title: Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 230 -->

### ARTICULUS UNICUS.

*De processione Spiritus sancti et de differentia processionis a generatione.*

### QUAESTIO I.

*Utrum in divinis ponenda sit processio.*

Circa primum, quod processio sit ponenda in divinis, ostenditur:

1. Primo auctoritate Domini, *Ioannis* decimo quinto[^1], ubi dicit ipse Salvator: *Mittam vobis Spiritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit.* Si ergo Veritas non dicit nisi verum, et Verbum Dei non loquitur

<!-- page 231 -->

improprium, vere ergo et proprie[^2] est processio in divinis.

2. Item, in divinis verissime est origo, ergo et productio; sed omni productioni activae respondet productio passiva; sed productio passiva est processio: ergo a primo[^3] in divinis vere et proprie est *[processio]*.

3. Item, amor noster et est amor[^4] et ab alio, et exitus eius ab alio vere et proprie exprimitur in verbo *procedendi*: cum igitur amor divinus, qui est Spiritus sanctus, vere et proprie amor sit et ab alio sit, sicut nomen amoris ei competit propriissime, ita videtur ei convenire et processio.

4. Item, ad completam rationem processionis ista duo requiruntur, quod sit ab alio et in alium tendat; sed amor, qui est Spiritus sanctus, non procedit a Patre, in quantum amat se, nec[^5] a Filio, in quantum amat se, sed in quantum unus amat alterum, quia *nexus* est: ergo Spiritus sanctus est amor, quo amans tendit in alium: ergo est amor et ab alio et in alium[^6], et ista duo complectuntur rationem processionis perfectae: ergo processio est in divinis.

**CONTRA:**

1. Processio de ratione sui nominis dicit elongationem et recessionem; unde *processio* quasi *procul cessio*, sicut *praecessio* dicit antecessionem; sed sicut in divinis non est antecessio propter summam simultatem, ita non est elongatio propter summam unitatem: ergo sicut in divinis non ponitur nomen praecessionis, ita nec[^7] debet poni nomen processionis.

2. Item, in creaturis processio de ratione sui generis dicit motum, et ita indigentiam et imperfectionem; sed nullum tale nomen debet transferri ad Deum: ergo nec processio.

3. Item, creatio dicit specialem differentiam processionis et differentiam addentem nobilitatem, quia dicit egressum rei a Creatore, qui est causa nobilissima; sed creatio passiva nullo modo reperitur in divinis; nulla enim persona dicitur creari: ergo pari ratione nec processio.

4. Item, processio in creaturis non dicitur nisi dupliciter, videlicet *localis* et *causalis*: localis, quae est in motu progressivo, causalis, quae est effectus a causa. Sed localis non potest transferri ad divina, quia nulla mutatio secundum locum nec in generali nec in speciali cadit in Deo. Et praeterea[^8], cum talis sit ab uno in alium, oportet ponere, quod Spiritus sanctus aeternaliter non procederet a Patre et Filio; non ergo invenitur processio localis. Sed haec nobilior est quam causalis, quia ista est entis completi et a principio intrinseco: ergo per locum a maiori nec causalis invenitur in Deo: et ita nullus modus processionis reperitur[^9].

### CONCLUSIO.

> Ratio processionis vere, proprie et perfecte invenitur in divinis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod processio in creaturis dicit respectum ad principium *a quo*, ut radius dicitur procedere a sole, sive flos ab arbore; et quod dicat mutationem[^10], hoc accidit ei. Et similiter ratione nominis dicit respectum ad terminum *ad quem*; et quod dicat elongationem, hoc accidit ei.

Quoniam igitur in divinis uterque respectus reperitur; nam persona procedens respectum habet ad principium *a quo*, amor procedens[^11] respectum habet ad amatum, amor scilicet ille, qui est nexus et caritas: ideo vere et proprie et perfecte ratio processionis invenitur in divinis. Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc adductae[^12].

**Ad argumenta in contrarium:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod processio dicit elongationem; dicendum, quod hoc verum est in creaturis, in quibus per approximationem ad terminum *ad quem* fit elongatio a termino *a quo* propter sui finitatem et circumscriptionem et distantiam; et[^13] sic non est in Deo.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod dicit motum in creaturis; dicendum, quod non transfertur ratione motus, quem dicit, sed ratione duplicis respectus, qui, quamvis non possit esse in creaturis sine motu propter imperfectionem, nihilominus tamen est in Creatore.

<!-- page 232 -->

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de creatione, dicendum, quod creatio de principali impositione dicit *exitum de nihilo*; et ideo nullo modo significatum eius potest in Deo salvari, nec proprie nec transsumtive; non sic autem est de generatione et processione.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nec causalis nec localis; dicendum, quod immo *ad modum causalis* convenientiam habet processio in divinis cum locali. Nam causalis processio uno modo terminatur in procedente, et ita[^14] quod nihil ultra respicit, ut cum dicitur: *filius procedit a patre*; alio modo, prout effectus respicit aliquem ut terminum; et sic procedit amor ab amante in amatum, et aliquo modo convenit cum processione locali, quia respicit terminum *ad quem*; aliquo modo differt, quia non respicit, tanquam in illo recipiatur, sed tanquam obiectum. Et quoniam respectus et emanatio vere reperiuntur in divinis, hinc est, quod illa emanatio dicitur ad similitudinem emanationis causalis. Sed similitudo localis processionis ibi non cadit nisi longinque; et ideo Graeci decepti sunt.

Et ad illud, quod processio localis est perfectior; dicendum, quod processio localis semper habet imperfectionem coniunctam de ratione nominis; non sic originalis. Et verum est, quod perfectior est inter motus; sed processio in divinis non dicit motum, sed *originem sine motu et mutatione*, sicut supra dictum est de generatione.

### SCHOLION.

**I.** Ratio processionis in creaturis continet essentialiter duplicem respectum, scilicet *ad terminum a quo* et *ad terminum ad quem*. Hi respectus per se nullam important imperfectionem, unde etiam in divinis poni possunt. Secundario vero et per accidens (« hoc ei accidit, » ut dicit S. Doctor) processio in creaturis importat imperfectiones, nempe tum mutationem seu motum *principii a quo*, tum elongationem *termini ad quem*. Hae imperfectiones excludi debent a processione in divinis. Circa hanc distinctionem et aliam in solut. ad i. positam cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. 1. q. 43. m. i. in corp.

**II.** Conclusio pertinet ad fidem. Cfr. Alex. Hal., loc. cit. — Scot., pro hac et duabus seqq. in *Oxon.* et *Report.* hic q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; *S.* I. q. 27. a. 1. — B. Albert., I. *Sent.* d. 11. a. 1; S. p. I. tr. 7. q. 31. m. i. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 4. princ. q. i. — Henr. Gand., de hac et seq. *S.* a. 61. q. 2. n. 6. seq. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. — Biel, I. *Sent.* d. 11. q. 1.

---

english:
<!-- page 230 -->

### Sole Article.

*On the procession of the Holy Spirit and on the difference of procession from generation.*

### Question I.

*Whether procession is to be posited in divine things.*

Concerning the first point — that procession is to be posited in divine things — it is shown:

1. First, by the authority of the Lord, *John* fifteen[^1], where the Saviour himself says: *I will send you the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father.* If, then, Truth speaks only what is true, and the Word of God does not speak

<!-- page 231 -->

improperly, then truly and properly[^2] there is procession in divine things.

2. Likewise, in divine things there is most truly origin, therefore also production; but to every active production there corresponds a passive production; but passive production is procession: therefore from the first point[^3] there truly and properly is *[procession]* in divine things.

3. Likewise, our love both is love[^4] and is from another, and its issuing-forth from another is truly and properly expressed by the verb *to proceed*: since therefore the divine love, which is the Holy Spirit, is truly and properly love and is from another — just as the name *love* belongs to him most properly, so likewise *procession* seems to befit him.

4. Likewise, for the complete account of procession these two are required: that it be from another, and that it tend toward another; but the love who is the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father insofar as the Father loves himself, nor[^5] from the Son insofar as the Son loves himself, but insofar as one loves the other, since he is the *bond*: therefore the Holy Spirit is the love by which the lover tends toward another: therefore he is love both from another and toward another[^6], and these two embrace the account of perfect procession: therefore procession is in divine things.

**On the contrary:**

1. Procession from the meaning of its very name signifies *withdrawal* and *recession*; whence *processio* is as it were *procul cessio* ("a going-away-from-afar"), just as *praecessio* signifies *antecession*; but just as in divine things there is no antecession on account of supreme simultaneity, so there is no withdrawal on account of supreme unity: therefore, just as in divine things the name of *praecession* is not posited, so neither[^7] ought the name of *procession* to be posited.

2. Likewise, in creatures procession from the very meaning of its genus signifies motion, and so indigence and imperfection; but no such name ought to be transferred to God: therefore neither procession.

3. Likewise, creation signifies a specific difference of procession, a difference adding nobility, since it signifies the going-forth of a thing from the Creator, who is the most noble cause; but passive creation is in no way found in divine things, for no person is said to be created: therefore by parity of reasoning neither procession.

4. Likewise, procession in creatures is said only in two ways, namely *local* and *causal*: local, which is in progressive motion, causal, which is the effect from a cause. But local cannot be transferred to divine things, since no change with respect to place falls in God either generically or specifically. And besides[^8], since such [local procession] is from one to another, we should have to posit that the Holy Spirit does not proceed eternally from the Father and the Son; therefore local procession is not found. But this is more noble than causal, since the former [local] is of a complete being and from an intrinsic principle: therefore by argument *a maiori* through place, neither is causal procession found in God: and so no mode of procession is found[^9].

### Conclusion.

> The account of procession is found in divine things truly, properly, and perfectly.

**I respond:** It must be said that procession in creatures signifies a relation to a principle *from which* — as a ray is said to proceed from the sun, or a flower from a tree; and the fact that it signifies change[^10] is incidental to it. And likewise, by reason of its name, it signifies a relation to a term *to which*; and the fact that it signifies withdrawal is incidental to it.

Since therefore in divine things both relations are found — for the proceeding person has a relation to the principle *from which*, and the proceeding love[^11] has a relation to what is loved (that love, namely, who is the bond and charity) — for that reason the account of procession is found truly, properly, and perfectly in divine things. Hence the arguments adduced for this[^12] are to be granted.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected to the contrary — that procession signifies withdrawal — it must be said that this is true in creatures, in which by approach to the term *to which* there comes about a withdrawal from the term *from which*, on account of their finitude, circumscription, and distance; and[^13] it is not so in God.

*To 2.* To what is objected — that it signifies motion in creatures — it must be said that it is not transferred by reason of the motion which it signifies, but by reason of the twofold relation, which, although it cannot be in creatures without motion on account of imperfection, nonetheless is in the Creator.

<!-- page 232 -->

*To 3.* To what is objected concerning creation, it must be said that creation in its principal imposition signifies *issuance from nothing*; and therefore its signification can in no way be saved in God, neither properly nor by transferred meaning; but it is not so concerning generation and procession.

*To 4.* To what is objected — that neither causal nor local [procession applies] — it must be said that on the contrary, *in the manner of causal* procession, divine procession has a likeness with local. For causal procession in one mode terminates in the proceeder, in such a way[^14] that it looks no further, as when it is said: *the son proceeds from the father*; in another mode, insofar as the effect regards something as a term; and in this way love proceeds from the lover into the beloved, and in some manner agrees with local procession, since it regards a term *to which*; in another manner it differs, since it does not regard [the term] as if it were received in it, but as an object. And since relation and emanation are truly found in divine things, hence it is that the emanation [in God] is said in likeness to causal emanation. But the likeness of local procession does not fall there except remotely; and therefore the Greeks were deceived.

And to the point that local procession is the more perfect, it must be said that local procession always has imperfection joined to it from the meaning of its name; not so the originative kind. And it is true that it is the more perfect among motions; but procession in divine things does not signify motion, but *origin without motion or change*, as was said above concerning generation.

### Scholion.

**I.** The account of procession in creatures contains essentially a twofold relation, namely *to the term from which* and *to the term to which*. These relations of themselves entail no imperfection, hence they can also be posited in divine things. Secondarily, however, and by accident ("this is incidental to it," as the Holy Doctor says), procession in creatures imports imperfections, namely both change or motion *of the principle from which*, and withdrawal *of the term to which*. These imperfections must be excluded from procession in divine things. On this distinction and the other given in the response *to 1*, cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. 1, q. 43, m. i, in corp.

**II.** The conclusion pertains to faith. Cf. Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. — Scotus, on this and the two following questions in *Oxon.* and *Report.* here, q. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; *Summa* I, q. 27, a. 1. — Bl. Albert, I *Sent.* d. 11, a. 1; *Summa* p. I, tr. 7, q. 31, m. i. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 1. — Aegidius of Rome, here, 4. princ. q. i. — Henry of Ghent, on this and the following, *Summa* a. 61, q. 2, n. 6 ff. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2. — Biel, I *Sent.* d. 11, q. 1.

---

la: Vers. 26, ubi Vulgata: *Cum autem venerit Paraclitus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, spiritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit.* — Vat., obnitentibus mss. et ed. 1, *vocum, per quam dicit Salvator*.

en: Verse 26, where the Vulgate reads: *But when the Paraclete shall come, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father.* — The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, has *vocum, per quam dicit Salvator* ("of the words, by which the Saviour says").

la: Corruptam lectionem Vat. *et verba Dei non loquitur nisi proprie vere: ergo proprie* emendavimus ope antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1.

en: We have corrected the corrupt reading of the Vatican edition — *et verba Dei non loquitur nisi proprie vere: ergo proprie* — with the help of the older manuscripts and ed. 1.

la: Vetustiores codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt hic in Vat. et cod. ec additum *ad ultimum*.

en: The older codices, with ed. 1, omit *ad ultimum* ("to the last [point]"), which is added here in the Vatican edition and codex ec.

la: Cod. K addit iterum *est*.

en: Codex K adds *est* a second time.

la: Aliqui codd. ut N cum ed. 1 *sed nec*.

en: Some codices, such as N, with ed. 1, read *sed nec* ("but neither") in place of *nec*.

la: Ita antiquiores codd. cum ed. 1, quamvis plures falso *in aliis* pro *in alium*; Vat. autem cum cod. cc omittit verba *ergo est usque in alium*.

en: Thus the older codices, with ed. 1, although several wrongly read *in aliis* for *in alium*; the Vatican edition, however, with codex cc, omits the words *ergo est* through *in alium*.

la: Vat. cum pluribus mss. minus bene *non* pro *nec*.

en: The Vatican edition, with several manuscripts, less well reads *non* for *nec*.

la: Ed. 1 *propterea*. Mox Vat. *oporteret* pro *oportet*.

en: Ed. 1 reads *propterea* ("therefore") for *praeterea* ("besides"). Shortly after, the Vatican edition has *oporteret* ("it would be necessary") for *oportet* ("it is necessary").

la: Codd. Y ee addunt *in divinis*, cod. F *in Deo*. — De eo, quod processio sive motus localis sit ceteris motibus nobilior cfr. Aristot., VIII. *Phys.* text. 54-60. (c. 7.).

en: Codices Y and ee add *in divinis* ("in divine things"), codex F adds *in Deo* ("in God"). — On the point that procession or local motion is more noble than the other motions, cf. Aristotle, *Physics* VIII, text. 54–60 (c. 7).

la: Vat. cum cod. cc *dicit motum*; plures tamen antiquiores codd. ut F H I M X Y aa bb ee cum ed. 1 exhibent lectionem nostram, quae confirmatur lectione falsa multorum mss. *dicat unitatem*. Circa finem responsionis Vat. cum cod. cc, ceteris codd. tamen cum ed. 1 obnitentibus, *dicit* loco *dicat*. Dein multi codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt *ei*.

en: The Vatican edition with codex cc reads *dicit motum* ("it signifies motion"); several older codices, however — F, H, I, M, X, Y, aa, bb, ee, with ed. 1 — show our reading [*dicat mutationem*, "should signify change"], which is confirmed by the corrupt reading of many manuscripts *dicat unitatem* ("should signify unity"). Near the end of the response, the Vatican edition with codex cc — though the other codices with ed. 1 are against it — reads *dicit* in place of *dicat*. Then many codices with ed. 1 omit *ei* ("to it").

la: Vat. contra omnes codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3 *ut amor procedens ab amante*. Mox cod. K post *habet* addit *ad i et*, sed perperam, quia in hoc divisionis membro *ad* solum secundus respectus, scil. terminus *ad quem*.

en: The Vatican edition, against all the codices and edd. 1, 2, 3, reads *ut amor procedens ab amante* ("as love proceeding from the lover"). Shortly after, codex K after *habet* adds *ad i et* ("to 1 and"), but wrongly, because in this member of the division *ad* concerns only the second relation, namely the term *to which*.

la: Plures codd. ut GHIKPQ etc. *inductae*.

en: Several codices, such as G, H, I, K, P, Q, etc., read *inductae* ("introduced") for *adductae* ("adduced").

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

en: Ed. 1 reads *sed* ("but") in place of *et* ("and").

la: Vat. adiungit *processio*. Mox auctoritate vetustiorum mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus *quem dicit*, et circa finem solutionis *tameii* [recte: *tamen*].

en: The Vatican edition adds *processio* ("procession"). Shortly after, on the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have supplied *quem dicit* ("which it signifies"), and near the end of the solution *tamen* ("nonetheless").

translators_notes:
**Ambiguity flagged.** At the end of pro-argument 2 ("ergo a primo… in divinis vere et proprie est *[processio]*"), the OCR breaks across a column/page transition and drops the closing word. From the structure of the argument (predicate must complete *est…*) and the parallel with pro-argument 1's conclusion ("vere ergo et proprie est processio in divinis"), the lost word is almost certainly *processio*. Restored editorially in brackets and flagged in `manual-review/tier2-ambiguities.md`.

**Doctrinal:** The respondeo turns on the distinction between (a) the *duplex respectus* (to *terminus a quo* and *ad quem*) which is essential to the *ratio processionis* and contains no imperfection, and (b) the secondary/accidental notes of *mutatio* and *elongatio* which arise only because the creaturely subject of procession is finite. Bonaventure can therefore predicate *processio* of God *vere, proprie et perfecte* — a stronger claim than the merely-analogous use Aquinas later endorses. This sets up Q.II–IV: whether *processio Spiritus sancti* is *generatio*, whether it really differs from generation, and whether the Holy Spirit may be called *ingenitus*.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 232 -->

### QUAESTIO II.

*Utrum processio Spiritus sancti sit generatio.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum processio Spiritus sancti sit generatio. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Augustinus *de Trinitate* decimo quinto[^1]: «Sicut Filio praestat essentiam sine ullo initio temporis et sine ulla mutatione generatio, ita Spiritui sancto processio»: ergo si non est idem quod praestat essentiam duabus personis etc.

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione: quia generatio est emanatio secundum modum fecunditatis naturae; sed, sicut supra probatum est[^2], Spiritus sanctus procedit per modum liberalitatis et amoris: ergo non generatur: ergo generatio non est processio.

3. Item, nihil unum exit a duobus similibus per viam generationis[^3], nisi alter sit ut pater, alter ut mater, alter ut principium activum, alter ut principium passivum; sed Spiritus sanctus procedit a duobus similibus: ergo si per viam generationis, alter est ei ut pater, alter ut mater; quod omnino absurdum est.

4. Item, Filius est sua generatio et Spiritus sanctus est sua processio[^4]: ergo si procedere esset generari, Spiritus sanctus esset Filius[^5]; sed Spiritus sanctus procedit a Filio et dicitur Spiritus Filii, sicut Filius dicitur Patris: ergo si Filius non est Pater, nec Spiritus sanctus est Filius: ergo nec processio est generatio.

**Contra:**[^6]

1. In his inferioribus generatio est motus ad oppositum ad substantiam, unde generatio est substantiae productio; sed processio Spiritus sancti est substantiae sive hypostasis productio[^7]: ergo est generatio.

2. Item, generare sic definitur a Damasceno[^8]: «generare est sibi similem in substantia producere»;

<!-- page 233 -->

sed spiratione vel processione producitur Spiritus similis in natura: ergo et processio est generatio.

3. Item, actiones et mutationes denominantur a termino[^9]: ergo quaecumque conveniunt in eo quod habetur per emanationem, conveniunt in modo emanandi; sed Filius et Spiritus sanctus conveniunt in substantia, quam habent per emanationem: ergo conveniunt in emanatione: ergo si modus emanandi Filii est generatio, et Spiritus sancti similiter.

4. Item, productio est superius ad generationem[^10]; sed quaecumque producuntur, procedunt: ergo processio est superius ad generationem: ergo generatio est processio: ergo pari ratione processio est generatio.

*[Quaestio incidens.]* Si dicas, quod processio appropriatur Spiritui sancto: quaero rationem; et videtur, quod magis debeat appropriari Filio, quia, si ratio procedendi secundum rationem intelligendi per prius est in Filio, ergo processio magis debet ei appropriari.

5. Item, si generans est spirans, ergo genitus est spiratus, et e converso; sed spiratio passiva est processio: ergo etc.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Spiritus sancti processio non est generatio.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut Spiritus sanctus non est Filius, ita nec processio Spiritus sancti est generatio.

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod generatio est productio substantiae; dicendum, quod est producere substantiam dissimilem, et est producere substantiam similem secundum voluntatem, et est producere substantiam *similem* per modum naturae[^11]. Isti tres modi distinguuntur et diversi et separabiles sunt, quantum est de se. Quod patet, quia in productione Adam[^12] fuit substantiae productio, et tamen non fuit generatio; Deus enim non generavit Adam, sed creavit; in productione Evae de Adam fuit similis substantiae productio, non tamen generatio, quia Adam non genuit Evam; sed in productione Abel fuit substantiae productio secundum viam naturae, et ideo fuit ibi generatio. Secundum rem igitur isti tres modi distinguuntur[^13], tamen in actione creaturae non distinguuntur, quia creatura non potest substantiam producere nisi similem, et hoc per virtutem naturalem. Et ratio huius est imperfectio potentiae et limitatio[^14] in creatura; sed in Deo est summa potentia, et ideo in eius operatione isti tres modi habent distinctionem.

Ideo quamvis in istis inferioribus gratia materiae sit completa ratio generationis[^15]: productio substantiae similis, vel productio substantiae, non tamen in divinis, immo oportet addi: *per modum fecunditatis naturae*. Et quia ista conditio deficit[^16] in productione Spiritus sancti, patet, quod non sequitur.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod similem habet uterque emanationem; dicendum, quod differt emanatio in his inferioribus et in Deo; quia in his inferioribus terminatur ad essentiam vel substantiam, quae multiplicatur; sed in divinis terminatur ad hypostases. Quoniam igitur hypostasis, ad quam terminatur processio, est *amor*, hypostasis, ad quam terminatur generatio, est *imago* — et amoris et nexus est spirari, non generari, e converso imaginis generari, non spirari — cum non sit consimilis ratio propria hypostasum secundum se, nec erit consimilis emanatio. Ipse vero procedit, ac si ad substantiam proprie terminaretur.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod processio est commune generationi; dicendum, quod[^17] est commune generationi et processioni proprie dictae; et nos hic loquimur de processione, prout tantum Spiritui sancto convenit; sic autem non est communis nec hoc modo praedicatur nec[^18] subiicitur; nec est intelligenda ibi communitas rei, sed solum proportionis, sive modi loquendi.

Quod ergo quaeritur, quare magis Spiritui sancto appropriatur, quidam voluerunt dicere, quod sicut nomen *proprii*[^19] commune est definitioni et propriae passioni, tamen quia definitio addit supra nomen *proprii*, propria passio non[^20]: ideo definitio habet nomen, propria passio non; sed nomen com-

<!-- page 234 -->

mune retinuit[^21]; sic in proposito. — Sed hoc est absurdum dicere, quod Spiritus non habeat[^22] proprium et singularem modum emanandi, sicut Filius.

Ideo voluerunt[^23] alii, quod addit alium modum: sed quia ille modus in creaturis non est, quia aut raro aut nunquam procedit aliqua hypostasis aliter quam per generationem, ideo sacri doctores noluerunt nomen proprium vel novum fingere, sed magis commune appropriare. — Sed illud adhuc non videtur, quia sicut emanatio Filii recte exprimitur verbo *generandi*, ita emanatio Spiritus verbo *spirandi*[^24].

Et propter hoc aliter dicendum, quod[^25] sicut Pater dicitur ingenitus, quia ab eo removetur omnino generatio: quia nec generatur nec est a generato; similiter e converso processio proprie[^26] de eo dicitur, in quo est omnino ratio procedendi; et talis est Spiritus sanctus, quia procedit et est a procedente, non sic autem Filius: ideo Spiritui sancto attribuitur.

Aliter potest dici, quod completa ratio processionis consistit in comparatione ad principium *a quo* et ad terminum *ad quem*; et quia Spiritus in sua emanatione, quia nexus est, utrumque respicit, Filius alterum; ideo completissima ratio huius nominis reperitur in Spiritu sancto, quamvis aliquo modo reperiatur in Filio[^27]; et ideo Spiritui sancto appropriatur.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod generans est spirans; dicendum, quod illa praedicatio non est formalis, sed solum ratione suppositi[^28]; et quia una persona sive unum suppositum potest generare et spirare, ideo haec est vera: *generans est spirans*; sed nulla persona unica potest simul pluribus modis emanare; ideo non sequitur, quod genitus sit spiratus.

### SCHOLION.

**I.** Quod in Deo sint duae emanationes, scilicet generatio et processio, iam supra d. 9. q. I, et d. 10. q. I probatum est. Hic quaeritur, utrum hae duae emanationes differant, et in sequenti quaestione, cuius naturae sit haec differentia. Et agitur de generatione et processione, quatenus sunt actus notionales, sive in sensu activo. Generatio enim et processio in sensu passivo sunt secunda et tertia Trinitatis persona. — Conclusio est de fide, cum *Symbolum Athanasianum* de Spiritu sancto dicat: «Non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens».

**II.** Ut solut. ad 1. facilius intelligatur, notandum est, quod in divinis vocabulum *processio* dupliciter accipitur, vel ut nomen commune, cuius species sunt *generatio* et *spiratio*, vel ut nomen speciale secundae emanationis. Nam «frequenter invenimus, quod aliquod proprium denominatur nomine communi» (S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. ad 2.). Hinc oritur quaestio hic proposita, quare potius Spiritui sancto quam Filio nomen *processionis* approprietur. Primam solutionem S. Doctor reprobat, consentiente S. Thoma. Hanc tuetur Uldaricus, teste Dionysio Carth., et asserit, quod processio Spiritus sancti sit simpliciter processio, et quod generatio huic communi rationi addat differentiam specificam. Hanc assertionem eius defensores exemplo ipsius vocabuli *proprium* illustrant. Hoc enim nomen est commune tum *definitioni*, quae per genus et differentiam essentialiter speciem exprimit, tum *propriae passioni*, i. e. illi accidentali conditioni alicuius entis, quae inseparabiliter subiecto inhaeret, ut risibilitas homini. Nam iuxta Aristotelem *proprium* definitur: «Id quod non indicat, quid est esse rei, soli autem inest et conversim praedicatur» (v. g. omnis homo est risibilis, et omne risibile est homo). Haec igitur species *proprii* retinuit nomen commune et iuxta Porphyrium (c. 5.) est quartum praedicabile, dum «genus, species, differentia sunt tria prima praedicabilia». Hoc confirmat B. Albert. (1. *Sent.* d. 11. a. 2.): «Proprium dicitur praedicatum convertibile; tamen cum duplex sit praedicatum convertibile, scil. essentiale, ut definitio, et accidentale convertibile, accidentale nomen *proprii* retinet, et sic in multis fit». Similia docet S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 3.). De multiplici sensu *proprii* cfr. S. Bonav. II. *Sent.* d. 16. a. 1. q. 3. — Secunda opinio docens, quod propter defectum nominis, hanc specialem processionem exprimentis, nomen commune secundae emanationi appropriatum sit, iterum Seraphico non placet, propter hanc rationem, quod revera habeatur tale nomen, scil. *spirare* et *spiratio*. Nihilominus S. Thomas in *Summa* (I. q. 27. a. 4. ad 3.) dictam opinionem retinet dicendo: «Unde processio, quae non est generatio, remansit sine speciali nomine, sed potest nominari *spiratio*, quia est processio spiritus». Sed in *Comment.* (loc. cit.) praeter hanc rationem, de qua dicit, «et credo quod melior est», etiam alias duas affert rationes, hic a S. Bonaventura approbatas.

**III.** De conclusione: cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 42. m. 2. § 1, et q. 43. m. 2. — S. Thom., loc. cit. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2, et q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 2. et 3. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et seq. hic q. unic.

---

english:
<!-- page 232 -->

### Question II.

*Whether the procession of the Holy Spirit is generation.*

Secondly, it is asked whether the procession of the Holy Spirit is generation. And that it is not, is shown:

1. Augustine, *On the Trinity*, book fifteen[^1]: "As generation bestows essence on the Son without any beginning of time and without any change, so does procession on the Holy Spirit": therefore, if it is not the same thing that bestows essence on the two persons, etc.

2. Likewise, the same point appears by reason: for generation is an emanation according to the mode of nature's fecundity; but, as was proved above[^2], the Holy Spirit proceeds by way of liberality and love: therefore he is not generated: therefore generation is not procession.

3. Likewise, no one thing comes forth from two like things by the way of generation[^3] unless one is as father, the other as mother — one as active principle, the other as passive principle; but the Holy Spirit proceeds from two like things: therefore if [he proceeds] by way of generation, one is to him as father, the other as mother; which is altogether absurd.

4. Likewise, the Son is his own generation and the Holy Spirit is his own procession[^4]: therefore if to proceed were to be generated, the Holy Spirit would be the Son[^5]; but the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and is called the Spirit of the Son, just as the Son is called [the Son] of the Father: therefore, if the Son is not the Father, neither is the Holy Spirit the Son: therefore neither is procession generation.

**On the contrary:**[^6]

1. In these lower things generation is motion to the opposite with respect to substance, hence generation is the production of substance; but the procession of the Holy Spirit is the production of substance or hypostasis[^7]: therefore it is generation.

2. Likewise, *to generate* is thus defined by Damascene[^8]: "to generate is to produce one like oneself in substance";

<!-- page 233 -->

but by spiration or procession the Spirit, like in nature, is produced: therefore procession too is generation.

3. Likewise, actions and changes take their name from their term[^9]: therefore whatever things agree in that which is had through emanation, agree in the mode of emanating; but the Son and the Holy Spirit agree in the substance which they have through emanation: therefore they agree in emanation: therefore if the mode of emanating of the Son is generation, then likewise the mode of the Holy Spirit.

4. Likewise, *production* is superior [as a wider category] to *generation*[^10]; but whatever things are produced, proceed: therefore *procession* is superior to *generation*: therefore generation is procession: therefore by parity of reasoning procession is generation.

*[An incidental question.]* If you say that *procession* is appropriated to the Holy Spirit: I ask the reason; and it appears that it ought rather to be appropriated to the Son, since, if the account of proceeding according to the mode of understanding is prior in the Son, then procession ought rather to be appropriated to him.

5. Likewise, if "the one who generates" is "the one who spirates," then "the one generated" is "the one spirated," and conversely; but passive spiration is procession: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> The procession of the Holy Spirit is not generation.

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as the Holy Spirit is not the Son, so neither is the procession of the Holy Spirit generation.

*To 1 and 2.* To that, then, which is objected to the contrary — that generation is the production of substance — it must be said that there is to produce a *dissimilar* substance, and there is to produce a *similar* substance *by will*, and there is to produce a substance *similar by way of nature*[^11]. These three modes are distinguished, and are distinct and separable, so far as concerns themselves. Which is plain, since in the production of Adam[^12] there was production of substance, and yet there was no generation; for God did not generate Adam but created him; in the production of Eve from Adam there was production of like substance, yet not generation, since Adam did not generate Eve; but in the production of Abel there was production of substance by way of nature, and therefore there was generation. According to the matter [*secundum rem*] therefore these three modes are distinguished[^13], yet in the action of a creature they are not distinguished, since a creature cannot produce substance except [substance which is] like, and this by natural power. And the reason of this is the imperfection of potency and limitation[^14] in the creature; but in God there is supreme power, and therefore in his operation these three modes have a distinction.

Hence although in these lower things, by reason of matter, the complete account of generation[^15] is the production of like substance, or [simply] the production of substance, it is not so in divine things; rather one must add: *by way of nature's fecundity*. And because that condition is lacking[^16] in the production of the Holy Spirit, it is plain that the [objection] does not follow.

*To 3.* To that which is objected — that each [Son and Spirit] has a like emanation — it must be said that emanation differs in these lower things and in God; for in these lower things it terminates at an essence or substance which is multiplied; but in divine things it terminates at hypostases. Since therefore the hypostasis at which procession terminates is *love*, and the hypostasis at which generation terminates is *image* — and to the love and bond it belongs to be spirated, not generated, conversely to the image to be generated, not spirated — since the proper account of the hypostases in themselves is not alike, neither will the emanation be alike. He, however, proceeds as if it terminated properly at substance.

*To 4.* To that which is objected — that procession is common [as a higher category] to generation — it must be said that[^17] [the term] is common to generation and to procession properly so called; and we are speaking here of *procession* as it belongs to the Holy Spirit alone; in this sense, however, it is not common, nor is it predicated nor[^18] subjected in this manner; nor is the community there to be understood as a community of the thing, but only of proportion, or of mode of speaking.

As to the question why [procession] is rather appropriated to the Holy Spirit, certain ones wished to say that, just as the name *proprium*[^19] is common to *definition* and to *property* [*propria passio*] — yet because *definition* adds something over the name *proprium*, while *property* does not[^20] — therefore *definition* has a [proper] name, *property* does not, but retains the common name; so

<!-- page 234 -->

[likewise] in the present case[^21]. — But this is absurd to say, that the Spirit does not have[^22] a proper and singular mode of emanating, as the Son does.

Therefore others wished[^23] [to say] that [procession] adds another mode; but because that mode is not present in creatures — since either rarely or never does any hypostasis proceed otherwise than by generation — therefore the holy doctors did not wish to fashion a proper or new name, but rather to appropriate the common one. — But this still does not seem [right], since just as the emanation of the Son is rightly expressed by the verb *to generate*, so the emanation of the Spirit by the verb *to spirate*[^24].

And on this account it must be said otherwise that[^25] just as the Father is called *unbegotten* [*ingenitus*] because generation is altogether removed from him — since he neither is generated nor is from one generated — so conversely *procession* is properly[^26] said of him in whom there is altogether the account of proceeding; and such is the Holy Spirit, since he proceeds and is from one proceeding — not so the Son: therefore [procession] is attributed to the Holy Spirit.

It can also be said in another way, that the complete account of *procession* consists in [its] comparison both to the principle *from which* and to the term *to which*; and because the Spirit, in his emanation, since he is the *bond*, regards both — while the Son regards [only] the other — therefore the most complete account of this name is found in the Holy Spirit, although in some manner it is found in the Son[^27]; and therefore it is appropriated to the Holy Spirit.

*To 5.* To that which is objected last — that "the one generating is the one spirating" — it must be said that that predication is not formal, but only by reason of the supposit[^28]; and because one person, or one supposit, can both generate and spirate, therefore this is true: *the one generating is the one spirating*; but no single person can emanate at the same time in several modes; therefore it does not follow that "the one generated is the one spirated."

### Scholion.

**I.** That in God there are two emanations, namely *generation* and *procession*, has already been proved above at d. 9, q. I, and d. 10, q. I. Here it is asked whether these two emanations differ, and in the following question, of what nature this difference is. And the discussion concerns generation and procession insofar as they are notional acts, or [taken] in the active sense. For generation and procession in the passive sense are the second and third persons of the Trinity. — The conclusion is of faith, since the *Athanasian Creed* says of the Holy Spirit: "*Not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding*."

**II.** That the response *to 1* may be more easily understood, it is to be noted that in divine things the word *procession* is taken in two senses: either as a common name, whose species are *generation* and *spiration*, or as a special name of the second emanation. For "frequently we find that some proper [thing] is denominated by a common name" (St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3, ad 2). Hence arises the question here proposed: why the name *procession* is appropriated rather to the Holy Spirit than to the Son. The first solution the Holy Doctor rejects, with St. Thomas in agreement. This [first solution] is upheld by Uldaricus, on the testimony of Dionysius the Carthusian, who asserts that the procession of the Holy Spirit is procession simply, and that generation adds a specific difference to this common account. The defenders of his assertion illustrate it by the example of the very word *proprium*. For this name is common both to *definition*, which expresses a species essentially through genus and difference, and to *property* [*propria passio*], i.e. that accidental condition of some entity which inheres inseparably in its subject, as risibility in man. For according to Aristotle *proprium* is defined as "that which does not indicate what the *being* of the thing is, yet is in it alone and is predicated convertibly" (e.g. every man is risible, and everything risible is a man). This species of *proprium*, then, has retained the common name and, according to Porphyry (c. 5), is the fourth predicable, while "genus, species, difference are the three first predicables." This is confirmed by Bl. Albert (1 *Sent.* d. 11, a. 2): "*Proprium* is said to be a convertible predicate; yet since the convertible predicate is twofold, namely essential — as definition — and accidentally convertible, the accidentally [convertible] retains the name *proprium*, and so it occurs in many cases." St. Thomas teaches similarly (here q. 1, a. 3). On the manifold sense of *proprium* cf. St. Bonaventure, II *Sent.* d. 16, a. 1, q. 3. — The second opinion, teaching that on account of the lack of a name expressing this special procession the common name has been appropriated to the second emanation, again does not please the Seraphic Doctor — for this reason, that there does in truth exist such a name, namely *to spirate* and *spiration*. Nevertheless St. Thomas in the *Summa* (I, q. 27, a. 4, ad 3) retains the said opinion, saying: "Hence procession, which is not generation, has remained without a special name, but it can be called *spiration*, since it is the procession of the Spirit." But in his *Commentary* (loc. cit.) besides this reason — of which he says, "and I believe it is the better" — he also brings forward two other reasons, here approved by St. Bonaventure.

**III.** On the conclusion, cf. Alex. Hales, *Summa* p. I, q. 42, m. 2, § 1, and q. 43, m. 2. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2, and q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 2 and 3. — Aegidius of Rome, here 2. princ. q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following, here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the following, here q. unic.

---

la: Cap. 26. n. 47, in quo textu fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1, consentiente ed. operum Augustini, posuimus *ita*[?].

en: [Augustine, *De Trinitate*] c. 26, n. 47, in which text — on the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, with the agreement of the [Maurist] edition of Augustine's works — we have placed *ita* ("so")[?].

la: Dist. 9. q. I.

en: [Cf. above, I *Sent.*] d. 9, q. I.

la: Multi codd. ut A C G H I L R S T U Y Z etc. cum [ed.] perperam omittunt *per viam generationis*.

en: Many codices — A, C, G, H, I, L, R, S, T, U, Y, Z, etc. — together with [an edition] wrongly omit *per viam generationis* ("by the way of generation").

la: Dist. 10. a. I. q. I. et 2.

en: [Cf. above, I *Sent.*] d. 10, a. I, q. I and 2.

la: Cod. O superflue addit: *sed Filius non est Spiritus sanctus nec e converso; ergo generatio non est processio nec e [converso].*

en: Codex O superfluously adds: "but the Son is not the Holy Spirit, nor conversely; therefore generation is not procession, nor conversely."

la: Supple: *terminatur*; Vat. cum cod. cc ad hanc lectionem tollendam omittit *et*, quod praefigitur particulae *contra* antiquiores codd. et ed. 1.

en: Supply *terminatur* ("it terminates") [in the contra-1: "generation is motion [terminating] at the opposite"]; the Vatican edition with codex cc, in order to remove this reading, omits *et*, which the older codices and ed. 1 prefix to the particle *contra* (so reading "et contra").

la: Cfr. Aristot., V. *Phys.* text. 7. seqq. (c. 1.) et I. *de Gener. et corrupt.* text. 11. seqq. (c. 3.). — Mox Vat. cum cod. cc contra alios codd. et ed. 1 *secundum hypostasim* loco *sive hypostasis*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* V, text. 7 ff. (c. 1) and *On Generation and Corruption* I, text. 11 ff. (c. 3). — Shortly after, the Vatican edition with codex cc, against the other codices and ed. 1, reads *secundum hypostasim* ("according to hypostasis") in place of *sive hypostasis* ("or hypostasis").

la: Libr. I. *de Fide orthod.* c. 8: *Generatio quidem in hoc consistit, ut ex gignentis substantia proles eiusdem cum gignente substantiae producatur.* — Paulo infra ed. 1 post *Spiritus* addit *sanctus*. — Aliqui codd. ut B T Y cum ed. 1 addunt *sc.*[?]

en: [John Damascene,] *On the Orthodox Faith*, bk. I, c. 8: "Generation indeed consists in this, that from the substance of the begetter offspring of the same substance with the begetter is produced." — Shortly below, ed. 1 after *Spiritus* adds *sanctus*. — Some codices such as B, T, Y, with ed. 1, add *sc.* (= *scilicet*) [exact body location uncertain — flagged].

la: Aristot., V. *Phys.* text. 1: *Magis autem ab eo in quod quam ex quo movetur, denominatur mutatio.*

en: Aristotle, *Physics* V, text. 1: "Change, however, is named rather from that *into which* than from that *out of which* it is moved."

la: Aliis verbis: productio est genus, cuius species est ge[neratio].

en: In other words: *production* is the genus, of which *generation* is a species.

la: Corrupta lectio Vat., in qua haec duo priora distinctionis membra ita exhibentur: *est producere substantiam secundum voluntatem et est producere substantiam similem praeter naturam*, resarcitur ope mss. et ed. 1; cod. W post *dissimilem* addit *naturae*, cod. Z autem *per modum voluntatis*; ed. 1 tandem post *similem* adiicit *et hoc dupliciter, nam est producere substantiam similem*.

en: The corrupt reading of the Vatican edition — in which these first two members of the division are presented as "to produce a substance according to will, and to produce a substance like beyond nature" — is repaired with the help of the manuscripts and ed. 1; codex W after *dissimilem* adds *naturae* ("of nature"); codex Z reads *per modum voluntatis* ("by way of will"); and ed. 1, finally, after *similem* adds *et hoc dupliciter, nam est producere substantiam similem* ("and this in two ways, for there is to produce a like substance...").

la: Cod. Z *Adae*.

en: Codex Z reads *Adae* ("of Adam," genitive) [for *Adam*].

la: Interpunctio huius loci et lectio in Vat. et cod. cc est prorsus perturbata: *et ideo fuit ibi generatio secundum rem: ergo isti tres modi distinguuntur in Deo. Tamen*; obstat insuper auctoritas antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 nec non contextus.

en: The punctuation of this passage and the reading in the Vatican edition and codex cc is utterly disturbed: "and therefore there was generation there *according to the matter*: therefore these three modes are distinguished in God. However…"; the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, no less than the context, stands against this.

la: Ed. 1 hic repetit *potentiae*.

en: Ed. 1 here repeats *potentiae* ("of potency"), reading "limitation of potency."

la: Id est, completa vel sufficiens definitio generationis.

en: That is, the complete or sufficient definition of generation.

la: Vat. contra antiquiores codd. *defecit*; ed. 1 *defuit*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the older codices, has *defecit* ("has failed"); ed. 1 has *defuit* ("was lacking") [for our reading *deficit*].

la: In cod. Y et ed. 1 additur *processio*.

en: In codex Y and ed. 1 the word *processio* is added [reading "that procession is common to generation"].

la: Cod. V addit *hoc modo*.

en: Codex V adds *hoc modo* ("in this manner") [reading "nor is subjected in this manner"].

la: Ita plurimi codd. cum ed. 1, dum Vat. legit *sicut hoc nomen proprium*.

en: Thus most of the codices, with ed. 1; while the Vatican edition reads *sicut hoc nomen proprium* ("as this name *proprium*").

la: Petr. Hisp. *Summula*, tract. de *Praedicab.* de *Proprio*[?]: *Proprium est quod inest soli et semper et conversim praedicatur de re et non indicat, quid est esse (essentiam) rei, ut risibile. Unde* — *non indicat, quid est esse rei* — *ponitur in definitione* proprii *ad differentiam* definitionis; *definitio enim conversim praedicatur de re et indicat, quid est esse rei. Exemplum: ut substantia animata sensibilis convertitur cum animali et indicat, quid est esse eius; quia omnis definitio datur per substantialia; omne enim superius est de essentia sui inferioris.*

en: Peter of Spain, *Summulae*, tract. *On the Predicables*, *On Proprium*[?]: "*Proprium* is that which is in only [the subject], and always, and is predicated convertibly of the thing, and does not indicate what the *being* (the essence) of the thing is, as *risible*. Hence — *does not indicate what the being of the thing is* — is set in the definition of *proprium* to mark its difference from a [strict] definition; for a definition is predicated convertibly of the thing and indicates what the being of the thing is. Example: as *animated sensible substance* is convertible with *animal* and indicates what its being is; because every definition is given through substantials; for everything superior [in genus] is of the essence of its inferior."

la: *Definitio enim sic describitur ab Aristotele; definitio est oratio quid est esse rei significans; proprium autem non indicat quid est esse rei.* — Mox cod. I *nomen proprium* pro *nomen propria*. Deinde Vat. post *sic* addit *etiam dicunt, quod*, tamen abest a mss. et ed. 1; aliqui codd. falso *sicut* loco *sic*.

en: [Continuation of the *proprium*/*definitio* note:] "For *definition* is thus described by Aristotle: a definition is a discourse signifying what the *being* of a thing is; whereas *proprium* does not indicate what the being of a thing is." — Shortly after, codex I reads *nomen proprium* for *nomen, propria* [where the body has "the name [is] proper, [but] the property [does] not"]. Then the Vatican edition after *sic* adds *etiam dicunt, quod* ("they also say that"), which however is absent from the manuscripts and ed. 1; some codices wrongly read *sicut* for *sic*.

la: Vat. praeter fidem plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 *habet*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the testimony of most manuscripts and ed. 1, reads *habet* ("has") [for *habeat*, "should have," in subjunctive].

la: Vat. contra codd. et ed. 1 *volunt* loco *voluerunt*, deinde *nolunt* pro *noluerunt*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the codices and ed. 1, reads *volunt* ("they will") for *voluerunt* ("they wished"), then *nolunt* ("they do not will") for *noluerunt* ("they did not wish").

la: Ed. 1 addendo *vel procedendi* elidit vim argumenti, scil. quod detur nomen proprium respectu emanationis Spiritus sancti.

en: Ed. 1, by adding *vel procedendi* ("or *of proceeding*"), nullifies the force of the argument — namely, that there does exist a proper name with respect to the emanation of the Holy Spirit.

la: Ex plurimis codd. et ed. 1 substituimus *quod* loco *quia* et paulo infra *omnino* pro *omnis*.

en: From most codices and ed. 1 we have substituted *quod* ("that") for *quia* ("because"), and a little below *omnino* ("altogether") for *omnis* ("all").

la: In multis mss. deest *proprie*.

en: In many manuscripts the word *proprie* ("properly") is missing.

la: Ed. 1 brevius: *ratio huius nominis non reperitur in Filio*.

en: Ed. 1 [reads] more briefly: "the account of this name is not found in the Son."

la: In cod. X adiicitur: *sicut si diceres, grammaticus est* …

en: In codex X there is added: "just as if you should say, *the grammarian is* …" [the OCR breaks here mid-clause; the example is presumably Aristotle's "the grammarian is musical" sort of *praedicatio per accidens*].

translators_notes:
**Ambiguities flagged.** Several spots in this chunk required `[?]` flags — see `manual-review/tier2-ambiguities.md` for tracking. Summary:

- **fn 1 ("ita")**: OCR garble at the end of the Aug. *De Trin.* citation (raw line ~80) reads "*posuimus ita h*" with the trailing word obscured. Tentatively rendered *ita*; original probably specifies the precise reading the editors chose (e.g. *ita habet* or a quoted phrase).
- **fn 8 ("addunt sc.")**: Raw OCR fn 2 on p. 232 ("Aliqui codd. ut B T Y cum ed. 1 addunt *sc.*") gives no clear body anchor. Attached tentatively to the Damascene fn here; could equally belong elsewhere on the page.
- **fn 20 (Petr. Hisp. citation)**: OCR reads "*tract. de Praedicab. de Proprio oil*" — the trailing "oil" is unintelligible OCR; presumably a section/chapter reference (e.g. *cap. 7* or similar). Rendered "[?]".
- **fn 28 (cod. X addition)**: OCR ends mid-phrase at "*grammaticus est*" with the chunk-line break. The full example was probably the standard Aristotelian "the grammarian is musical" (*per accidens* predication) but the OCR continuation is not present in the chunk's line range.

**Doctrinal:** Bonaventure's threefold distinction is the centerpiece of this question — production of substance can be (a) *dissimilis*, (b) *similis secundum voluntatem*, or (c) *similis per modum naturae*. Only the third is generation properly so called. In creatures the three modes collapse into one (a creature can produce only by natural power and only what is like itself); in God all three are really distinguished — Adam (creation, *dissimilis*); Eve (production of like substance but not by natural emanation); the Son (alone the *generatio* properly so called). The Holy Spirit's procession is then production of like substance by way of *liberalitas*/love, not *fecunditas naturae* — hence not generation. The *quaestio incidens* ("why is *processio* appropriated to the Spirit?") draws the famous *Pater ingenitus* / *Spiritus procedens* parallel: as generation is altogether removed from the Father (whence *ingenitus*), so the full *ratio procedendi* — proceeding *and* being from one who proceeds — is altogether realized only in the Spirit; alternatively, the Spirit alone, as *nexus*, regards both *principium a quo* and *terminus ad quem*, while the Son regards only the latter. Both accounts converge with Thomas (S.T. I.27.4 ad 3) on the verbal point but Bonaventure rejects Thomas's "no special name exists" reasoning (since *spiratio* IS such a name) and substitutes the *ingenitus*/*procedens* parallel.

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