B I K M Q T Z etc. et ed. 1, nec non exigente contextu, expunximus. Cod. F habet *missio ibi est, ubi est manifestatio*.

en: The Vatican [edition] with several manuscripts here adds *non*, which however on the faith of other manuscripts (B, I, K, M, Q, T, Z etc.) and edition 1, and as the context requires, we have expunged. Codex F has *missio ibi est, ubi est manifestatio*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Dupliciter declaratur missio visibilis, primo cum genere proximo *missio* et differentia contrahente *visibilis*; secundo cum genere *apparitio* et differentia contrahente: quae est emanatio personae et inhabitatio. Unde tria in missione visibili requiruntur: emanatio personae, inhabitatio eiusdem et manifestatio utriusque per apparitionem aliquam visibilem. — Eadem tria ad rationem missionis visibilis requiri, docent S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. aliique. Per has differentias missio visibilis distinguitur ab aliis apparitionibus in textu enumeratis. Si dicit: « Per primum excludit apparitionem Dei in qualibet creatura », verba *per primum* referuntur ad verba: « in qua manifestatur divina persona »; operatio enim Dei in qualibet creatura est communis tribus personis, unde nullius personae est manifestativa. *Per secundum* refertur ad « manifestatur... ut inhabitans »; *per tertium* ad « manifestatur ut emanans ».

**II.** Notandum quoad ordinem solutionum ad opp., quod primo respondetur ad argumenta in fundam.; deinde ad ea quae primo loco sunt posita, cum utraque accuratiore determinatione indigeant. — Iuvat hic generatim dicere, quod argumenta in fundamentis a S. Bonav. aliisque posita non semper ab auctore approbantur ut vera omni ex parte. Genuina auctoris doctrina repetenda est tum ex responsione ad ipsam quaestionem, tum ex solutione obiectorum.

**III.** In substantia responsionis omnes conveniunt. Bonav., *Breviloq.* p. I. c. 5, et *Comment. in Ioan.* c. 1. v. 14. (Suppl. Bonelli t. I.); quoad ministeria Angelorum circa apparitiones II. Sent. d. 10. a. 3. q. 2. ad 5. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 74. m. 1, et quoad ministeria Angelorum m. 4. — Scot., de hac et seq. hic et in Report. q. unic. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1, et quoad ministeria Angelorum a. 4; S. I. q. 43. a. 7. ad 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. et seq.; pro hac et seq. q. S. p. I. tr. 7. q. 32. m. 2. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. 3. 5. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 1. 3. 4. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 1. et 2. — Durand., de hac et seq. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1, et quoad Angelos q. 3. — Biel, de hac et seqq. hic q. unic.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The visible mission is declared in two ways: first by the proximate genus *mission* and the contracting difference *visible*; second by the genus *apparition* and the contracting difference: which is the emanation and indwelling of a person. Whence three things are required in the visible mission: the emanation of a person, the indwelling of the same, and the manifestation of both through some visible apparition. — That these same three are required for the account of visible mission is taught by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and others. By these differences the visible mission is distinguished from the other apparitions enumerated in the text. If he says: "By the first he excludes the apparition of God in any creature whatsoever", the words *by the first* refer to the words: "in which a divine person is manifested"; for the operation of God in any creature is common to the three persons, whence it is manifestative of no one person. *By the second* refers to "is manifested... as indwelling"; *by the third* to "is manifested as emanating".

**II.** It is to be noted regarding the order of the solutions to the opposite [arguments], that the response is first made to the arguments in the *fundamenta*; then to those which were placed in the first place, since both require a more careful determination. — It is helpful to say here in general, that the arguments in the *fundamenta* placed by St. Bonaventure and others are not always approved by the author as true on every side. The genuine doctrine of the author is to be sought both from the response to the question itself, and from the solution of the objections.

**III.** On the substance of the response all agree. Bonaventure, *Breviloquium* p. I, c. 5, and *Commentary on John* c. 1, v. 14 (Bonelli's Suppl. t. I); on the ministries of Angels concerning apparitions, II. Sent. d. 10, a. 3, q. 2, ad 5. — Alex. of Hales, *Summa* p. I, q. 74, m. 1, and on the ministries of Angels m. 4. — Scotus, on this and the following [question] here and in *Reportata* q. unic. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1, and on the ministries of Angels a. 4; *Summa* I, q. 43, a. 7, ad 5. — B. Albert, here a. 1 and following; for this and the following question, *Summa* p. I, tr. 7, q. 32, m. 2, a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1, 3, 5. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 1, 3, 4. — Aegidius Romanus, here 1. princ. q. 1 and 2. — Durandus, on this and the following here q. 1. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 1, and on the Angels q. 3. — Biel, on this and the following here q. unic.

---

translators_notes: [Notes pending]


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 16, Art. 1, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 281 -->

### Quaestio II. *Ad quid sit utilis missio visibilis Spiritus sancti.*

Secundo quaeritur, ad quid sit utilis missio visibilis, et constat quod ad efficiendum nihil confert, quia exterior apparitio nihil interius operatur. Quod etiam non sit utilis ad innotescendum, ostenditur sic.

1. Aut est ad manifestandam personae alicuius emanationem, aut inhabitationem. Non inhabitationem, quia nemo scit, utrum odio an amore dignus sit[^1], et ita nemo, utrum Deus in eo habitet, cognoscit. Et iterum, quae utilitas est? Esto quod sciat, Deum advenisse, tamen cum ignoret permansurum, nulla videtur[^2]. Si ad manifestandam alicuius personae emanationem: ergo cum illa notitia omni tempore sit necessaria, scilicet tempore Legis scriptae et nunc, videtur, quod et tunc et nunc deberet[^3] esse missio visibilis. Quaeritur ergo, quare solum tempore Ecclesiae primitivae?

2. Item, quantumcumque appareat in creatura, non innotescit, nisi revelatio adsit; sed cum adest[^4] revelatio, ventum est ad cognitionem veriorem et certiorem, quam quae est a sensu: si igitur habens cognitionem certam non indiget occupari circa cognitionem imperfectam, ergo videtur, quod exterior apparitio omnino superfluat.

3. Item, probatur etiam, quod impediat, sic: affectus, circa bona visibilia occupatus, minus surgit ad bona invisibilia, ergo similiter intellectus: ergo si debet ad perceptionem invisibilium elevari, non debet ei fieri ostensio visibilium; quod si fiat, videtur potius impediri quam iuvari.

<!-- page 282 -->

4. Item, si missio est ad innotescendum, cum triplex sit in nobis vis cognitiva, scilicet sensus exterior[^5], imaginatio et intellectus, et secundum hanc triplicem vim triplex assignetur visio prophetalis, pari ratione videtur, quod triplex missio deberet distingui.

Praeterea, cum missio sit ad manifestationem inhabitationis, et Filius inhabitet sicut Spiritus sanctus, quare non est missio visibilis ad manifestandum illam?

**Sed contra:**

1. Quod sit utilis ad innotescendum, videtur, quia cognitio nostra incipit a sensu[^6]: ergo si debemus elevari ad perceptionem intelligibilium, congruum et perutile est, quod aliquo modo praevia sit excitatio in sensu per signum. Et hoc est, quod dicit Gregorius[^7]: « Dum visibiliter Deum cognoscimus, per hunc in invisibilium [amorem rapiamur] etc. »

2. Item, sicut miracula ostendunt divinam potentiam, ita signa divinam praesentiam; sed utile fuit et pernecessarium, fidem nostram manuduci per miracula ad cognitionem divinae potentiae: ergo pari ratione per aliqua signa visibilia ad cognitionem divinae praesentiae.

3. Item, missio est ad redimendum hominem perditum; sed homo est perditus secundum naturam visibilem et invisibilem: ergo missio secundum utramque est ei[^8] utilis.

4. Item, familiarius offert suam praesentiam qui se offert secundum sensum et intellectum, quam qui secundum alterum tantum; sed hoc maxime expediebat homini averso, ut converteretur ad Deum: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> *Missio visibilis Spiritus sancti utilis fuit, ut personis manuducendis per sensum manifestaretur inhabitatio secundum plenitudinis redundantiam.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod missio Filii visibilis propriam et maximam habuit utilitatem, sicut patebit in tertio[^9]. Sed nunc de Spiritu sancto dicendum, quod eius missio visibilis utilis est ad manifestandam et emanationem et inhabitationem, sed non qualemcumque inhabitationem nec in[^10] omni genere personae.

Propter hoc[^11] intelligendum, quod est inhabitatio duplex, scilicet *secundum sanctificationis sufficientiam*, et *secundum plenitudinis redundantiam*. Illa quae est secundum sanctificationis sufficientiam, interius invisibiliter latet; quae vero est[^12] secundum redundantiam, exterius apparet; et ideo talis inhabitatio in signo visibili et exteriori manifestari debet, sicut factum est in Apostolis.

Similiter intelligendum, quod duplex est genus credentium. Quidam enim volunt signa, ut puta sensibiles; quidam intelligentiam quaerunt, ut puta iam provecti[^13]. Quaerentes signa per haec manuducuntur[^14] ad intelligibilia; et propter tales utilis est missio visibilis. Utilis ergo est missio visibilis[^15] ad manifestandam inhabitationem plenitudinis redundantis, et hoc personis manuducendis per sensum.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

*Ad 1.* Ex hoc[^16] patet primum, quare scilicet non fuit missio visibilis tempore Legis scriptae; quia non erat missio in plenitudine, quoadusque venit plenitudo temporis[^17]. Patet etiam, quare modo non datur sive mittitur visibiliter; quia iam manuducti sumus ad fidem, unde sicut cessaverunt miracula, ita exteriora signa.

Quod dicitur, quod nemo scit, utrum odio, an amore dignus sit: verum est[^18], nisi Deus dignetur ostendere; et tunc ostendebat, et hoc perutile erat ad fidem roborandam et devotionem excitandam.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod necessaria est aliqua revelatio; dicendum, quod verum est, nec tamen superfluit apparitio, quia excitat intellectum ad inquisitionem et sic excitando praeparat ad revelationem et post revelationem excitat[^19] ad dilectionem. Revelatio enim, etsi sit interior cognitio, tamen adhuc est viatoris, et ideo non evacuat cognitionem apparitionis.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod visibilia impediunt affectum; dicendum, quod visibilia possunt dupliciter considerari: vel ut res absolutae, vel ut signa et nutus ducentia in aliud[^20]. Primo modo si amentur et considerentur, retardant intellectum et affectum; secundo modo iuvant; et sic est in apparitione visibili, quia ibi consideratur creatura ut signum faciens aliud in intellectum venire[^21].

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur: quare non est triplex genus missionis secundum triplex genus cognitionis? dicendum, quod etsi cognitio sit de ratione missionis, non tamen quaecumque vel cuiuslibet, sed inhabitantis. Et quia duplex est modus inhabitandi, ut praehabitum est[^22], ideo tantum est duplex modus mittendi, licet plures sint modi cognoscendi. — Vel aliter dicendum, quod Deus in via non cognoscitur nisi aut in effectu, aut in signo. Si in effectu, cum effectus ille sit gratia gratum faciens, quae in sola cadit mente, sic est missio invisibilis; si in signo, cum signum sit quod offert se sensui, sic est visibilis. Quia vero imaginaria est earum rerum, quarum imagines in interiori sensu exprimuntur, Deus autem non est talis, ideo de eo non est ponere huiusmodi cognitionem.

*Ad ultimum (Praeterea).* Ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur, quare non fuit missio visibilis ad manifestandam inhabitationem Filii; dicendum, quod *Filium inhabitare* est dupliciter: aut per gratiam unionis, aut per gratiam sanctificationis. Primo modo non fuit necessaria manifestatio sive visibilis missio, quia plenissime erat in homine sibi unito, in quo operabatur opera visibilia, in quibus manifestabatur; et ideo non oportebat, alia signa visibilia adhiberi. Secundo vero modo non habuit missionem manifestantem inhabitationem talem, quia sanctificatio appropriatur Spiritui sancto; unde sufficiebat, esse missionem visibilem ad manifestandam ipsius inhabitationem, cui sanctificatio appropriatur, cum inhabitatio Filii et Spiritus sancti sint indivisae. Manifestato, quod in homine inhabitet Spiritus sanctus, sufficienter ostenditur, quod et Filius.

english:
### Question II. *To what end the visible mission of the Holy Spirit is useful.*

In the second place it is asked, to what end the visible mission is useful; and it is established that it contributes nothing toward effecting [grace], because an exterior apparition operates nothing interior. That neither is it useful for making known, is shown thus.

1. Either it is for manifesting the emanation of some person, or the indwelling. Not the indwelling, because *no one knows whether he is worthy of hatred or of love*[^1], and so no one knows whether God dwells in him. And again, what is the utility? Granted that he knows that God has come, yet since he does not know whether he will remain, no [utility] appears[^2]. If for manifesting the emanation of some person: then since that knowledge is necessary at every time, namely in the time of the written Law and now, it appears that both then and now there ought[^3] to be a visible mission. It is asked therefore, why only in the time of the primitive Church?

2. Likewise, however much he appears in a creature, he is not made known unless revelation be present; but when[^4] revelation is present, one has come to a truer and more certain cognition than that which is from sense: if therefore one having certain cognition does not need to be occupied with imperfect cognition, then it appears that exterior apparition is altogether superfluous.

3. Likewise, it is also proved that it impedes, thus: the affect, occupied with visible goods, rises less to invisible goods, therefore likewise the intellect: therefore if it is to be elevated to the perception of invisibles, the showing of visibles ought not to be made to it; and if it is made, it appears rather to be impeded than helped.

4. Likewise, if mission is for making known, since the cognitive power in us is threefold, namely the exterior sense[^5], imagination, and intellect, and according to this threefold power a threefold prophetic vision is assigned, by parity of reason it appears that a threefold mission ought to be distinguished.

Furthermore, since mission is for the manifestation of indwelling, and the Son indwells just as the Holy Spirit, why is there no visible mission to manifest his [indwelling]?

**On the contrary:**

1. That it is useful for making known, appears, because *our cognition begins from sense*[^6]: therefore if we ought to be elevated to the perception of intelligibles, it is fitting and very useful that there be in some way a previous excitation in sense through a sign. And this is what Gregory says[^7]: "While we visibly know God, through this [we are caught up into the love] of invisibles etc."

2. Likewise, just as miracles show divine power, so signs show divine presence; but it was useful and most necessary that our faith be led by the hand through miracles to the knowledge of divine power: therefore by parity of reason through certain visible signs to the knowledge of divine presence.

3. Likewise, mission is for the redemption of lost man; but man is lost according to his visible and invisible nature: therefore mission according to both is useful to him[^8].

4. Likewise, he more familiarly offers his presence who offers himself according to sense and intellect than he who [offers himself] according to one only; but this most expediently fitted man, turned away, that he might be converted to God: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> *The visible mission of the Holy Spirit was useful, that to persons to be led by the hand through sense there might be manifested the indwelling according to the redundance of plenitude.*

**I respond:** It must be said, that the visible mission of the Son had its proper and greatest utility, as will be clear in the third [book][^9]. But for now concerning the Holy Spirit it must be said, that his visible mission is useful for manifesting both emanation and indwelling, but not just any indwelling, nor in[^10] every kind of person.

On account of this[^11] it must be understood, that indwelling is twofold, namely *according to the sufficiency of sanctification*, and *according to the redundance of plenitude*. That which is according to the sufficiency of sanctification interiorly and invisibly lies hidden; but that which is[^12] according to redundance appears exteriorly; and therefore such an indwelling ought to be manifested in a visible and exterior sign, as was done in the Apostles.

Likewise it must be understood, that the kind of believers is twofold. For some want signs, namely the sensible [type]; some seek understanding, namely those already advanced[^13]. Those seeking signs are by these led by the hand[^14] to the intelligibles; and for such the visible mission is useful. Therefore the visible mission is useful[^15] for manifesting the indwelling of redounding plenitude, and this for persons to be led by the hand through sense.

**To the arguments on the contrary:**

*To 1.* From this[^16] the first [point] is clear, namely why there was no visible mission in the time of the written Law; because there was no mission in plenitude, until *the fullness of time*[^17] came. It is also clear why now it is not given or sent visibly; because we have already been led by the hand to faith, whence just as miracles have ceased, so [have] exterior signs.

To what is said, that no one knows whether he is worthy of hatred or of love: it is true[^18], unless God deigns to show; and then he was showing, and this was very useful for strengthening faith and exciting devotion.

*To 2.* As to what is objected, that some revelation is necessary; it must be said, that it is true, yet apparition is not superfluous, because it excites the intellect to inquiry, and thus by exciting it prepares for revelation, and after revelation it excites[^19] to love. For revelation, even if it is interior cognition, is nevertheless still that of the wayfarer, and therefore does not empty out the cognition of apparition.

*To 3.* As to what is objected, that visibles impede the affect; it must be said, that visibles can be considered in two ways: either as absolute things, or as signs and beckonings leading to something else[^20]. In the first way, if they are loved and considered [as such], they retard the intellect and affect; in the second way they help; and so it is in visible apparition, because there a creature is considered as a sign making something else come into the intellect[^21].

*To 4.* As to what is objected: why is there not a threefold kind of mission according to the threefold kind of cognition? it must be said, that even though cognition belongs to the account of mission, yet not [cognition] of any kind whatever, but [the cognition] of one indwelling. And since the mode of indwelling is twofold, as was had before[^22], therefore there are only two modes of being sent, although there are several modes of knowing. — Or it must be said otherwise, that God in this life is known only either in an effect, or in a sign. If in an effect, since that effect is grace making one pleasing, which falls only into the mind, thus there is invisible mission; if in a sign, since a sign is what offers itself to sense, thus there is visible [mission]. Now since [the mode] is imaginary of those things whose images are expressed in the interior sense, but God is not such, therefore no such cognition is to be posited concerning him.

*To the last (Furthermore).* As to what is asked last, why there was no visible mission for manifesting the indwelling of the Son; it must be said, that *the Son's indwelling* is twofold: either through the grace of union, or through the grace of sanctification. In the first mode no manifestation or visible mission was necessary, because he was most fully in the man united to himself, in whom he was working visible works, in which he was manifested; and therefore it was not necessary that other visible signs be applied. But in the second mode he did not have a mission manifesting such an indwelling, because sanctification is appropriated to the Holy Spirit; whence it sufficed that there be a visible mission for manifesting the indwelling of him to whom sanctification is appropriated, since the indwelling of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are undivided. When it is manifested that the Holy Spirit indwells in man, it is sufficiently shown that the Son also [does].

la: Ecclesiastes, 9, 1, ubi Vulgata: *Et tamen nescit homo, utrum amore, an odio dignus sit.* — Vat. cum aliquibus tantum mss. hic et infra in responsione *vel* loco *an*.

en: Ecclesiastes 9:1, where the Vulgate reads: *And yet man does not know whether he is worthy of love or of hatred.* — The Vatican edition with only some manuscripts here and below in the response [reads] *vel* in place of *an*.

la: Supple cum cod. X: *utilitas*, vel cum ed. 1 *esse utilitas*; cod. H vero addit *ergo frustra*. Immediate post Vat. *Non* loco *Si*, deinde *quia* pro *ergo*, sed emendatur ope mss. (quorum aliqui falso *Sed* loco *Si*, quod saepe saepius etiam alibi contingit) et edd. 1, 2, 3.

en: Supply with codex X: *utilitas* [utility]; or with edition 1: *esse utilitas* [there be utility]; codex H adds *ergo frustra* [therefore in vain]. Immediately after, the Vatican [edition reads] *Non* in place of *Si*, then *quia* for *ergo*, but it is emended with the help of the manuscripts (some of which falsely [read] *Sed* for *Si*, which happens very often elsewhere also) and editions 1, 2, 3.

la: Nonnulli codd. ut aa bb *debeat*.

en: Some codices, such as aa, bb, [read] *debeat*.

la: Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 minus bene *adsit*, quae et post *revelatio* adiungit *interior*. Mox cod. K *superiorem* et cod. W *interiorem* loco *veriorem*.

en: The Vatican [edition], against the faith of the manuscripts and edition 1, less rightly [reads] *adsit*, and after *revelatio* it adds *interior*. Soon after, codex K [reads] *superiorem* and codex W *interiorem* in place of *veriorem*.

la: Vat. addit *et*, quod deest in mss. et ed. I. — De triplici visione prophetali vide August., XII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 6. n. 15. seqq.

en: The Vatican [edition] adds *et*, which is missing in the manuscripts and edition 1. — On the threefold prophetic vision see Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter*, Book XII, ch. 6, nn. 15ff.

la: Vide Aristot., III. de Anima text. 39. (c. 8.) et de Sensu et sensibilibus, c. 6. — Mox post *elevari* cod. K *per sensum ad cognitionem intelligibilium*; et paulo infra ed. 1 *fiat* loco *sit*.

en: See Aristotle, *On the Soul* III, text 39 (c. 8), and *On Sense and Sensibles*, c. 6. — Soon after *elevari*, codex K [reads] *per sensum ad cognitionem intelligibilium*; and a little below, edition 1 [reads] *fiat* in place of *sit*.

la: Libr. Sacrament., ubi horum verborum ultima pars ita exhibetur: *per hunc invisibilium amore rapiamur*.

en: *Book of Sacraments* [Sacramentary], where the last part of these words is given thus: *through this we are caught up into the love of invisibles*.

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

en: From the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have supplied *ei* ["to him"].

la: Libr. III. Sent. d. 1. a. 2.

en: *Sentences* Book III, d. 1, a. 2.

la: Plures codd. ut A T etc. cum ed. 1 omittunt *in*. Mox cod. K post *personae* addit *sive hominum*.

en: Several codices, such as A, T, etc., with edition 1 omit *in*. Soon after *personae*, codex K adds *sive hominum* [or of men].

la: Mss. et ed. 1 postulantibus, substituimus *Propter hoc* loco *Propterea*.

en: With the manuscripts and edition 1 calling for it, we have substituted *Propter hoc* in place of *Propterea*.

la: Codd. vetustiores cum ed. 1 exhibent verbum *est*, quod in Vat. et cod. cc deest.

en: The older codices with edition 1 give the word *est*, which is missing in the Vatican [edition] and codex cc.

la: Alluditur ad illud Matth. 12, 39: *Generatio... signum quaerit*; et ad illud Daniel. 8, 15: *Et quaererem intelligentiam*. — Paulo ante Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 *sensuales* pro *sensibiles*, et dein contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 *quaerentes* loco *quaerunt*.

en: An allusion is made to Matthew 12:39: *A generation... seeks a sign*; and to Daniel 8:15: *And I sought to understand*. — A little before, the Vatican [edition], against the faith of the manuscripts and edition 1, [reads] *sensuales* for *sensibiles*, and then against the older codices and edition 1 [reads] *quaerentes* in place of *quaerunt*.

la: Vat. perperam et absque auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 *ut per haec manuducantur*, ac paulo post omittit particulam *et*. Plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 *per hoc* loco *per haec*, sed minus bene; dein aliqui codd. ut I P Q Z *intelligentiam* pro *intelligibilia*.

en: The Vatican [edition] wrongly and without authority of the manuscripts and edition 1 [reads] *ut per haec manuducantur*, and a little later omits the particle *et*. Most codices with edition 1 [read] *per hoc* in place of *per haec*, but less rightly; then some codices, such as I, P, Q, Z, [read] *intelligentiam* for *intelligibilia*.

la: Vat. cum aliquibus codd., omittendo verba *Utilis ergo est missio visibilis* et coniungendo ea quae sequuntur cum praecedenti propositione, sententiam Doctoris distorquet. Lectio in textum recepta exhibetur a multis mss. ut AFGHIKNTV WY ee ff, quorum tamen plures, forsan decepti ex immediate praecedenti verbo *visibilis*, cum ed. 1 minus congrue omittunt *Utilis*.

en: The Vatican [edition] with some codices, by omitting the words *Utilis ergo est missio visibilis* and joining what follows to the preceding proposition, distorts the doctor's meaning. The reading received into the text is given by many manuscripts (AFGHIKNTV, WY, ee, ff), of which however several, perhaps deceived by the immediately preceding word *visibilis*, with edition 1 less aptly omit *Utilis*.

la: Ex multis codd. ut AFGKTVWX Y etc. et ed. 1 supplevimus *autem*, quod hic ut principio responsionis ad aliam partem argumentorum minus bene omittitur. Post *accipit* supple: *Augustinus*. [?]

en: From many codices (AFGKTVWX, Y, etc.) and edition 1 we have supplied *autem*, which is here, as at the beginning of the response to the other part of the arguments, less rightly omitted. After *accipit* supply: *Augustinus*. [?] — anchor of the second clause unclear; *accipit* does not appear in the printed text and may refer to a variant elsewhere; flagged for PDF check.

la: Galat. 4, 4. — De seq. prop. cfr. Greg., II. Homil. 29. n. 4. in Evang.

en: Galatians 4:4. — On the following proposition cf. Gregory, *Homilies on the Gospel* II, Homily 29, n. 4.

la: In cod. O additur: *de scientia certitudinis vel potius intelligitur de scientia status finalis*.

en: In codex O is added: *concerning the science of certitude, or rather it is understood concerning the science of the final state*.

la: Cod. T cum ed. 1 *exercitat*. Mox nonnulli codd. ut WXVZ perperam *delectationem* pro *dilectionem*; cod. cc autem *ad devotionem et dilectionem*. Dein ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *enim* loco *autem*, quod Vat. cum cod. cc habet, et quo vis responsionis debilitatur.

en: Codex T with edition 1 [reads] *exercitat*. Soon after, some codices (WXVZ) wrongly [read] *delectationem* for *dilectionem*; codex cc however [reads] *ad devotionem et dilectionem*. Then from the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted *enim* in place of *autem*, which the Vatican [edition] with codex cc has, and by which the force of the response is weakened.

la: Alludit ad verba Augustini: *Vae his, qui nutus tuos pro te amant* etc., supra d. 3. p. I. q. 2. ad 1. allegata; vide etiam ibidem q. 3. ad ult., ubi eadem distinctio in *res* et *signa* occurrit. — Mox post *amentur* Vat., antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 obnitentibus, *vel si* loco *et*.

en: An allusion to Augustine's words: *Woe to those who love your beckonings instead of you* etc., cited above d. 3, p. I, q. 2, *ad* 1; see also there q. 3, *ad ult.*, where the same distinction into *res* and *signa* occurs. — Soon after *amentur*, the Vatican [edition], against the older manuscripts and edition 1, [reads] *vel si* in place of *et*.

la: August., II. de Doctr. christ. c. 1. n. 1: *Signum est enim res praeter speciem, quam ingerit sensibus, aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire.*

en: Augustine, *On Christian Doctrine* II, ch. 1, n. 1: *For a sign is a thing which, beyond the appearance which it presents to the senses, makes something else come into thought of itself.*

la: Hic, in corp. quaest. — Codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt *tamen*. Mox cod. V *cuiuscumque* pro *cuiuslibet*.

en: Here, in the body of the question. — The codices with edition 1 omit *tamen*. Soon after, codex V [reads] *cuiuscumque* for *cuiuslibet*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quaestio resolvitur iuxta duplicem distinctionem, scilicet circa modum inhabitationis et circa genera credentium. Quae hic a S. Bonav. dicuntur de inhabitatione secundum plenitudinis redundantiam diffusius explicantur a magistro eius Alex. Hal., qui (loc. infra cit.) ita dicit: « Non est (missio visibilis) ad demonstrationem cuiuscumque inhabitationis, sed illius inhabitationis, quae est *per plenitudinem gratiae in alios redundantis*, qualis fuit in Christo et aliquo modo in Apostolis ». Deinde docet, quomodo in Christo fuit influentia plenitudinis dupliciter, scil. per modum causae et per modum doctrinae: per modum causae efficientis quoad divinam naturam, per modum causae meritoriae quantum ad humanam; et quomodo his duobus modis est influentia gratiae redundantis in Sacramentis, sicut est plenitudo veritatis redundans in praedicatione Christi. Tum pergit: « Adveniente ergo plenitudine temporis, revelanda erat plenitudo inhabitationis, quoniam illa plenitudo redundare coepit, et hoc sensibilibus et nondum adhuc in fide provectis. Hoc autem fuit, quando Christus baptizatus fuit et praedicare coepit; plenitudo scil. gratiae ipsius per modum influentiae, quia data est tunc vis regenerativa aquae baptismi; et plenitudo veritatis eius per modum doctrinae, quia tunc praedicare coepit et veritatem fidei influere. Et ideo, quia plenitudo eius coepit influere in alios, debuit per signa manifestari, ut doctrinae eius citius crederetur ». — « In Apostolis autem fuit plenitudo gratiae descendens a plenitudine Christi, et etiam quodam modo plenitudo influentiae, scil. per modum doctrinae et per modum ministerii. Nam de plenitudine veritatis Christi accepimus ex doctrina Apostolorum, de plenitudine gratiae per ministerium ipsorum in dispensatione Sacramentorum ». Denique concludit, quod ad ostendendam inhabitationem quantum ad effectum gratiae redundantis per modum ministerii Spiritus sanctus visibiliter Apostolis datus sit in flatu, quando dictum est eis: *Accipite Spiritum sanctum, quorum remiseritis peccata* etc. (Ioan. 20, 22.); deinde vero in linguis igneis ad ostendendam inhabitationem Spiritus sancti ad effectum plenitudinis veritatis redundantis in alios per modum doctrinae.

**II.** Ex conclusione principali deducuntur duo corollaria in textu posita. — Verba in 2. coroll. *sicut cessaverunt miracula* non intelliguntur in sensu absoluto, sed quatenus miracula in principio Ecclesiae fuerunt manuductio quasi ordinaria ad fidem. — Quoad triplicem visionem (ad 4.) cfr. II. Sent. d. 10. a. 3. q. 2.; III. Sent. d. 23. dub. 1.; *Hexaem.* Serm. 9.

**III.** Conclusio in re est communis sententia. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 74. m. 2. — S. Thom., S. I. q. 43. a. 7. — B. Albert., hic a. 10. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. circa fin.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The question is resolved according to a twofold distinction, namely concerning the mode of indwelling and concerning the kinds of believers. What is said here by St. Bonaventure concerning indwelling according to the redundance of plenitude is more diffusely explained by his master Alexander of Hales, who (cited below) says thus: "It is not (the visible mission) for the demonstration of any indwelling whatsoever, but of that indwelling which is *through the fullness of grace redounding upon others*, such as was in Christ and in some manner in the Apostles". He then teaches how in Christ there was an influence of fullness in two ways, namely by way of cause and by way of doctrine: by way of efficient cause as to the divine nature, by way of meritorious cause as to the human; and how in these two modes there is the influence of grace redounding in the Sacraments, as there is the fullness of truth redounding in Christ's preaching. Then he continues: "Therefore at the coming of the fullness of time, the fullness of indwelling was to be revealed, since that fullness began to redound, and this to the sensible and those not yet advanced in faith. Now this was when Christ was baptized and began to preach; namely the fullness of his grace by way of influence, because the regenerative power of the water of baptism was then given; and the fullness of his truth by way of doctrine, because then he began to preach and to infuse the truth of faith. And therefore, since his fullness began to flow into others, it had to be manifested through signs, that his doctrine might be more quickly believed". — "But in the Apostles there was a fullness of grace descending from the fullness of Christ, and also in some manner a fullness of influence, namely by way of doctrine and by way of ministry. For from the fullness of Christ's truth we have received through the doctrine of the Apostles, [and] of the fullness of grace through their ministry in the dispensation of the Sacraments". Finally he concludes, that for showing the indwelling as to the effect of grace redounding by way of ministry, the Holy Spirit was visibly given to the Apostles in the breath, when it was said to them: *Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you remit* etc. (John 20:22); but afterward in the fiery tongues, for showing the indwelling of the Holy Spirit unto the effect of the fullness of truth redounding upon others by way of doctrine.

**II.** From the principal conclusion two corollaries posited in the text are deduced. — The words in the second corollary *just as miracles have ceased* are not understood in an absolute sense, but insofar as miracles in the beginning of the Church were the manuduction, as it were ordinary, to faith. — As for the threefold vision (in *to 4*), cf. II. Sent. d. 10, a. 3, q. 2; III. Sent. d. 23, dub. 1; *Hexaemeron* Sermon 9.

**III.** The conclusion in substance is the common sentence. — Alex. of Hales, *Summa* p. I, q. 74, m. 2. — St. Thomas, *Summa* I, q. 43, a. 7. — B. Albert, here a. 10. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 2. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 1, near the end.

---

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. 16, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 283 -->

### Quaestio III. *Quibus modis facta sit missio visibilis.*

Tertio quaeritur, quibus modis fit[^1] missio visibilis. Et accipiuntur diversi modi ex Scripturis. Filius enim visibiliter apparuit in creatura rationali, ut in homine; Spiritus vero sanctus in irrationali, ut puta in columba, igne et flatu. Quaeritur ergo de diversitate horum modorum apparendi; et videtur, quod non fuerunt modi[^2] convenientes, hoc modo.

1. Spiritus sanctus est aeque nobilis persona, ut Filius: ergo in aeque nobili creatura debet manifestari, ut Filius.

2. Item, si Filius propter assumtionem humanitatis sive apparitionem in forma servi est minor Patre, immo factus minor Angelis[^3]: ergo multo fortius Spiritus sanctus ex apparitione in igne non tantum minor Deo, sed etiam homine; sed hoc nullo modo congruit: ergo non congruit Spiritui sancto apparere in creatura irrationali. — Si tu dicas, quod Filius apparuit in homine assumto et unito, Spiritus autem sanctus non est columbae unitus vel igni; contra: unio nihil aufert divinitati: ergo propter unionem non debet dici minor. Si ergo dicitur minor, hoc est propter apparitionem: ergo etc.

3. Item, videtur quod Spiritus sanctus fuit unitus[^4], quia Spiritus sanctus apparebat in illa columba, et non in alia; et rursus apparebat ipse ibi[^5], non alia persona: ergo alio modo erat in illa quam Pater et Filius, et aliter in illa quam in alia; sed aliter non potuit esse in illa quam alia persona quantum ad substantiam nec quantum ad operationem, quia eadem est substantia et operatio in Trinitate, ergo quantum ad unionem: ergo etc. — Si tu dicas, quod apparuit sicut in signo, tunc quaero: aut illud signum fuit a natura, aut ab institutione[^6]. Si a natura, tunc pari ratione et omnis alia columba; si ab institutione, quaeritur: quis instituit?

4. Item, Filius apparuit visibiliter uno modo tantum et in una creatura; quaeritur, quare non similiter Spiritus sanctus? et videtur, quod ita deberet esse, quia sicut in Filio nulla cadit varietas, immo omnimoda uniformitas, ita et in Spiritu sancto: ergo debuit apparere tantum in una specie, ut Filius[^7].

5. Item, Filius tantum semel apparuit visibiliter, quia tantum semel est incarnatus, non amplius. Quaeritur ergo, unde hoc est, quod Spiritus sanctus pluries apparuit, ut puta non tantum semel in igne, sed etiam quousque dabatur Spiritus sanctus[^8]? — Si dicas, quod illa, in quibus Spiritus sanctus apparuit, statim esse desierunt post apparitionem, et ideo oportuit rursum alia fieri; tunc ergo videtur, quod nec illa columba fuerit vera, nec ignis, cum tam columba quam ignis habeant[^9] virtutem permanendi; et si hoc in illa apparitione non fuit, tunc ergo non fuerunt vera, sed falsa, et non fuerunt apparitiones, sed praestigia et illusiones, sicut sunt phantasmata daemonum et aliorum magorum.

6. Ultimo quaeritur, quare tot modis apparuit Spiritus sanctus, et quare in alia specie in capite quam in membris, ut in Christo et Apostolis?

### Conclusio.

> *Apparitio Filii congruenter facta est semel in una et rationabili substantia unita; Spiritus vero sanctus congruenter apparuit pluries in pluribus et irrationabilibus creaturis ut signis.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *finis imponit necessitatem his quae sunt ad finem*; ideo modus apparendi sumendus est iuxta finem apparitionis. Apparuit autem Filius in carne, ut esset *mediator*, Spiritus vero sanctus, ut *doctor*, Ioannis decimo sexto[^10]: *Cum venerit, docebit vos omnem veritatem.* Ad mediationem autem necessaria est extremorum separatorum concursio et in unum unio, sicut patet; et ideo Filius in creatura apparuit ut *unitus*. Ad eruditionem autem ignorantium intervenit signum[^11]; ideo Spiritus sanctus apparuit in creatura ut *signatum in signo*.

Quoniam ergo nihil est Deo perfecte unibile nisi beatificabile, et hoc solum est substantia rationalis; ideo Filius in sola substantia rationali apparuit.

Quia vero usui significationis purae[^12] convenit creatura irrationalis magis quam rationalis, ne forte crederetur unita, non tantum significans;

<!-- page 284 -->

ideo Spiritus sanctus apparuit in creatura irrationali, quae aliquo modo haberet rationem significandi et exprimendi, sicut flatus significat spirationem, ignis vero dilectionem.

Rursus, quoniam ad perfectam mediationem requiritur, quod mediator sit unus, et quod unio sit inseparabilis; ideo[^13] Filii apparitio singularis fuit et indivisibilis. Sed contra, quia non potest Spiritus sanctus perfecte significari in uno signo, ideo oportuit significari[^14] per plura: et ideo Filius uno modo apparuit, sed Spiritus sanctus pluribus. His visis, facile est respondere ad obiecta.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

*Ad 1.* Nam ad illud quod primo obiicitur, quod aeque nobilis est persona Spiritus sancti; dicendum, quod nihil facit ibi nobilitas apparentis, sed finis apparitionis; quia ille ut mediator, iste ut eruditor sive doctor, ideo Filius ut in homine assumto, Spiritus sanctus ut in creatura et signo[^15].

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Spiritus sanctus debet dici minor, sicut et Filius; dicendum, quod minoritas illa non dicitur de Filio ratione divinitatis, sed ratione unionis et communicationis[^16] idiomatum; quia Filius factus est homo passibilis, sed Spiritus sanctus non est factus columba.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est unitus columbae; dicendum, quod est unio *secundum veritatem*, et est unio *secundum intentionem*[^17]. Primo modo uniuntur illa quae uniuntur in natura vel persona; secundo modo uniuntur significatum et signum; et hoc modo unita est persona Spiritus sancti illis formis, in quibus apparuit.

Si autem quaeratur, unde veniebat talis unio; dicendum, quod *dispositive* a proprietatibus creaturae, in quibus nata erat personam Spiritus sancti declarare[^18], sicut flatus spiritum, ignis amorem, columba donum propter fecunditatem. Sed *completive* veniebat hoc[^19] a divina ordinatione, quae ordinavit creaturas ad hoc, non instituendo, sed simul formando et instituendo, quia ad hoc solum formabat; et ideo tam columba quam ignis simul cum apparitione etiam incepit et desiit.

*[Ad 4.][^20]*

*Ad 5.* Ex hoc patet, quare[^21] Spiritus sanctus non tantum semel apparuit, sed pluries, Filius autem non, quia columba et ignis statim post apparitionem esse desierunt, non autem homo. — Ex hoc patet etiam, quod etsi[^22] columba illa et ignis essent verum corpus, tamen nec columba fuit vera columba, quia statim desiit, sed similitudo columbae; similiter nec ignis verus ignis, quia non comburebat. Nec tamen ibi erat aliqua illusio, quia non erat ibi aliqua falsitas in significando. Offerebatur enim sensui ad significandum, quod vere ibi erat; et quia magis attendebatur ratio significandi quam existendi, ideo tamdiu duravit, quamdiu significare potuit vel officium signi implevit. Et quia eadem vi formata est columba, mota, et conservata, statim ut vis illa desiit movere, columba et ignis desiit esse.

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur, quare tot modis apparuit Spiritus sanctus; dicendum, quod apparitio Spiritus sancti fuit ad manifestandam plenitudinem redundantiae, ut prius habitum est[^23]; et quoniam redundantia potest esse tripliciter, ideo tribus modis apparuit. Potest enim esse haec plenitudo *per redemptionem*; et ita fuit in Christo, et haec est perfecta gratia per omnem modum. Ideo in Christo apparuit in columba, quia[^24] erat pretium redemptionis primogenitorum et erat animal integrum et perfectum. Potest etiam esse *per vitae influentiam* quantum ad sensum et motum, et hoc mediantibus Sacramentis; et haec plenitudo est in sacerdotibus, et ideo datus est eis Spiritus sanctus in specie flatus, Ioannis vigesimo[^25]: *Insufflavit in eos dicens: Accipite Spiritum sanctum: quorum remiseritis peccata* etc. Potest etiam tertio modo esse *per cognitionis administrationem* sive doctrinam; et haec plenitudo est in Apostolis et Doctoribus, et ideo Spiritus sanctus apparuit eis in linguis igneis[^26]. Ex his patet responsio et sufficientia modorum apparendi et obiectorum.

english:
### Question III. *By what modes the visible mission was made.*

In the third place it is asked, by what modes[^1] the visible mission is made. And diverse modes are taken from the Scriptures. For the Son appeared visibly in a rational creature, namely in a man; but the Holy Spirit in an irrational [creature], namely in a dove, fire, and breath. It is asked therefore concerning the diversity of these modes of appearing; and it appears that the modes[^2] were not fitting, in this way.

1. The Holy Spirit is a person equally noble as the Son: therefore he ought to be manifested in an equally noble creature, as the Son [was].

2. Likewise, if the Son on account of the assumption of humanity, or [on account of] the apparition in the form of a servant, is less than the Father, indeed *made less than the Angels*[^3]: therefore much more strongly the Holy Spirit, from the apparition in fire, [would be] less not only than God but also than man; but this in no way fits: therefore it does not fit the Holy Spirit to appear in an irrational creature. — If you say, that the Son appeared in a man assumed and united, but the Holy Spirit was not united to the dove or to the fire; on the contrary: union takes nothing away from divinity: therefore on account of union [the Son] ought not to be called less. If therefore he is called less, this is on account of the apparition: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it appears that the Holy Spirit was united[^4], because the Holy Spirit was appearing in that dove, and not in another; and again he himself was appearing there[^5], not another person: therefore he was in that [dove] in another mode than the Father and the Son, and otherwise in that [dove] than in another; but he could not be otherwise in that [dove] than another person as to substance nor as to operation, since substance and operation are the same in the Trinity, therefore as to union: therefore etc. — If you say, that he appeared as in a sign, then I ask: was that sign by nature, or by institution[^6]? If by nature, then by parity of reason every other dove also; if by institution, it is asked: who instituted?

4. Likewise, the Son appeared visibly in only one mode and in only one creature; it is asked, why not similarly the Holy Spirit? And it appears that it ought to be so, because just as in the Son no variety falls, but rather every kind of uniformity, so also in the Holy Spirit: therefore he ought to have appeared only in one species, as the Son [did][^7].

5. Likewise, the Son appeared visibly only once, because he was only once incarnated, no more. It is asked therefore, whence is it, that the Holy Spirit appeared more often, namely not only once in fire, but also as long as the Holy Spirit was being given[^8]? — If you say, that those [creatures] in which the Holy Spirit appeared, immediately ceased to exist after the apparition, and therefore it was necessary that other [creatures] be made again; then it appears that neither was that dove true, nor the fire, since both the dove and the fire have[^9] the power of remaining; and if this was not [the case] in that apparition, then they were not true, but false, and were not apparitions, but tricks and illusions, as are the phantasms of demons and other magicians.

6. Lastly it is asked, why the Holy Spirit appeared in so many modes, and why in another species in the head than in the members, namely in Christ and the Apostles?

### Conclusion.

> *The apparition of the Son was fittingly made once in one and rational substance united; but the Holy Spirit fittingly appeared more often in many and irrational creatures as signs.*

**I respond:** It must be said, that *the end imposes necessity on those things which are unto the end*; therefore the mode of appearing is to be taken according to the end of the apparition. Now the Son appeared in flesh, that he might be the *mediator*; but the Holy Spirit, [appeared] as *teacher*, [as in] John 16[^10]: *When he comes, he will teach you all truth.* For mediation there is necessary the concourse of separated extremes and union into one, as is clear; and therefore the Son appeared in a creature as *united*. But for the instruction of the ignorant a sign[^11] intervenes; therefore the Holy Spirit appeared in a creature as *the signified in a sign*.

Since therefore nothing is perfectly unitable to God except what is capable of beatitude, and this alone is rational substance; therefore the Son appeared in rational substance alone.

But because for the use of pure signification[^12] an irrational creature is more fitting than a rational one, lest perhaps it be believed united, not only signifying;

therefore the Holy Spirit appeared in an irrational creature, which would have in some way an account of signifying and expressing, as breath signifies spiration, but fire love.

Again, since for perfect mediation it is required that the mediator be one and that the union be inseparable; therefore[^13] the Son's apparition was singular and indivisible. But on the contrary, since the Holy Spirit cannot be perfectly signified in one sign, therefore it was necessary to be signified[^14] through several: and therefore the Son appeared in one mode, but the Holy Spirit in several. These things seen, it is easy to respond to the objections.

**To the arguments on the contrary:**

*To 1.* For as to what is objected first, that the Holy Spirit is an equally noble person; it must be said, that the nobility of the one appearing makes nothing there, but the end of the apparition; because the one [appears] as mediator, the other as instructor or teacher, therefore the Son [appeared] as in a man assumed, the Holy Spirit as in a creature and sign[^15].

*To 2.* As to what is objected, that the Holy Spirit ought to be called less, just as also the Son; it must be said, that that lessness is not said of the Son by reason of divinity, but by reason of union and communication[^16] of idioms; because the Son was made a passible man, but the Holy Spirit was not made a dove.

*To 3.* As to what is objected, that he is united to the dove; it must be said, that there is union *according to truth*, and there is union *according to intention*[^17]. In the first mode are united those things which are united in nature or person; in the second mode the signified and the sign are united; and in this mode the person of the Holy Spirit was united to those forms in which he appeared.

If however it is asked, whence such union came; it must be said, that *dispositively* [it came] from the properties of the creature, in which it was apt to declare the person of the Holy Spirit[^18], as breath [declares] spirit, fire [declares] love, the dove [declares] gift on account of fecundity. But *completively* this came[^19] from the divine ordination, which ordained the creatures unto this, not by instituting, but simultaneously by forming and instituting, since for this alone it was forming; and therefore both the dove and the fire began and ceased simultaneously with the apparition.

*[To 4.][^20]*

*To 5.* From this it is clear, why[^21] the Holy Spirit not only once appeared, but more often, but the Son did not, because the dove and the fire ceased to exist immediately after the apparition, but not [so] the man. — From this it is also clear, that even if[^22] that dove and that fire were a true body, nevertheless neither was the dove a true dove, because it ceased immediately, but a likeness of a dove; similarly neither was the fire a true fire, because it was not burning. Yet there was no illusion there, because there was no falsity in signifying. For it was offered to sense to signify what truly was there; and because the account of signifying was attended to more than [the account] of existing, therefore it lasted as long as it could signify, or [as long as] it fulfilled the office of a sign. And since the dove was formed, moved, and conserved by the same power, immediately when that power ceased to move, the dove and the fire ceased to be.

*To 6.* As to what is asked last, why the Holy Spirit appeared in so many modes; it must be said, that the apparition of the Holy Spirit was for manifesting the *fullness of redundance*, as was had before[^23]; and since the redundance can be in three ways, therefore he appeared in three modes. For this fullness can be *through redemption*; and so it was in Christ, and this is perfect grace in every mode. Therefore in Christ he appeared in the dove, because[^24] [the dove] was the price of redemption of the firstborn and was an integral and perfect animal. It can also be *through the influence of life* as to sense and motion, and this through the mediation of the Sacraments; and this fullness is in priests, and therefore the Holy Spirit was given to them in the form of breath, [as in] John 20[^25]: *He breathed on them, saying: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall remit* etc. It can also in a third mode be *through the administration of cognition* or doctrine; and this fullness is in the Apostles and Doctors, and therefore the Holy Spirit appeared to them in fiery tongues[^26]. From these the response is clear, and the sufficiency of the modes of appearing and of the objects.

la: Vat. *fuit*; plures codd. ut A T V X *sit*.

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *fuit*; several codices, such as A, T, V, X, [read] *sit*.

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

en: From the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have supplied *modi*.

la: Cfr. Epist. ad Philip. 2, 7, et ad Hebr. 2, 7. et 9. — Paulo ante in cod. T post *seipsum* additur *factus*, in ed. 1 vero *non solum*, quae et paulo infra *Angelo* ponit pro *Deo*.

en: Cf. Philippians 2:7 and Hebrews 2:7 and 9. — A little before, in codex T after *seipsum* is added *factus*; in edition 1 [is added] *non solum*, which a little below also puts *Angelo* in place of *Deo*.

la: Ed. 1 *fuerit unitus illi columbae*.

en: Edition 1 [reads] *fuerit unitus illi columbae* [was united to that dove].

la: Aliqui codd. ut H I addunt *et*.

en: Some codices, such as H, I, add *et*.

la: Haec signi divisio insinuatur ab Aristotele, I. Periherm. c. 2, et ab August., II. de Doctr. christ. c. 1. 2. n. 2. 3.

en: This division of the sign is hinted at by Aristotle, *On Interpretation* I, c. 2, and by Augustine, *On Christian Doctrine* II, cc. 1–2, nn. 2–3.

la: Vat., antiquis mss. et ed. 1 refragantibus, omittit *ut Filius*. Paulo ante cod. W *si est in Filio nulla varietas* loco *sicut in Filio nulla cadit varietas*.

en: The Vatican [edition], against the ancient manuscripts and edition 1, omits *ut Filius*. A little before, codex W [reads] *si est in Filio nulla varietas* in place of *sicut in Filio nulla cadit varietas*.

la: Scil. signis visibilibus, quod primis Ecclesiae temporibus frequenter fiebat; vide Act. 8, 17 et 10, 44. — Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 *in specie columbae* loco *quousque dabatur Spiritus sanctus*.

en: That is, by visible signs, which happened frequently in the first ages of the Church; see Acts 8:17 and 10:44. — The Vatican [edition], without authority of the manuscripts and edition 1, [reads] *in specie columbae* in place of *quousque dabatur Spiritus sanctus*.

la: Vat. cum pluribus codd. *habeat*.

en: The Vatican [edition] with several codices [reads] *habeat*.

la: Vers. 13, ubi Vulgata: *Cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis, docebit* etc.

en: [John 16,] verse 13, where the Vulgate reads: *But when that Spirit of truth shall come, he will teach* etc.

la: Plura de hoc, sicut et de modo, quo eruditio per signum fit, vide apud August., libr. de Magistro. — Plures codd. ut AITWYZ bb cc *signatio* (significatio).

en: More on this, as also on the mode by which instruction takes place through a sign, see in Augustine, the book *On the Teacher*. — Several codices (AITWYZ, bb, cc) [read] *signatio* (significatio).

la: Cod. T *potius* loco *purae* moxque omittit *magis*.

en: Codex T [reads] *potius* in place of *purae*, and soon after omits *magis*.

la: In cod. cc et Vat. deest *ideo*, quod tamen in aliis codd. et ed. 1 habetur.

en: In codex cc and the Vatican [edition] *ideo* is missing, which however is found in the other codices and in edition 1.

la: Supplevimus ex vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1 *significari*.

en: We have supplied from the older manuscripts and edition 1 *significari*.

la: Codd. aa bb, post *sanctus* omisso *et*, ponunt *ut signo*.

en: Codices aa, bb, with *et* omitted after *sanctus*, place *ut signo*.

la: Fide plurimorum codd. et ed. 1 substituimus nomen magis usitatum *communicationis* pro *communionis*.

en: On the faith of most codices and edition 1 we have substituted the more usual name *communicationis* for *communionis*.

la: Id est, secundum actum rationis et voluntatis, quae fit vel cum vel sine fundamento in re.

en: That is, according to an act of reason and will, which is made either with or without a foundation in the thing.

la: Ita multi mss. ut ADFGIKPQTVW etc. et ed. 1, dum Vat. cum aliquibus codd. modo passivo et minus apto *persona Spiritus sancti declarari*. In lectione in textum recepta *nata* refertur ad *creaturae*.

en: Thus many manuscripts (ADFGIKPQTVW, etc.) and edition 1, while the Vatican [edition] with some codices in the passive mode and less aptly [read] *persona Spiritus sancti declarari*. In the reading received into the text *nata* refers to *creaturae*.

la: Sequimur plurimos codd. cum ed. 1, dum Vat. cum cod. cc ponit *veniebant haec*. Codd. P Q *veniebat unio haec*, cod. S autem omittit *hoc*. Paulo infra Vat. cum cod. cc, ceteris tamen codd. cum ed. 1 refragantibus, *et* loco *quia*, deinde *quia* pro *et ideo*, quibus positis ordo et connexio confunditur. Mox aliqui mss. ut H Y Z cum ed. 1 *et* loco *etiam*.

en: We follow most codices with edition 1, while the Vatican [edition] with codex cc places *veniebant haec*. Codices P, Q [read] *veniebat unio haec*; codex S omits *hoc*. A little below the Vatican [edition] with codex cc, but with the rest of the codices and edition 1 against it, [reads] *et* in place of *quia*, then *quia* for *et ideo*, by which placements the order and connection is thrown into confusion. Soon after, some manuscripts (H, Y, Z) with edition 1 [read] *et* in place of *etiam*.

la: Ad obiectionem quartam specialis a S. Doctore non est data responsio, quia ipsa iam in corp. quaest. continetur. Vide etiam respectu ipsius infra resp. ad 6.

en: No special response is given by the Holy Doctor to the fourth objection, because it is already contained in the body of the question. See also with respect to it the response *ad 6* below.

la: Praeferimus lectionem plurium codd. ut I T aa bb ff et ed. 1 *quare* loco *quod*. Codd. aa bb paulo ante post *Ex hoc* adiiciunt *etiam*.

en: We prefer the reading of several codices (I, T, aa, bb, ff) and edition 1: *quare* in place of *quod*. Codices aa, bb a little before, after *Ex hoc*, add *etiam*.

la: Vat. cum pluribus codd. *si* loco *etsi*.

en: The Vatican [edition] with several codices [reads] *si* in place of *etsi*.

la: Quaest. praeced. et hic circa finem corp. quaest. — Mox antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 exigentibus, substituimus *tripliciter* loco *triplex*.

en: [In] the preceding question, and here near the end of the body of the question. — Soon after, with the older manuscripts and edition 1 demanding it, we have substituted *tripliciter* in place of *triplex*.

la: Supple: *columba*, vel pone cum codd. Y Z *quae* loco *quia*. — Cfr. Levit. 12, 6 seqq.

en: Supply: *columba* [the dove], or place with codices Y, Z *quae* in place of *quia*. — Cf. Leviticus 12:6ff.

la: Vers. 22. et 23, ubi Vulgata: *Insufflavit et dixit eis: accipite* etc.

en: [John 20,] verses 22 and 23, where the Vulgate reads: *He breathed on [them] and said to them: Receive* etc.

en: Acts 2:3.

latin_scholion:
**I.** In hac una quaestione quatuor problemata solvuntur: 1. quot sint missiones et Filii et Spiritus sancti; 2. quare Filio una et Spiritui sancto plures attribuantur; 3. quare et quo modo Filius apparuerit ut unitus, scilicet unione hypostatica, Spiritus sanctus autem tantum ut « signatum in signo »; 4. cur Filius, factus homo, sit se ipso minor, non vero Spiritus sanctus respectu sui signi (in solut. ad 2.).

**II.** Tres tantum enumerantur visibiles missiones Spiritus sancti, quia etiam Magister hoc loco tantum tres affert. A S. Thoma (S. I. q. 43. a. 7. ad 6.) aliisque additur quarta « *in nube lucida* » (Matth. 17, 5), quae ab ipsa Ecclesia insinuatur in Officio Transfigurationis (I. Noct. respons. II.) his verbis: « In splendenti nube Spiritus sanctus visus est ». Iuxta S. Bonav. vero (Comment. in Lucam c. 9. v. 34.) ista nubes significavit humanam Christi naturam.

**III.** In solut. ad 5. incidit etiam quinta quaestio, utrum illa columba fuerit res mere phantastica, an saltem res corporalis, vel etiam specifice columba realis. Seraphicus mediam viam tenet, sicut etiam B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med. aliique multi. In eodem sensu loqui videtur ipse S. Thomas et in *Comment.* hic a. 3. ad 3. et in *S.* I. q. 43. a. 7. Attamen idem in *S.* III. q. 39. a. 7. veram columbam fuisse affirmat, quae assertio tantum in sensu maioris probabilitatis dicta videtur, ut ibi observat Caietanus. Hanc opinionem sequitur etiam Uldaricus, « discipulus et imitator Alberti », ut dicit Dionys. Carth., qui et ipse est eiusdem sententiae.

**IV.** Praeter iam laudatos cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. 1. q. 74. m. 3. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. seq. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 6. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 5. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 1, et 3. princ. q. unica. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** In this one question four problems are resolved: 1. how many missions there are both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; 2. why one is attributed to the Son and several to the Holy Spirit; 3. why and in what mode the Son appeared as united, namely by hypostatic union, but the Holy Spirit only as "signified in a sign"; 4. why the Son, having been made man, is less than himself, but not the Holy Spirit with respect to his sign (in the solution *to 2*).

**II.** Only three visible missions of the Holy Spirit are enumerated, because the Master also in this place brings forward only three. By St. Thomas (*Summa* I, q. 43, a. 7, ad 6) and others a fourth is added, "*in the bright cloud*" (Matthew 17:5), which is hinted at by the Church herself in the Office of the Transfiguration (Nocturn I, response 2) in these words: "In the resplendent cloud the Holy Spirit was seen". But according to St. Bonaventure (*Commentary on Luke*, c. 9, v. 34), that cloud signified the human nature of Christ.

**III.** In the solution *to 5* a fifth question also arises: whether that dove was a merely phantastic thing, or at least a corporeal thing, or even specifically a real dove. The Seraphic [Doctor] holds the middle way, as also B. Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, and many others. In the same sense St. Thomas himself appears to speak, both in the *Commentary* here a. 3, ad 3, and in the *Summa* I, q. 43, a. 7. However the same in *Summa* III, q. 39, a. 7 affirms it to have been a true dove, an assertion which seems said only in the sense of greater probability, as Cajetan there observes. This opinion is also followed by Uldaricus, "the disciple and imitator of Albert", as Dionysius Carthusianus says, who himself is also of the same view.

**IV.** Besides those already cited, cf. Alex. of Hales, *Summa* p. 1, q. 74, m. 3, 5. — B. Albert, here a. 4 and following. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 6. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 5. — Aegidius Romanus, here 2 princ. q. 1, and 3 princ. q. unica. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 3.

---


title: Dist. 16, Dubia

title_alt:
Dubia circa litteram
Doubts on the text

source_text:
<!-- page 285 -->

### Dubium I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit, quod *Filius in quantum missus, id est factus, minor est Patre*. Contra quod sic obiicitur: omnis actus, secundum quem aliquem contingit fieri minorem, est indignitatis. Si ergo Filius ratione missionis est minoratus, ergo missio pertinet ad indignitatem[^1]. Item, quandocumque aliquis de aequali fit minor, mutatur; sed Filius ante missionem erat aequalis, et modo est minor: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quaedam dicuntur de Filio Dei per essentiam, quaedam per[^2] unionem, quae tanta fuit, ut faceret hominem Deum et Deum hominem. Essentialiter loquendo, nullo modo Filius Dei est minor: sed hoc dictum est per unionem, quia omnia quae dicuntur de homine, possunt dici de Filio Dei; et ita patet, quod nulla ex hoc est indignitas, nulla mutabilitas in eius persona; et sic solvitur utrumque obiectum, quia utraque ratio procedit, intellecto[^3] quod secundum eandem naturam fieret minor, secundum quam erat aequalis, et ita desineret esse aequalis. Nunc autem simul est minor et aequalis[^4].

### Dubium II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *se ipso etiam minor est Filius*. Videtur enim male dicere, quia maior diversitas importatur per hoc quod est *maior et minor*, quam per hoc quod est *alius et alius*, quia prima non cadit in divina natura, secunda sic. Si ergo haec est vera: *Filius est minor se*, ergo et haec: *Filius est alius et alius*, et ita duae personae, quod non conceditur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod verum est, quod maiorem diversitatem dicunt *maior et minor*, quia diversitatem virtutis et naturarum; sed ad hanc[^5] diversitatem, quamvis sit maior, non sequitur diversitas in persona, quia plures naturae possunt esse in una persona. Quoniam ergo in Christo cadit diversitas naturarum et ita virtutum, non autem personarum: ideo dicitur *maior et minor* ratione diversarum virtutum, non autem *alius et alius*, cum non habeat diversas personas[^6].

### Dubium III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *minoratus est paulo minus ab Angelis*. Videtur enim falsum, quia super illud ad Hebraeos secundo[^7]: *Eum qui modico quam Angeli minoratus est*, dicit Glossa: « Natura humanae mentis, qualem Christus assumsit, quae nullo peccato potuit depravari, solus Deus maior est ». Item, beata Virgo, quae est pure creatura, est super omnes Angelos exaltata: ergo etc.

<!-- page 286 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est loqui de Christo in comparatione ad Angelos quantum ad quatuor, scilicet *quantum ad gratiam* et *quantum ad naturam mentis* et *quantum ad naturam corporis* et *quantum ad statum passibilitatis*. Quantum ad gratiam est simpliciter maior; quantum ad naturam mentis saltem non fuit minor, quia, sicut dicit Glossa[^8]: « Minor Angelis fuit corpore, non mente »; quantum ad naturam corporis minor fuit; quantum autem ad statum[^9] passibilitatis fuit minor et modico minoratus, quia status passibilitatis in statum gloriae et honoris paulo post convertendus erat[^10].

### Dubium IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hilarius, quod *Pater est maior Filio*, quia si verum est quod dicit, cum idem sit in Deo sapientia, potentia, bonitas et magnitudo: ergo si[^11] maior est, et est potentior et sapientior et melior. Praeterea, in Deo non est magnitudo molis, sed virtutis: ergo si Pater est maior, est potentior; quod stare non potest. Item, *maior* aut dicit essentiam, aut notionem. Non essentiam, quia essentia sunt aequales; si notionem, quaero: quam? Si tu dicas, quod paternitatem; contra: comparatio secundum *maius et*[^12] *minus* non attenditur nisi in comparticipantibus, unde non dicitur: *cygnus est albior corvo*; sed Filius non est comparticipans paternitatem: ergo etc. Item quaeritur: quare[^13] non dicitur maior Spiritu sancto?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in Patre est *auctoritas* respectu Filii et Spiritus sancti, in Filio respectu Spiritus sancti, et ideo in Patre *maior auctoritas* et *maior fecunditas*; et quia nullum nomen ita competit ad exprimendam auctoritatem, sicut hoc nomen *magnus*: ideo dicit Hilarius, quod Pater est maior Filio. Ex hoc patent obiecta, quia *maior* non dicit essentiam, sicut potentia et sapientia, sed dicit notionem. Si quaeras: quam? dico, quod dicit notionem communiter, sed tamen *in ratione principii*, sicut *subauctoritas* in ratione emanantis[^14]; et hinc est, quod Pater dicitur maior Filio, quia etsi uterque habeat notionem in ratione principii, Pater tamen in ratione principii tantum[^15], et ideo plus habet de ratione auctoritatis; Spiritus autem sanctus nullius personae est principium, et ideo non comparatur eis secundum maioritatem[^16].

### Dubium V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Maior itaque donans est, sed minor* etc. Videtur enim falsum, quia quocumque modo accipiatur *maior*, dicitur relative ad minorem: ergo si est ponere Patrem maiorem, est ponere Filium minorem. Item, Pater dicitur maior, quia habet auctoritatem supra Filium: ergo cum Filius habeat subauctoritatem respectu Patris, debet dici minor.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod nihil impedit, quare Filius non dicatur minor Patre ratione subauctoritatis, sicut Pater maior[^17], nisi quia *nomina indignitatis in Deo non debent ad usum trahi*; vel quia sancti Doctores, quantum possunt, se elongant ab haereticorum fallacia. Ideo cum Hilarius dixisset Patrem maiorem, noluit, quod Filius diceretur minor, ne videretur illa maioritas non tantum auctoritatis, sed etiam inaequalitatis. Et quamvis Hilarius diceret in Patre auctoritatem, non tamen legitur dixisse in Filio subauctoritatem; sed illud verbum est additum in consuetudinem disputantium[^18].

---

english:
### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the *littera*, and first there is doubt about what he says, that *the Son, insofar as he is sent, that is, made, is less than the Father*. Against which it is objected thus: every act, according to which something is made less, is of unworthiness. If therefore the Son by reason of mission is made less, then mission pertains to unworthiness[^1]. Likewise, whenever someone from being equal becomes less, he is changed; but the Son before mission was equal, and now is less: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said, that some things are said of the Son of God *by essence*, some *by union*[^2], which was so great that it made man God and God man. Speaking essentially, in no way is the Son of God less; but this was said by reason of union, because all things which are said of the man can be said of the Son of God; and so it is clear that there is no unworthiness from this, no mutability in his person; and thus both objections are resolved, since both reasonings proceed [only] if it is understood[^3] that he became less according to the same nature according to which he was equal, and so would cease to be equal. But now he is at the same time less and equal[^4].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *the Son is less even than himself*. For it appears to speak ill, because greater diversity is implied by the [pair] *greater and less* than by *one and another*, since the first does not fall in the divine nature, but the second does. If therefore this is true: *the Son is less than himself*, then also this: *the Son is one and another*, and so two persons — which is not granted.

**I respond:** It must be said, that it is true that *greater and less* state a greater diversity, namely a diversity of power and of natures; but to this[^5] diversity, although it is greater, there does not follow a diversity in person, because several natures can be in one person. Therefore since in Christ there falls a diversity of natures and so of powers, but not of persons: therefore he is called *greater and less* by reason of the diverse powers, but not *one and another*, since he does not have diverse persons[^6].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *he was made a little less than the Angels*. For it appears false, because on that [text] of Hebrews 2[^7]: *Him who was made a little less than the Angels*, the Gloss says: "The nature of the human mind, such as Christ assumed, which could be depraved by no sin, only God is greater than it". Likewise, the blessed Virgin, who is purely a creature, is exalted above all the Angels: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said, that one can speak of Christ in comparison to the Angels with respect to four things, namely *with respect to grace*, *with respect to the nature of mind*, *with respect to the nature of body*, and *with respect to the state of passibility*. With respect to grace he is simply greater; with respect to the nature of mind he was at least not less, because, as the Gloss says[^8]: "He was less than the Angels in body, not in mind"; with respect to the nature of body he was less; but with respect to the state[^9] of passibility he was less and made *a little* less, because the state of passibility was a little after to be converted into the state of glory and honor[^10].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what Hilary says, that *the Father is greater than the Son*; because if what he says is true, since wisdom, power, goodness, and greatness are the same in God: therefore if[^11] he is greater, he is also more powerful and wiser and better. Furthermore, in God there is no greatness of mass, but [only] of power: therefore if the Father is greater, he is more powerful; which cannot stand. Likewise, *greater* either states essence or notion. Not essence, because [the persons] are equal in essence; if [it states] notion, I ask: which? If you say *paternity*; on the contrary: a comparison according to *more and*[^12] *less* is attended only among co-participants, whence it is not said: *the swan is whiter than the raven*; but the Son is not co-participant in paternity: therefore etc. Likewise it is asked: why[^13] is he not called greater than the Holy Spirit?

**I respond:** It must be said, that in the Father there is *authority* with respect to the Son and the Holy Spirit, in the Son with respect to the Holy Spirit, and therefore in the Father there is *greater authority* and *greater fecundity*; and because no name fits as well to express authority as the name *great*: therefore Hilary says that the Father is greater than the Son. From this the objections are clear, because *greater* does not state essence, like power and wisdom, but states notion. If you ask: which? I say that it states notion *commonly*, but yet *in the account of principle*, just as *sub-authority* [does] in the account of one emanating[^14]; and hence it is, that the Father is called greater than the Son, because although both have notion in the account of principle, the Father is in the account of principle only[^15], and therefore has more of the account of authority; but the Holy Spirit is the principle of no person, and therefore he is not compared to them according to greatness[^16].

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *Greater therefore is the giver, but less* etc. For it appears false, because in whatever mode *greater* is taken, it is said relatively to a less one: therefore if there is to be posited a greater Father, there is to be posited a less Son. Likewise, the Father is called greater because he has authority over the Son: therefore since the Son has sub-authority with respect to the Father, he ought to be called less.

**I respond:** It must be said, that nothing impedes why the Son should not be called less than the Father by reason of sub-authority, just as the Father [is called] greater[^17], except that *names of unworthiness in God ought not to be drawn into use*; or because the holy Doctors, as much as they can, distance themselves from the fallacy of heretics. Therefore when Hilary had said the Father [is] greater, he did not wish that the Son be called less, lest that greatness should appear [to be] not only of authority but also of inequality. And although Hilary said there is authority in the Father, yet he is not read to have said sub-authority in the Son; but that word was added by the custom of those disputing[^18].

---

la: Auctoritate antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 removimus *Dei*, quod Vat. cum cod. cc perperam addit.

en: On the authority of the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have removed *Dei*, which the Vatican [edition] with codex cc wrongly adds.

la: Ed. 1 *propter*.

en: Edition 1 [reads] *propter*.

la: Cod. I *intelligendo*; cod. dd *utraque obiectio, quia utraque obiectio procedit intelligendo*.

en: Codex I [reads] *intelligendo*; codex dd [reads] *utraque obiectio, quia utraque obiectio procedit intelligendo*.

la: Cfr. hic q. 3. ad 1. et 2.

en: Cf. here q. 3, *ad* 1 and 2.

la: Cod. Z loco *hanc* ponit *talem*, Vat. *naturae*, ed. 1 vero *talem naturae*; alii codd. exhibent lectionem in textum receptam.

en: Codex Z places *talem* in place of *hanc*; the Vatican [edition reads] *naturae*; edition 1 [reads] *talem naturae*; the other codices give the reading received into the text.

la: Idem dubium solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 11. — Richard. et Petrus, hic in expos. lit.

en: The same doubt is resolved by B. Albert, here a. 11. — Richard and Peter [of Tarentaise], here in the *expositio litterae*.

la: Vers. 9, in quo textu Vat. contra Vulgatam, antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 *ab Angelis* loco *quam Angeli*. Glossa mox citata sic a Lyrano (Hebr. 2, 9.) exhibetur: « Natura humanae mentis, quae ad imaginem Dei sine peccato, qualem Christus assumsit, solus maior est Deus ». Vat. absque ulla auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 *super omnes* pro *solus Deus*. Paulo ante plurimi codd. post *falsum* omittunt *quia*.

en: [Hebrews 2,] verse 9, in which text the Vatican [edition], against the Vulgate, the older codices, and edition 1, [reads] *ab Angelis* in place of *quam Angeli*. The Gloss soon cited is given thus by Lyra (Hebr. 2, 9): "The nature of the human mind, which [is made] to the image of God without sin, such as Christ assumed, only God is greater [than it]". The Vatican [edition], without any authority of the manuscripts and edition 1, [reads] *super omnes* for *solus Deus*. A little before, most codices after *falsum* omit *quia*.

la: Apud Lyranum loc. cit.: *Minor ergo Angelis corpore, non mente. Maiores tamen Angeli et homines (homine?) dici possunt, quia maiores sunt hominis corpore. Maiores sunt et animo, sed in eo tantum quod peccati originalis merito corpus aggravat ipsum animum; sed hoc non in Christo* etc.

en: In Lyra at the place cited: *Therefore [he was] less than the Angels in body, not in mind. Yet the Angels can be called greater also than men, because they are greater than man in body. They are greater also in mind, but only in that the body, by reason of original sin, weighs down the mind itself; but this is not [the case] in Christ* etc.

la: Licet plurimi codd. cum Vat. et ed. 1 habeant *materiam*, praeferimus tamen lectionem codd. L M O, utpote quae membris divisionis a S. Doctore superius positis respondet.

en: Although most codices with the Vatican [edition] and edition 1 have *materiam*, we nevertheless prefer the reading of codices L, M, O, inasmuch as it corresponds to the members of the division placed above by the Holy Doctor.

la: Cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 12. — S. Thom., hic expos. text. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1 a. 7, et expos. text. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 6. — Aegid. R., hic circa lit. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2, in fine.

en: Cf. B. Albert, here a. 12. — St. Thomas, here in the *expositio textus*. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 7, and in the *expositio textus*. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 6. — Aegidius Romanus, here circa litteram. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 2, at the end.

la: Supple cum aliquibus mss. ut FHWY aa bb *Pater*.

en: Supply with some manuscripts (FHWY, aa, bb): *Pater*.

la: Fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *et* loco *aut*. Paulo infra ed. 1 *comparticipans Patri in paternitate* pro *comparticipans paternitatem*. — De hac ratione vide supra d. 8. p. I. dub. 4.

en: On the faith of the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted *et* in place of *aut*. A little below, edition 1 [reads] *comparticipans Patri in paternitate* for *comparticipans paternitatem*. — On this reasoning see above d. 8, p. I, dub. 4.

la: In cod. bb additur *uterque*.

en: In codex bb is added *uterque*.

la: Vide supra d. 13. dub. 4. et d. 15. p. I. q. 1. ad 2. et 3, ac infra d. 20. a. 1. q. 2. ad 4, et d. 27. p. I. q. 2. ad 3.

la: Ed. 1 addit *scilicet, non principiati*.

en: Edition 1 adds *scilicet, non principiati* [namely, not of one having a principle].

la: Ita vetustiores codd. cum ed. 1, dum Vat. cum recentiore cod. cc *auctoritatem* ponit, sed perperam, quia auctoritas est terminus medius conclusionis eliciendae. Cod. dd *minoritatem*, bene et in eodem sensu cum aliis codd.

en: Thus the older codices with edition 1, while the Vatican [edition] with the more recent codex cc places *auctoritatem*, but wrongly, because *authority* is the middle term of the conclusion to be drawn. Codex dd [reads] *minoritatem*, rightly and in the same sense as the other codices.

la: In cod. K additur *Filio*.

en: In codex K is added *Filio*.

la: Vat. contra plurimos codd. et ed. 1 *consuetudine*. — De hoc et praecedenti dubio agunt B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard., hic in expos. textus.

en: The Vatican [edition], against most codices and edition 1, [reads] *consuetudine*. — This and the preceding doubt are treated by B. Albert, here a. 13; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard, here in the *expositio textus*.