title: Dist. 18

title_alt:
Distinctio XVIII littera Magistri
Lombard's text on Distinction XVIII

source_text:
<!-- page 318 -->

### DISTINCTIO XVIII.

#### Cap. I. *Utrum concedendum sit, per donum dari dona.*

Hic quaeritur, cum Spiritus sanctus, per quem dividuntur dona, ipse sit donum, utrum concedendum sit, quod per donum dividantur ac dentur[^1] dona. Ad quod dicimus, quia per donum, quod est Spiritus sanctus, singulis propria dividuntur, et ipsum communiter omnes boni habent. Unde Augustinus in decimo quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^2] ait: «Per donum, quod est Spiritus sanctus, in commune omnibus membris Christi multa dona, quae sunt quibusque propria, dividuntur. Non enim singuli quique habent omnia, sed hi illa, alii alia, quamvis ipsum donum, a quo cuique propria dividuntur, omnes habeant, id est Spiritum sanctum». Ecce aperte dicit, per donum dona donari.

#### Cap. II. *Utrum Spiritus sanctus eadem ratione dicatur donum, qua datum sive donatum.*

Praeterea diligenter considerandum est, cum Spiritus sanctus dicatur donum et datum, utrum[^3] eadem ratione utrumque nomen ei conveniat; quod utique videri potest. Cum enim idem sit Spiritum sanctum dari et Spiritum sanctum donari, ex eadem ratione videtur Spiritus sanctus dici datum et donum. Hoc etiam videtur Augustinus significare in libro decimo quinto *de Trinitate*[^4], cum ait: «Spiritus sanctus in tantum donum Dei est, in quantum datur eis quibus datur; apud se autem Deus est, etsi nemini detur». Ecce aperte dicit, Spiritum sanctum donum appellari, quia datur. Si autem ex eo tantum appellatur donum, quia datur, non ab aeterno fuit donum, quia non datur nisi ex tempore.

Ad quod dicimus, quia Spiritus sanctus et donum dicitur et datum sive donatum; sed datum sive donatum ex eo tantum dicitur, quia datur vel donatur, quod habet tantum ex tempore.

Donum vero dicitur non ex eo tantum, quod donetur, sed ex proprietate, quam habuit ab aeterno; unde et ab aeterno fuit donum. Sempiterne enim donum fuit, non quia daretur, sed quia processit a Patre et Filio. Unde Augustinus in quarto libro *de Trinitate*[^5] ait: «Sicut natum esse est Filio a Patre esse, ita Spiritui sancto donum Dei esse est a Patre procedere et a[^6] Filio». Hic aperte ostenditur, quod Spiritus sanctus eo donum est, quod procedit a Patre et a Filio, sicut Filius eo est a Patre, quod natus est ab eo. Non est enim idem Filio esse a Patre et Spiritui sancto, id est, non ea proprietate Filius dicitur esse a Patre, qua Spiritus sanctus. Nam Filius dicitur esse a Patre, quia genitus est ab eo; Spiritus sanctus vero dicitur esse a Patre et a Filio, quia Spiritus sanctus est donum Patris et Filii, id est, quia procedit ab utroque. Eo enim[^7] dicitur Spiritus sanctus, quo donum; et eo donum, quo procedens. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^8] ait: «Spiritus sanctus, qui non Trinitas, sed in Trinitate intelligitur, in eo quod proprie dicitur Spiritus sanctus, relative dicitur, cum et ad Patrem et ad Filium refertur, quia Spiritus sanctus et Patris et Filii Spiritus est. Sed ipsa relatio non apparet in hoc nomine, apparet autem, cum dicitur donum Dei: donum enim est Patris et Filii, quia et a Patre procedit et a Filio». Ecce his verbis aperte ostenditur, eadem relatione dici Spiritum sanctum et donum; donum autem, quia procedit a Patre et Filio. Proprietas ergo, qua dicitur Spiritus sanctus vel donum, processio ipsa est, de qua post plenius agemus cum aliis[^9]. Cum ergo ab aeterno processerit ab utroque, et ab aeterno donum fuit. Non ergo Spiritus sanctus eo tantum dicitur donum, quia donatur; nam et ante fuit donum, quam donaretur. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^10]: «Semper procedit Spiritus sanctus, et non ex tempore, sed ab aeternitate procedit; sed quia sic procedebat, ut esset donabile, iam donum erat, antequam esset cui daretur. Aliter enim intelligitur, cum dicitur donum, aliter cum dicitur donatum: nam donum potest esse etiam, antequam detur; donatum autem, nisi datum fuerit, nullo modo dici potest». «Sempiterne ergo Spiritus sanctus est donum, temporaliter autem donatum». His verbis aperte ostenditur, quod sicut Spiritus sanctus ab aeterno procedit, ita ab aeterno donum est; non quia donaretur a Patre Filio, vel a Filio Patri, sed quia ab aeterno processit donabilis.

<!-- page 319 -->

Sed quaeritur, cui donabilis: utrum Patri et Filio, an tantum nobis, qui nondum eramus? Si autem non erat donabilis Patri et Filio, sed tantum nobis, et ex eo donum erat, quia sic donabilis procedebat, videtur quod Filius eadem ratione semper donum fuerit; quia ab aeterno processit a Patre donabilis nobis in tempore. Nam et de Filio legitur[^11], quod *datus est nobis*. Ad quod dicimus, quia Spiritus sanctus nobis tantum, non Patri vel Filio, donabilis processit, sicut et nobis tantum datus est. Et Filius vere datus est nobis et ab aeterno processit a Patre, non ut donabilis tantum, sed ut genitus, qui et donari posset. Processit ergo ut genitus et donabilis; sed Spiritus sanctus non procedit ut genitus, sed tantum ut donum. Donum autem semper fuit, non solum quia donabilis, sed quia ab utroque processit, et quia[^12] donabilis fuit. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^13] ait: «Eo ipso, quod daturus erat eum Deus, iam donum erat, etiam antequam daretur», et ideo donabilis[^14]; sed aliter donabilis quam Filius; nam et aliter datus et aliter processit quam Filius. Filii enim processio genitura est vel nativitas, Spiritus sancti vero processio nativitas non est; utraque vero ineffabilis est.

#### Cap. III. *Quod sicut Filius nascendo accepit non tantum, ut esset Filius, sed etiam essentia, ita Spiritus sanctus procedendo accepit non tantum, ut esset donum, sed essentia.*

Et notandum, quod sicut Filius nascendo accepit non tantum, ut Filius sit, sed omnino ut sit et ut ipsa substantia sit; ita et Spiritus sanctus a Patre et Filio procedendo accepit non tantum, ut Spiritus sanctus sit vel donum, sed etiam, ut omnino sit et ut substantia sit; quod utique non accepit eo quo[^15] datur. Nam cum non detur nisi ex tempore, si hoc haberet eo quo datur, accepisset ergo ex tempore, ut esset. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^16] ait: «Filius non hoc tantum habet nascendo, ut Filius sit, sed omnino ut sit. Quaeritur ergo, utrum Spiritus sanctus eo quo datur habeat non tantum, ut donum sit, sed omnino ut sit. Quod si non est, nisi quia datur, id est, si non habet esse, nisi eo quo datur, sicut Filius nascendo habet non tantum, ut sit Filius, quod relative dicitur, sed omnino ut sit ipsa substantia, quomodo iam Spiritus sanctus erat ipsa substantia, cum non prius daretur, quam esset cui daretur»? Non ergo eo quo datur, sed procedendo habet, ut sit donum, et ut sit essentia; sicut Filius non eo quod datus est, sed nascendo accepit non tantum, ut sit Filius, sed ut sit essentia. Unde Augustinus in decimo quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^17] ait: «Sicut Filio praestat essentiam sine initio temporis, sine ulla mutabilitate naturae de Patre generatio, ita Spiritui sancto praestat essentiam sine ullo initio temporis, sine ulla mutabilitate naturae de utroque processio».

Hic oritur quaestio: si Filius nascendo habet non tantum, ut sit Filius, sed ut sit essentia, et Spiritus sanctus procedendo non tantum, ut sit donum, sed ut sit essentia; ergo et Filius nativitate essentia est, et Spiritus sanctus processione essentia est; cum alibi dicatur, quod nec Pater eo Pater est, quo Deus, nec Filius eo Filius, quo Deus, nec Spiritus sanctus eo donum, quo Deus; quia, ut ait Augustinus in septimo libro *de Trinitate*[^18], «his nominibus relativa eorum ostenduntur, non essentia». Unde post plenius agemus[^19].

Ad quod breviter respondentes dicimus, quia nec Filius nativitate essentia est, sed tantum Filius; nec Spiritus sanctus processione essentia est, sed tantum donum; et tamen uterque, et ille nascendo et iste procedendo, accepit, ut esset essentia. «Non enim, ut ait Hilarius in quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^20], per defectionem, aut protensionem, aut derivationem ex Deo Deus est, sed ex virtute naturae in naturam eandem nativitate subsistit Filius», et ex virtute naturae in naturam eandem processione subsistit Spiritus sanctus.

Quod ita intelligi potest: ex Patre, qui est virtus ingenita, naturam, quam habet, eandem Filius nativitate, id est nascendo, et Spiritus sanctus processione, id est procedendo habet. Unde ipse idem apertius eloquens,

<!-- page 320 -->

quod dixerat aperit, subdens[^21]: «Nativitas, inquit, Dei non potest non eam, de qua profecta est, tenere naturam. Non enim aliud quam Deus subsistit, quod non aliunde quam de Deo subsistit». Ecce his verbis aperitur, quomodo accipiendum sit illud[^22]: «De Patre generatio praestat essentiam Filio, et de utroque processio praestat essentiam Spiritui sancto»; non quia ille essentia sit Filius, et iste essentia sit Spiritus sanctus, immo proprietate personali, sed quia et ille nascendo, et iste procedendo essentiam habet eandem et totam, quae in Patre est.

#### Cap. IV. *Quod Spiritus sanctus dicitur donum et donatum secundum duos modos praedictos processionis, qui, secundum quod donum est, refertur ad Patrem et Filium, secundum quod datum, ad eum qui dedit et ad eos quibus datur.*

Ex praedictis patet, quod Spiritus sanctus sempiterne donum est et temporaliter datum vel donatum. Ex quo apparet illa distinctio geminae processionis, de qua supra egimus[^23]. Nam secundum alteram processionem dicitur donatum vel datum, secundum alteram vero dicitur donum.

Et secundum hoc, quod sempiterne donum est, refertur ad Patrem et Filium, secundum hoc vero, quod dicitur datum vel donatum, et ad eum qui dedit refertur, et ad eos quibus datur; et eius dicitur esse qui dat, et illorum quibus datur. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^24] ait: «Quod datum est et ad eum qui dedit refertur, et ad eos quibus dedit. Itaque Spiritus sanctus non tantum Patris et Filii, qui dederunt, sed etiam noster dicitur, qui accepimus. Spiritus ergo et Dei est, qui dedit, et noster, qui accepimus; non ille spiritus noster, quo sumus, quia ipse spiritus est hominis, qui in ipso est[^25]: quamvis et illum spiritum, qui hominis dicitur, utique accepimus; sed aliter iste, aliter ille noster dicitur. Aliud est enim quod accepimus, ut essemus, aliud quod accepimus, ut sancti essemus. Quod autem Spiritus sanctus noster dicatur, Scriptura ostendit. Scriptum est enim de Ioanne, quod in Spiritu Eliae veniret[^26]. Ecce dictus est Eliae Spiritus, scilicet Spiritus sanctus, quem accepit Elias. Et Moysi ait Dominus[^27]: *Tollam de spiritu tuo et dabo eis*, id est, dabo illis de Spiritu sancto, quem iam dedi tibi». Ecce et hic dictus est spiritus Moysi. Patet igitur, quia Spiritus sanctus noster dicitur spiritus, scilicet[^28] quia nobis datus et datus utique ad hoc, ut sancti essemus. Spiritus vero creatus ad hoc est datus, ut essemus.

#### Cap. V. *An Filius, cum sit nobis datus, possit dici noster, ut Spiritus sanctus.*

Hic quaeritur, utrum et Filius, cum sit nobis datus, dicatur vel possit dici *noster*. Ad quod dicimus, quia[^29] Filius dicitur noster panis, noster redemptor et huiusmodi; sed non dicitur noster Filius, quia Filius dicitur relative tantum ad eum qui genuit. Et ideo noster Filius non potest dici, sed Patris tantum. In eo autem quod dicitur *datus*, et ad eum qui dedit, et ad eos quibus datus est, refertur, ut[^30] Spiritus sanctus; qui etiam cum in Scriptura, ut praedictum est, dicatur spiritus noster, vel spiritus tuus vel illius ut de Moyse et Elia dictum est, nusquam tamen in Scriptura occurrit ita dici: Spiritus sanctus noster vel tuus vel illius, sed spiritus noster vel tuus vel illius, quia Spiritus sanctus eo dicitur, quo donum, et utrumque relative dicitur ad Patrem et ad[^31] Filium, et hoc sempiterna relatione. Si tamen aliquando dicitur donum nostrum, accipitur donum pro donato vel dato. Cum vero donum accipitur eo modo, quo Spiritus sanctus, donum tantum[^32] Patris et Filii dicitur, non hominis; ita et Filius sub hac appellatione non potest dici noster, ut dicatur Filius noster, sicut nec dicitur Spiritus sanctus noster; et tamen de Filio dicitur panis noster, et de Spiritu spiritus noster. Ille noster panis, quia nos reficit nobis datus; iste noster spiritus, quia nobis inspiratur a Patre et Filio, et in nobis spirat, sicut vult. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^33] ait: «Quod de Patre natum est ad Patrem solum refertur, cum dicitur Filius; et ideo Filius Patris est, et non noster. Dicimus tamen et panem nostrum da nobis, sicut dicimus, spiritum nostrum».

#### Cap. VI. *Utrum Spiritus sanctus ad se ipsum referatur.*

Post haec quaeritur, utrum Spiritus sanctus ad se ipsum referatur: hoc enim videtur ex praedictis posse probari. Si enim quod datur refertur ad eum qui dat, et ad eum cui datur, et Spiritus sanctus datur a se ipso, ut praedictum est, ergo refertur ad se ipsum. Huius quaestionis determinationem in posterum differimus, donec tractemus de his quae relative dicuntur de Deo ex tempore[^34], in quibus *datum* et *donatum* continentur.

<!-- page 321 -->

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XVIII.

#### Cap. I. *Whether it must be conceded that gifts are given through a Gift.*

Here the question is asked: since the Holy Spirit, through whom gifts are distributed, is Himself a Gift, whether it must be conceded that gifts are distributed and given[^1] through a Gift. To this we say that through the Gift which is the Holy Spirit, the things proper to each are distributed, and all good men have Him in common. Whence Augustine in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*[^2] says: "Through the Gift which is the Holy Spirit, many gifts that are proper to each are distributed in common to all the members of Christ. For not all individually have all gifts, but these have these and others have others, although they all have the Gift itself from which the proper things are distributed to each — that is, the Holy Spirit." Behold, he openly says that gifts are given through a Gift.

#### Cap. II. *Whether the Holy Spirit is called Gift in the same sense in which He is called Given or Donated.*

Furthermore it must be diligently considered, since the Holy Spirit is called both *Gift* and *Given*, whether[^3] both names belong to Him in the same sense — which indeed may seem to be the case. For since to be given is the same as to be donated for the Holy Spirit, by the same reckoning the Holy Spirit seems to be called *Given* and *Gift*. This too Augustine seems to signify in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*[^4], when he says: "The Holy Spirit is so far the Gift of God as He is given to those to whom He is given; but in Himself He is God, even if He be given to no one." Behold, he openly says that the Holy Spirit is called Gift because He is given. But if He is called Gift only because He is given, then He was not Gift from eternity, since He is not given except in time.

To which we say that the Holy Spirit is called both *Gift* and *Given* or *Donated*; but *Given* or *Donated* is said only insofar as He is given or donated — which He has only from time.

But *Gift* is said not only because He is donated, but from a property which He had from eternity; whence also from eternity He was Gift. For He was eternally Gift, not because He was being given, but because He proceeded from the Father and the Son. Whence Augustine in the fourth book *On the Trinity*[^5] says: "Just as for the Son to be born is for Him to be from the Father, so for the Holy Spirit to be the Gift of God is to proceed from the Father and from the[^6] Son." Here it is openly shown that the Holy Spirit is Gift because He proceeds from the Father and from the Son, just as the Son is from the Father because He is born of Him. For it is not the same thing for the Son to be from the Father and for the Holy Spirit to be from Him; that is, the Son is not said to be from the Father by the same property by which the Holy Spirit is. For the Son is said to be from the Father because He is begotten of Him; but the Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father and from the Son because the Holy Spirit is the Gift of the Father and the Son — that is, because He proceeds from both. For[^7] the Holy Spirit is so called by that whereby He is Gift; and Gift by that whereby He is proceeding. Whence Augustine in the fifth book *On the Trinity*[^8] says: "The Holy Spirit, who is understood not as the Trinity but as in the Trinity, in that whereby He is properly called the Holy Spirit is said relatively, when He is referred both to the Father and to the Son, since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. But the relation itself does not appear in this name; it appears, however, when He is called *Gift of God*: for He is the Gift of the Father and of the Son, since He proceeds both from the Father and from the Son." Behold, by these words it is openly shown that the Holy Spirit and Gift are said by the same relation; and Gift, because He proceeds from the Father and the Son. Therefore the property by which He is called Holy Spirit or Gift is the procession itself, of which we shall hereafter treat more fully along with others[^9]. Since therefore from eternity He proceeded from both, from eternity also He was Gift. Therefore the Holy Spirit is not called Gift only because He is donated; for He was Gift even before He was donated. Whence Augustine in the fifth book *On the Trinity*[^10]: "The Holy Spirit always proceeds, and proceeds not from time but from eternity; but because He so proceeded that He was donatable, He was already Gift before there was anyone to whom He might be given. For *Gift* is understood differently from *Donated*: a gift can exist even before it is given; but *donated* cannot in any way be said unless it has been given." "Eternally, therefore, the Holy Spirit is Gift, but in time He is Donated." By these words it is openly shown that, just as the Holy Spirit proceeds from eternity, so also from eternity He is Gift — not because He was donated by the Father to the Son, or by the Son to the Father, but because from eternity He proceeded as donatable.

But it is asked: donatable to whom? — whether to the Father and the Son, or only to us, who did not yet exist? But if He was not donatable to the Father and the Son, but only to us, and from this He was Gift, because He thus proceeded as donatable, it would seem that the Son in the same way was always Gift — since from eternity He proceeded from the Father as donatable to us in time. For of the Son also it is read[^11] that *He is given to us*. To which we say that the Holy Spirit proceeded as donatable to us only, not to the Father or the Son, just as also He has been given to us only. And the Son was truly given to us and proceeded from the Father from eternity, not as merely donatable, but as begotten — who could also be given. He proceeded therefore as begotten and donatable; but the Holy Spirit does not proceed as begotten, but only as Gift. And He always was Gift not only because donatable, but because He proceeded from both, and because[^12] He was donatable. Whence Augustine in the fifth book *On the Trinity*[^13] says: "By the very fact that God was about to give Him, He was already Gift, even before He was given," and therefore donatable[^14]; but donatable in another way than the Son — for He was both given otherwise and proceeded otherwise than the Son. For the procession of the Son is begetting or nativity, but the procession of the Holy Spirit is not nativity; yet both are ineffable.

#### Cap. III. *That just as the Son by being born received not only that He should be Son, but also essence, so the Holy Spirit by proceeding received not only that He should be Gift, but essence.*

And it must be noted that just as the Son by being born received not only that He should be Son, but altogether that He should be and that He should be the very substance; so also the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, received not only that He should be the Holy Spirit or Gift, but also that He should altogether be and that He should be substance — which assuredly He did not receive by that whereby[^15] He is given. For since He is given only in time, if He had this by that whereby He is given, He would have received in time that He should be. Whence Augustine in the fifth book *On the Trinity*[^16] says: "The Son does not have this only by being born, that He should be Son, but altogether that He should be. It is asked, therefore, whether the Holy Spirit by that whereby He is given has not only that He should be Gift, but altogether that He should be. For if He is not, except because He is given — that is, if He does not have being except by that whereby He is given, just as the Son by being born has not only that He should be Son, which is said relatively, but altogether that He should be the very substance — how could the Holy Spirit already have been the very substance, when He was not given before there was someone to whom He might be given?" Therefore He has not by that whereby He is given, but by proceeding, that He should be Gift, and that He should be essence; just as the Son not by the fact that He has been given, but by being born, received not only that He should be Son, but that He should be essence. Whence Augustine in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*[^17] says: "Just as generation from the Father bestows essence on the Son without beginning of time, without any mutability of nature, so procession from both bestows essence on the Holy Spirit without any beginning of time, without any mutability of nature."

Here a question arises: if the Son by being born has not only that He should be Son, but that He should be essence, and the Holy Spirit by proceeding not only that He should be Gift, but that He should be essence; then the Son by His nativity is essence, and the Holy Spirit by His procession is essence — although it is said elsewhere that the Father is not Father by that whereby He is God, nor the Son is Son by that whereby He is God, nor the Holy Spirit is Gift by that whereby He is God; since, as Augustine says in the seventh book *On the Trinity*[^18], "by these names their relations are shown, not their essence." Whence we shall hereafter treat more fully[^19].

To which, briefly responding, we say that neither is the Son by His nativity essence, but only Son; nor is the Holy Spirit by His procession essence, but only Gift; and yet each — both He by being born and He by proceeding — received that He should be essence. "For not, as Hilary says in the fifth book *On the Trinity*[^20], by defection, or extension, or derivation from God is the Son God; but by power of nature into the same nature the Son subsists by nativity," and by power of nature into the same nature the Holy Spirit subsists by procession.

Which can be understood thus: from the Father, who is the unbegotten power, the Son has by nativity — that is, by being born — and the Holy Spirit by procession — that is, by proceeding — the same nature which He has. Whence the same author, speaking more clearly, opens what he had said by adding[^21]: "The nativity of God cannot fail to hold the nature from which it has come forth. For nothing subsists as other than God which subsists from nowhere other than from God." Behold, by these words it is opened how that[^22] is to be understood: "Generation from the Father bestows essence on the Son, and procession from both bestows essence on the Holy Spirit"; not because that one is essence as Son, and this one is essence as Holy Spirit — rather by personal property — but because both, that one by being born and this one by proceeding, have the same and the entire essence which is in the Father.

#### Cap. IV. *That the Holy Spirit is called Gift and Donated according to the two aforesaid modes of procession; which, insofar as He is Gift, is referred to the Father and the Son, and insofar as He is Given, to Him who gave and to those to whom He is given.*

From the foregoing it is clear that the Holy Spirit is eternally Gift and in time Given or Donated. From which appears that distinction of twofold procession, of which we treated above[^23]. For according to one procession He is called Donated or Given, but according to the other He is called Gift.

And insofar as He is eternally Gift, He is referred to the Father and the Son; but insofar as He is called Given or Donated, He is referred both to Him who gave, and to those to whom He is given; and He is said to be of Him who gives, and of those to whom He is given. Whence Augustine in the fifth book *On the Trinity*[^24] says: "What is given is referred both to Him who gave, and to those to whom He gave. Therefore the Holy Spirit is called not only of the Father and of the Son, who gave, but also ours, who received. The Spirit therefore is both of God, who gave, and ours, who received — not that spirit of ours by which we are, since that is the spirit of man, which is in him[^25]; although the spirit which is called the spirit of man we have indeed received as well; but the latter is called *ours* in one way, the former in another. For one thing is what we received that we might be, another what we received that we might be holy. That the Holy Spirit, however, is called *ours*, Scripture shows. For it is written of John that he should come *in the spirit of Elias*[^26]. Behold, he is called the Spirit of Elias — namely, the Holy Spirit, whom Elias received. And to Moses the Lord says[^27]: *I will take of your spirit and give it to them* — that is, I will give them of the Holy Spirit, whom I have already given to you." Behold, here too the spirit is called Moses's. It is therefore clear that the Holy Spirit is called our spirit, namely[^28] because He has been given to us — and given indeed for this end, that we might be holy. But the created spirit is given for this, that we might be.

#### Cap. V. *Whether the Son, since He is given to us, can be called ours, as the Holy Spirit is.*

Here it is asked whether the Son also, since He is given to us, is called or can be called *ours*. To which we say that[^29] the Son is called our bread, our redeemer, and the like; but He is not called our Son, since *Son* is said only relatively to Him who begot. And therefore He cannot be called *our Son*, but only the Father's. But insofar as He is called *Given*, He is referred both to Him who gave, and to those to whom He has been given, as[^30] is the Holy Spirit; who also, although in Scripture, as has been said before, He is called *our spirit*, or *your spirit*, or *his*, as was said of Moses and Elias, yet nowhere in Scripture does it occur thus: *Holy Spirit ours* or *yours* or *his*, but *spirit ours* or *yours* or *his* — because the Holy Spirit is so called by that whereby He is Gift, and both are said relatively to the Father and to the[^31] Son, and this by an eternal relation. If, however, He is sometimes called *our gift*, *gift* is taken for *donated* or *given*. But when *gift* is taken in the way in which the Holy Spirit is, then *gift* is said only[^32] of the Father and the Son, not of man; and so the Son under this appellation cannot be called *ours*, so as to be called *our Son*, just as neither is the Holy Spirit called ours; and yet of the Son it is said *our bread*, and of the Spirit *our spirit*. He is *our bread*, because He refreshes us, having been given to us; this one is *our spirit*, because He is breathed into us by the Father and the Son, and breathes in us as He wills. Whence Augustine in the fifth book *On the Trinity*[^33] says: "What is born of the Father is referred to the Father alone, when He is called Son; and therefore the Son is the Father's, and not ours. Yet we say also *give us our bread*, just as we say, *our spirit*."

#### Cap. VI. *Whether the Holy Spirit is referred to Himself.*

After this it is asked whether the Holy Spirit is referred to Himself: for this seems able to be proved from the foregoing. For if what is given is referred to Him who gives, and to him to whom it is given, and the Holy Spirit is given by Himself, as has been said before, therefore He is referred to Himself. We defer the determination of this question to a later point, until we treat of those things that are said relatively of God from time[^34], in which *Given* and *Donated* are contained.

---

la: Ed. 8 *dividuntur aut dantur*; particulam *aut* pro *ac* habet etiam ed. 1.

en: Edition 8 reads *dividuntur aut dantur* ("are distributed or given"); the particle *aut* in place of *ac* is also found in edition 1.

la: August., *de Trin.* XV, c. 19, n. 34. — In fine textus ante *id est* sola Vat. *habent* pro *habeant*, et ed. 4 peius *habeantur*. Subinde edd. 1, 2, 3, 7 omittunt *Ecce*, et pro ultimo verbo *donari* edd. 1, 8 legunt *dari*.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* XV, c. 19, n. 34. — At the end of the text, before *id est*, the Vatican edition alone reads *habent* in place of *habeant*, and edition 4, worse, *habeantur*. Then editions 1, 2, 3, 7 omit *Ecce*, and for the last word *donari* editions 1, 8 read *dari*.

la: Edd. 1, 5, 6, 9 adiciunt *et*.

en: Editions 1, 5, 6, 9 add *et*.

la: August., *de Trin.* XV, c. 19, n. 36. — In fine loci Vat. et aliae edd., contra originale, codd. et edd. 1, 8, *datur* loco *detur*.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* XV, c. 19, n. 36. — At the end of the passage, the Vatican edition and other editions, against the original, the manuscripts, and editions 1, 8, read *datur* in place of *detur*.

la: August., *de Trin.* IV, c. 20, n. 29.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* IV, c. 20, n. 29.

la: Codd., excepto A, et edd. 1, 8 omittunt *a*.

en: The manuscripts, except A, and editions 1, 8 omit *a*.

la: Codd. omittunt *enim*.

en: The manuscripts omit *enim*.

la: August., *de Trin.* V, c. 11, n. 12. — In hoc textu contra codd., ed. 1 et originale, Vat. cum aliis edd. addit *est* ante *Trinitas*. Eadem Vat. cum pluribus edd. ante *Filium* omittit *ad*. — Ultima verba textus *et a Filio*, ab Augustino exprimuntur sic: *Et quod Apostolus ait: qui Spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius* (Rom. 8, 9.), de ipso utique sancto Spiritu ait.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* V, c. 11, n. 12. — In this text, against the manuscripts, edition 1 and the original, the Vatican edition with other editions adds *est* before *Trinitas*. The same Vatican edition with several editions omits *ad* before *Filium*. — The final words of the text, *et a Filio*, are expressed by Augustine thus: *And that which the Apostle says: he who does not have the Spirit of Christ, this one is not His* (Rom. 8:9), he says of the Holy Spirit Himself.

la: Supple cum ed. 1 *proprietatibus*, de quibus agitur hic et dist. XXVI, XXVIII, XXIX.

en: Supply with edition 1 *proprietatibus* ("properties"), about which the discussion proceeds here and in distinctions XXVI, XXVIII, XXIX.

la: August., *de Trin.* V, c. 15, n. 16. — Et sequens locus est ibid. c. 16, n. 17. — In primo loco ante *Aliter* Vat. cum pluribus edd. contra originale, codd. et edd. 1, 8 *donaretur*.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* V, c. 15, n. 16. — And the following passage is at the same place, c. 16, n. 17. — In the first passage, before *Aliter*, the Vatican edition with several editions, against the original, the manuscripts, and editions 1, 8, reads *donaretur*.

en: Isaiah 9:6.

la: Vat. et edd. 4, 6 omittunt *quia*.

en: The Vatican edition and editions 4, 6 omit *quia*.

la: August., *de Trin.* V, c. 15, n. 16.

la: Contra codd. et ed. 1 Vat. cum aliis edd. addit *est*, sed potius referendum est *donabilis* ad praecedens *erat*. Paulo post Vat. et edd. 4, 6, 9 *datur* pro *datus*, ed. 8 *datus est*. — Ultima sententia quoad sensum sumta est ex libr. II *contra Maximinum* c. 14, n. 1.

en: Against the manuscripts and edition 1, the Vatican edition with other editions adds *est*; but rather *donabilis* should be referred to the preceding *erat*. A little later the Vatican edition and editions 4, 6, 9 read *datur* in place of *datus*, and edition 8 *datus est*. — The final sentence is taken in sense from Book II *Against Maximinus*, c. 14, n. 1.

la: Vat. et plures edd. hic et paulo post *ex eo quod* pro *eo quo*. Particula *ex* omittitur ab omnibus codd., et ed. 1, hic et in sequenti textu Augustini; *quo* legunt hic et in textu Augustini codd. BD. Alii codd. in textu quidem Augustini habent *quo*; extra ipsum vero modo *quo*, modo *quod*. Cum originali Augustini semper posuimus *quo*.

en: The Vatican edition and several editions read here and a little later *ex eo quod* in place of *eo quo*. The particle *ex* is omitted by all the manuscripts and by edition 1, both here and in the following Augustine text; *quo* is read here and in the Augustine text by codices BD. Other manuscripts have *quo* in the Augustine text itself, but outside it now *quo*, now *quod*. Following the original of Augustine, we have everywhere placed *quo*.

la: August., *de Trin.* V, c. 15, n. 16, sed diffusius. Ex codd. ACD inseruimus *ait*, quod deest in editis.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* V, c. 15, n. 16, but more diffusely. From codices A, C, D we have inserted *ait*, which is missing in the printed editions.

la: August., *de Trin.* XV, c. 26, n. 47. — Paulo ante Vat., omittendo *sit*, mendose legit *ut essentia*. Eadem Vat. cum pluribus edd. omittit in textu Augustini *ulla* ante *mutabilitate*.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* XV, c. 26, n. 47. — A little earlier the Vatican edition, omitting *sit*, mistakenly reads *ut essentia*. The same Vatican edition with several editions omits in the Augustine text *ulla* before *mutabilitate*.

la: August., *de Trin.* VII, c. 2, n. 3, sed mutato verborum ordine.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* VII, c. 2, n. 3, but with the order of the words changed.

la: Dist. XXVI, XXVII, XXIX.

en: Distinctions XXVI, XXVII, XXIX.

la: Hilar., *de Trin.* V, n. 37. — In originali Hilarii melius legitur: *per defectionem* loco *per defectionem*, quod habent omnes edd., codd. et etiam editiones Commentatorum, ut Bonav., hic dub. 1, S. Thomas in expositione textus.

en: Hilary, *On the Trinity* V, n. 37. — In the original of Hilary it is better read *per defectionem* in place of *per defectionem*, which all the editions, manuscripts, and even the editions of the Commentators have — as Bonaventure here, dub. 1, and St. Thomas in his exposition of the text. [Quaracchi note: the "better reading" intended is *per desectionem* (a cutting-off); the OCR conflates the two forms.]

la: Loc. cit., paucis interpositis. — Vat. et plures edd. legunt *dicens* pro *subdens*, et sola Vat. addit *ut* ante *inquit*.

en: Loc. cit., with a few words intervening. — The Vatican edition and several editions read *dicens* in place of *subdens*, and the Vatican edition alone adds *ut* before *inquit*.

la: Scil. August., libr. XV *de Trin.* c. 26, n. 47: cfr. supra pag. 320 notam 9. — Immediate ante loco *accipiendum* Vat. cum pluribus edd. *intelligendum*.

en: That is, Augustine, book XV *On the Trinity* c. 26, n. 47: cf. above, page 320, note 9. — Just before, in place of *accipiendum*, the Vatican edition with several editions reads *intelligendum*.

la: Dist. XIV.

en: Distinction XIV.

la: August., *de Trin.* V, c. 14, n. 15.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* V, c. 14, n. 15.

la: Alludit Augustinus ad I Cor. 2, 11: *Quis enim hominum scit, quae sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est?*

en: Augustine alludes to 1 Corinthians 2:11: *For who among men knows what is of man, except the spirit of man, which is in him?*

la: Luc. 1, 17. — Immediate post Vat. sola cum originali omittit *Ecce*.

en: Luke 1:17. — Immediately after, the Vatican edition alone, with the original, omits *Ecce*.

la: Num. 11, 17. Vulgata: *Auferam de Spiritu tuo tradamque eis*. — Solummodo Vat. locum detruncate legit, lineam omittendo, nempe: *tuo et dabo eis, id est, dabo illis de Spiritu*.

en: Numbers 11:17. The Vulgate reads: *I will take from your Spirit and give it to them*. — The Vatican edition alone reads the passage truncatedly, omitting a line — namely: *tuo et dabo eis, id est, dabo illis de Spiritu*.

la: Vat. et plures edd., sed contra codd. AD et ed. 1. Cod. C glossando: *Spiritus, non quod sumus, sed quia nobis datur*.

en: So the Vatican edition and several editions, but against codices AD and edition 1. Codex C glosses: *Spiritus, not that we are, but because He is given to us*.

la: Codd. BD et edd. 1, 8 *quod*. Sed familiare est Magistro adhibere *quia* pro *quod*. — Subinde sequimur codd. BCDE in positione verborum, dum editi legunt *tantum relative*; iidem codd. habent *illum* pro *eum*.

en: Codices BD and editions 1, 8 read *quod*. But it is familiar to the Master to use *quia* in place of *quod*. — Then we follow codices BCDE in the placement of the words, while the printed editions read *tantum relative*; the same manuscripts have *illum* in place of *eum*.

la: Solummodo Vat. et ed. 4 superflue addunt *et* post *ut*. — Deinde eadem Vat. cum pluribus edd. *supra dictum est* loco *praedictum est*.

en: The Vatican edition alone, and edition 4, superfluously add *et* after *ut*. — Then the same Vatican edition with several editions reads *supra dictum est* in place of *praedictum est*.

la: Vat. et edd. 1, 8 omittunt *ad*.

en: The Vatican edition and editions 1, 8 omit *ad*.

la: Vat. cum aliis edd., sed contradicentibus edd. 1, 6, 8 et codd., omittit *tantum*. — Mox post *et Filius* ed. 1 adicit *Dei*.

en: The Vatican edition with other editions — but with editions 1, 6, 8 and the manuscripts contradicting — omits *tantum*. — Just after *et Filius*, edition 1 adds *Dei*.

la: August., *de Trin.* V, c. 14, n. 15, sed apud Magistrum truncate. Respicitur ad orationem Domini, Matth. 6, 11, Luc. 11, 3.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* V, c. 14, n. 15, but in the Master truncated. Reference is made to the Lord's Prayer, Matthew 6:11, Luke 11:3.

la: Dist. XXX.

en: Distinction XXX.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 18, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text of Distinction XVIII

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 321 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVIII.

#### *De proprietate Spiritus sancti, secundum quam ei convenit temporaliter procedere.*

> *Hic quaeritur, cum Spiritus sanctus, per quem dividuntur dona, ipse sit donum* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Haec est tertia pars huius partis, in qua Magister agit de processione Spiritus sancti temporali. Determinato enim principio, a quo Spiritus sanctus procedit, determinato etiam modo, secundum quem procedit, determinat hic Magister proprietatem, secundum quam convenit ei temporaliter procedere; et haec proprietas est donum; et de hac in tota praesenti distinctione intendit agere. Dividitur autem haec pars in quatuor partes secundum quatuor quaestiones, quas movet.

In prima quaerit et determinat, utrum Spiritus sanctus sit donum, in quo[^1] alia dona donantur.

In secunda quaerit, utrum Spiritus sanctus sit eadem ratione datum et donum, ibi: *Praeterea diligenter considerandum est, cum Spiritus sanctus dicatur donum et datum.*

In tertia quaerit[^2], cum non solum Spiritus sanctus, sed etiam Filius sit datus, quare non dicitur Filius noster, sicut Spiritus noster, ibi: *Hic quaeritur, utrum Filius, cum sit nobis datus* etc.

In quarta et ultima quaerit, cum Spiritus sanctus sit donum relative, quomodo possit a se dari; si enim a se donatur[^3], videtur Spiritus sanctus ad se relative dici, et hoc facit ibi: *Post haec quaeritur, utrum Spiritus sanctus ad se ipsum referatur.*

Ceteris partibus indivisis remanentibus, quia specialiter prosequitur quaestiones praedictas, media sive secunda pars, quae est de differentia doni vel[^4] dati, habet quatuor partes. In prima quaerit et determinat, quod non eadem ratione Spiritus sanctus dicitur donum et datum, quia donum est ab aeterno, sed datum ex tempore. In secunda vero contra hoc, scilicet quod Spiritus sanctus sit donum aeternaliter, obiicit, ibi: *Sed quaeritur, cui donabilis, utrum Patri, vel Filio.* In tertia vero, quia in solutione dixerat quoddam dubium, ideo incidenter movet et determinat illud, ibi: *Hic oritur quaestio, si Filius nascendo* etc. In quarta vero et ultima redit ad primam solutionem, ostendens, quod Spiritus sanctus aeternaliter donum est, quia eo ipso est donum, quo procedit a Patre et Filio[^5], et hoc facit ibi: *Ex praedictis patet, quod Spiritus sanctus sempiterne donum est.*

<!-- page 322 -->

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Supposito ex praecedentibus, quod Spiritus sanctus sit donum et quod donetur, ad intelligentiam huius partis sex quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum Spiritus sanctus sit donum, quo omnia alia dona donantur.

Secundo[^6], utrum Spiritus sanctus sit[^7] donum vel ab aeterno, vel ex tempore.

Tertio, quid convenientius dicatur de Spiritu sancto, donum scilicet, an datum.

Quarto, utrum donum proprie conveniat Spiritui sancto.

Quinto, utrum donum sit proprietas Spiritus sancti distinctiva.

Sexto, utrum ratione donabilitatis dicatur Spiritus sanctus[^8] noster.

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVIII.

#### *On the property of the Holy Spirit, according to which it belongs to Him to proceed in time.*

> *Here it is asked, since the Holy Spirit, through whom gifts are distributed, is Himself a Gift* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

This is the third part of this part, in which the Master treats of the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit. For the principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds having been determined, and the mode according to which He proceeds also having been determined, the Master here determines the property according to which it belongs to Him to proceed in time; and this property is *Gift*; and concerning this he intends to treat in the whole of the present distinction. This part, moreover, is divided into four parts according to the four questions which he raises.

In the first he asks and determines whether the Holy Spirit is the Gift in which[^1] other gifts are given.

In the second he asks whether the Holy Spirit is by the same reckoning *Given* and *Gift*, at: *Furthermore it must be diligently considered, since the Holy Spirit is called Gift and Given.*

In the third he asks[^2], since not only the Holy Spirit but also the Son was given, why the Son is not called *ours*, as the Spirit is called *ours*, at: *Here it is asked whether the Son, since He has been given to us* etc.

In the fourth and last he asks, since the Holy Spirit is *Gift* relatively, how He can be given by Himself; for if He is donated by Himself[^3], the Holy Spirit seems to be said relatively to Himself, and this he does at: *After this it is asked whether the Holy Spirit is referred to Himself.*

The other parts remaining undivided, since [the Master] specifically pursues the aforesaid questions, the middle or second part, which is on the difference between *Gift* and[^4] *Given*, has four parts. In the first he asks and determines that the Holy Spirit is not called *Gift* and *Given* by the same reckoning, because He is *Gift* from eternity, but *Given* from time. In the second, however, against this, namely that the Holy Spirit is *Gift* eternally, he raises an objection, at: *But it is asked, donatable to whom — to the Father or to the Son.* In the third, because in the solution he had touched on a certain doubt, he therefore raises and determines it incidentally, at: *Here a question arises, if the Son by being born* etc. In the fourth and last he returns to the first solution, showing that the Holy Spirit is eternally *Gift*, because by the very fact that He proceeds from the Father and the Son, He is *Gift*[^5], and this he does at: *From the foregoing it is clear that the Holy Spirit is eternally Gift.*

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Granted from the foregoing that the Holy Spirit is *Gift* and that He is given, for the understanding of this part six things are asked.

First it is asked whether the Holy Spirit is the Gift by which all other gifts are given.

Secondly[^6], whether the Holy Spirit is[^7] *Gift* either from eternity, or from time.

Thirdly, what is more fittingly said of the Holy Spirit — namely, *Gift* or *Given*.

Fourthly, whether *Gift* properly belongs to the Holy Spirit.

Fifthly, whether *Gift* is the distinctive property of the Holy Spirit.

Sixthly, whether by reason of donatability the Holy Spirit[^8] is called *ours*.

---

la: In cod. B additur *omnia*.

en: In codex B *omnia* ("all") is added.

la: Vat. cum aliquibus mss. *quaeritur*.

en: The Vatican edition with some manuscripts reads *quaeritur*.

la: Cod. X *datur*.

en: Codex X reads *datur*.

la: Ed. 1 cum uno alterove codice *et* loco *vel*.

en: Edition 1, with one or another codex, reads *et* in place of *vel*.

la: In sola Vat. additur *et quod temporaliter est datum vel donatum*, quod correspondet textui Magistri.

en: In the Vatican edition alone is added *et quod temporaliter est datum vel donatum* ("and that in time He is given or donated"), which corresponds to the text of the Master.

la: Ex mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus *sed*.

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

la: Fide plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 expunximus additum *quaeritur*.

en: On the authority of most manuscripts and edition 1 we have expunged the added *quaeritur*.

la: Codd. S V omittunt *sanctus*, quae lectio concordat cum modo, quo haec quaestio infra ab omnibus mss. proponitur.

en: Codices S and V omit *sanctus*, which reading agrees with the way this question is posed below by all the manuscripts.

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. 18, Art. 1, Q. 1

title_alt: Utrum Spiritus sanctus sit donum, quo omnia alia dona donantur.

title_alt: Whether the Holy Spirit is the gift by which all other gifts are given

source_text:
<!-- page 323 -->

### Articulus Unicus. *De proprietate Spiritus sancti, qua est donum.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum Spiritus sanctus sit donum, in quo omnia alia dona donantur.*

Circa primum, quod Spiritus sanctus sit donum, quo omnia alia dona[^1] donantur, ostenditur auctoritate et ratione.

1. Auctoritate sic: Apostolus primae ad Corinthios duodecimo[^2]: *Divisiones gratiarum sunt, idem autem Spiritus, qui dividit singulis, prout vult*: et loquitur de donis non tantum gratiae gratum facientis, sed etiam quae sunt gratis datae: ergo si per Spiritum sanctum dantur utraque, cum non sit alia differentia donorum, ipse est donum, in quo omnia alia dona donantur.

2. Item, Augustinus decimo quinto *de Trinitate*[^3]: «Per donum, quod est Spiritus sanctus, commune omnibus membris Christi, propria quibusque dona dividuntur».

3. Item, ratione ostenditur sic: Spiritus sanctus est primum donum; sed omne posterius ad prius reducitur: ergo omne donum reducitur ad donum, quod est Spiritus sanctus: ergo in omnibus donis ratio donationis est per Spiritum sanctum: ergo etc.

4. Item, omne donum, in quantum donum, ex amore datur, alioquin non habet rationem doni; sed «Spiritus sanctus est amor Patris et Filii», ut dicit Augustinus, et habitum est supra[^4]: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Isidorus[^5]: «Multis indignis Spiritu sancto dantur dona Spiritus sancti»: ergo contingit alia dona donari sine hoc: ergo non est donum, in quo omnia alia dona donantur.

2. Item, aliqua sunt dona, quae appropriantur Filio, ut puta sunt illa quae dantur ad illustrationem intellectus: ergo si loquamur appropriate, talia dona donantur[^6] in Filio sive per Filium, non dono, quod est Spiritus sanctus.

3. Item, Filius datus est nobis, Isaiae nono[^7]: *Parvulus natus est nobis, Filius datus est nobis*: ergo si datur per Spiritum sanctum, videtur quod Spiritus sanctus aliquam auctoritatem vel influentiam habeat in Filium; hoc autem est falsum: ergo non omnia alia dona donantur per Spiritum sanctum.

4. Item, hoc ipsum[^8] ostenditur per impossibile: esto quod intelligatur per impossibile, Spiritum sanctum non esse, adhuc Pater et Filius intelliguntur, ut liberales, alioquin inest eis liberalitas a Spiritu sancto, quod falsum est: ergo si intelliguntur liberales, ergo et donatores.

5. Item, si Spiritus sanctus est donum, in quo alia dona donantur, ergo donum est doni et donationis[^9] donatio: et si hoc, motus est motus et relationis relatio, et hoc habet Philosophus[^10] pro inconvenienti. Cum enim dependens non possit alterum terminare, erit ibi processus in infinitum.

> **Conclusio.** Ista locutio, si ablativus *in quo* sumitur in sensu concomitantiae, solummodo quoad dona gratuita vera est; si vero in sensu causalitatis, et quidem causae exemplaris, vera est quoad omnia dona.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cum dicitur, quod Spiritus sanctus est donum, in quo omnia alia dona donantur, ablativus iste potest accipi dupliciter: vel ita, quod dicat concomitantiam, vel ita[^11], quod dicat causalitatem. Si dicat concomitantiam, sic intelligendo universaliter, falsum est; quia est sensus, quod detur cum omnibus donis. Quaedam enim sunt dona, quae semper sunt cum Spiritu sancto, ut caritas et sapientia: quaedam, quae[^12] nunquam sunt cum Spiritu sancto, ut timor servilis; quaedam,

<!-- page 324 -->

quae aliquando sunt cum Spiritu sancto, aliquando sine, ut fides, prophetia et huiusmodi.

Si autem particulariter intelligatur de donis gratiae gratum facientis[^13], sic vera est et non habet instantiam.

Potest iterum ablativus iste[^14] importare causalitatem, et hoc tripliciter: vel ita, quod dicat simpliciter causalitatem, et in hoc non distinguitur nec a Patre nec a Filio, quia omnia dona sunt a Patre et a Filio, ut[^15] a Spiritu sancto; vel ita, ut dicat causalitatem et subauctoritatem, et in hoc distinguitur a Patre, sed non a Filio, quia Pater et per Filium et per Spiritum sanctum donat; vel ita, ut[^16] dicat causalitatem et subauctoritatem et exemplaritatem, et sic proprie Spiritui sancto convenit. Ipse enim procedit per modum primi doni, ita quod omnis donatio recta et gratuita post illam est et ab illa accipit rationem donationis. Concedendum est ergo, quod Spiritus sanctus est donum, quo omnia dona, scilicet gratuita, donantur per concomitantiam, et quo omnia Dei dona donantur per exemplaritatis causam.

1. Ad illud ergo[^17] quod obiicitur primo de Isidoro, iam patet responsio, quod ipse loquitur de donis gratiae gratis datae, non gratum facientis.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur secundo, quod quaedam dona appropriantur Filio; dicendum, quod de donis est loqui dupliciter: aut ratione eius quod subest, aut sub[^18] ratione donationis. Ratione eius quod subest aliqua dona appropriantur Filio, ut sapientia et intelligentia, aliqua Spiritui sancto, ut caritas. Ratione vero donationis, omnia appropriantur Spiritui sancto ratione iam dicta, quia per ipsum tanquam per primum donum donantur alia[^19].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Filius est datus, et non a Spiritu sancto; responderi potest, quod Filius est datus secundum humanam naturam, et hoc fuit per amorem, Ioannis tertio[^20]: *Sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret*.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod, Spiritu sancto circumscripto, adhuc manet ratio doni; dicendum, quod, circumscripto Spiritu sancto, est intelligere in Deo donorum causalitatem et subauctoritatem, sed non exemplaritatem donationis sub ratione donationis, quia non intelligitur processus amoris; et hoc ultimo modo dicitur proprie convenire Spiritui sancto.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tunc est donum doni; dicendum, quod motus non est motus, ut termini, similiter nec relationis relatio; tamen ut principii et[^21] motus est motus, quia motus est principium motus, et relatio relationis; et sic dicitur donum doni. Et quia in causando statur in primo, cum sit primum donum, non est abire in infinitum. Praeterea, donum in divinis veram hypostasim dicit.

english:
### Article Unique. *On the property of the Holy Spirit by which He is Gift.*
### Question I. *Whether the Holy Spirit is the Gift in which all other gifts are given.*

As to the first [question], that the Holy Spirit is the Gift by which all other gifts[^1] are given is shown by authority and by reason.

1. By authority thus: the Apostle, in 1 Corinthians 12[^2]: *There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit, who divides to each one as He wills*: and he speaks of gifts not only of the grace which makes pleasing [*gratum faciens*], but also of those which are given gratuitously [*gratis datae*]: therefore if both are given through the Holy Spirit, since there is no other distinction of gifts, He Himself is the Gift in which all other gifts are given.

2. Likewise, Augustine, *On the Trinity* XV[^3]: «Through the Gift, which is the Holy Spirit, common to all the members of Christ, [their] proper gifts are distributed to each».

3. Likewise, by reason it is shown thus: the Holy Spirit is the first Gift; but everything posterior is reduced to the prior: therefore every gift is reduced to the Gift, which is the Holy Spirit: therefore in all gifts the account of the giving is through the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, every gift, insofar as it is a gift, is given out of love, otherwise it does not have the account of a gift; but «the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and of the Son», as Augustine says, and as has been held above[^4]: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Isidore[^5]: «To many unworthy of the Holy Spirit are given the gifts of the Holy Spirit»: therefore it happens that other gifts are given without this [one]: therefore He is not the Gift in which all other gifts are given.

2. Likewise, there are certain gifts which are appropriated to the Son — such as those which are given for the illumination of the intellect: therefore if we speak by appropriation, such gifts are given[^6] in the Son or through the Son, not by the Gift which is the Holy Spirit.

3. Likewise, the Son was given to us, in Isaiah 9[^7]: *A Child is born to us, a Son is given to us*: therefore if He is given through the Holy Spirit, it seems that the Holy Spirit has some authority or influence over the Son; but this is false: therefore not all other gifts are given through the Holy Spirit.

4. Likewise, this very thing[^8] is shown by impossibility [*per impossibile*]: granted that one suppose by impossibility that the Holy Spirit is not, still the Father and the Son are understood as liberal — otherwise liberality is in them from the Holy Spirit, which is false: therefore if they are understood as liberal, then also as donators.

5. Likewise, if the Holy Spirit is the Gift in which other gifts are given, therefore the Gift is the Gift of the Gift and the giving of the giving[^9]: and if so, motion is the motion and the relation of relation, and the Philosopher[^10] holds this for incongruous. For since the dependent cannot terminate another, there will be a process to infinity.

> **Conclusion.** This locution — if the ablative *in which* is taken in the sense of concomitance — is true only of gratuitous gifts; but if [it is taken] in the sense of causality, and indeed of exemplar causality, it is true of all gifts.

**I respond:** It must be said that when it is said that the Holy Spirit is the Gift in which all other gifts are given, this ablative can be taken in two ways: either thus, that it expresses concomitance, or thus[^11], that it expresses causality. If it expresses concomitance, then so understanding it universally, it is false; because the sense is that He is given with all gifts. For there are certain gifts which are always with the Holy Spirit, as charity and wisdom; certain ones which[^12] are never with the Holy Spirit, as servile fear; certain ones

<!-- page 324 -->

which are sometimes with the Holy Spirit, sometimes without — as faith, prophecy, and the like.

If, however, it be understood particularly of the gifts of the grace which makes pleasing [*gratiae gratum facientis*][^13], so it is true and admits no instance.

Again, this ablative[^14] can import causality, and this in three ways: either thus, that it expresses causality simply, and in this it is not distinguished either from the Father or from the Son, since all gifts are from the Father and from the Son, as[^15] from the Holy Spirit; or thus, that it expresses causality and sub-authority, and in this it is distinguished from the Father, but not from the Son, since the Father gives both through the Son and through the Holy Spirit; or thus, that[^16] it expresses causality and sub-authority and exemplarity, and so it properly belongs to the Holy Spirit. For He proceeds by way of the first Gift, in such wise that every right and gratuitous donation is after that one and from that one receives the account of donation. It is to be conceded therefore that the Holy Spirit is the Gift by which all gifts — namely, gratuitous ones — are given by concomitance, and by which all the gifts of God are given through the cause of exemplarity.

1. To that therefore[^17] which is objected first concerning Isidore, the response is now plain: that he is speaking of gifts of grace gratuitously given [*gratis datae*], not of [grace] making pleasing.

2. To that which is objected secondly, that certain gifts are appropriated to the Son; it must be said that one can speak of gifts in two ways: either by reason of that which underlies, or under[^18] the account of donation. By reason of that which underlies, certain gifts are appropriated to the Son, as wisdom and understanding, and others to the Holy Spirit, as charity. But by reason of the donation, all are appropriated to the Holy Spirit by the reason already stated, because through Him as through the first Gift the others[^19] are given.

3. To that which is objected, that the Son was given, and not by the Holy Spirit; it can be answered that the Son was given according to His human nature, and this was through love, in John 3[^20]: *So God loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son*.

4. To that which is objected, that, with the Holy Spirit set aside, the account of gift still remains; it must be said that, with the Holy Spirit set aside, one can understand in God the causality and sub-authority of gifts, but not the exemplarity of donation under the account of donation, since the procession of love is not understood; and in this last mode it is said properly to belong to the Holy Spirit.

5. To that which is objected, that then there would be a Gift of a Gift; it must be said that motion is not motion as a term, and likewise neither is there a relation of relation; nevertheless as a principle and[^21] motion there is motion, since motion is the principle of motion, and the relation of relation; and so it is called the Gift of a gift. And since in causing one stops at the first, since He is the first Gift, there is no going on to infinity. Furthermore, *Gift* in divine things expresses a true hypostasis.

la: In aliquibus codd. et Vat. deest hic et deinceps pluries in hac propositione *dona*.

en: In some codices and in the Vatican edition, *dona* ("gifts") is missing here and afterward several times in this proposition.

la: Vers. 4. et 11, ubi Vulgata *dividens* loco *qui dividit*. — Paulo ante Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 et primo *per Apostolum dicentem* pro *Auctoritate sic: Apostolus*.

en: Verses 4 and 11, where the Vulgate has *dividens* in place of *qui dividit*. — A little before, the Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and ed. 1 and the first [edition], reads *per Apostolum dicentem* in place of *Auctoritate sic: Apostolus*.

la: Cap. 19. n. 34: *Per donum, quod est Spiritus sanctus, in commune omnibus membris Christi multa dona, quae sunt quibusque propria, dividuntur.* — In quo textu Vat. cum cod. cc, refragantibus tamen antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1, loco *dividuntur* ponit *Dei donantur*.

en: Ch. 19, n. 34: *Through the Gift, which is the Holy Spirit, in common to all the members of Christ many gifts, which are proper to each, are distributed.* — In this text the Vatican edition with cod. cc — though the older manuscripts and ed. 1 resist — places *Dei donantur* in place of *dividuntur*.

la: Dist. X. in lit. Magistri, c. 1. et 2.

en: Distinction X, in the text of the Master, chapters 1 and 2.

la: Lib. I. *Sent.* sive *de Summo bono*, c. 15. n. 8: *Aliquando non dignis et reprobis dona Spiritus sancti conferuntur.* — Cod. Z cum ed. operum S. Isidori post *indignis* ponit *et reprobis*.

en: Book I of the *Sentences* or *On the Highest Good*, c. 15, n. 8: *Sometimes the gifts of the Holy Spirit are bestowed on the unworthy and the reprobate.* — Cod. Z, with the edition of the works of St. Isidore, places *et reprobis* after *indignis*.

la: Ed. 1 cum uno alterove codice *dantur*.

en: Edition 1, with one or another codex, reads *dantur*.

la: Vers. 6.

en: Verse 6.

la: Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus *ipsum*.

en: From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have added *ipsum*.

la: Fide mss. et ed. 1 expunximus additum *est*.

en: On the authority of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have expunged the added *est*.

la: Libr. V. *Phys.* text. 10–18. (c. 2.), et XI. *Metaph.* c. 11. (X. c. 12.), ubi inter cetera argumenta etiam istud habet, quod, si motus esset motus, statuendus esset progressus in infinitum, qui repugnat. Cfr. etiam I. *Prior.* c. 37. (c. 33.). — Mox Vat. contra fere omnes codd. et ed. 1 incongrue *determinare* pro *terminare*.

en: *Physics* V, text 10–18 (c. 2), and *Metaphysics* XI, c. 11 (X, c. 12), where among other arguments he also has this — that, if motion were [a] motion, a progress to infinity would have to be posited, which is repugnant. Cf. also I *Prior [Analytics]*, c. 37 (c. 33). — Next, the Vatican edition, against nearly all the codices and ed. 1, incongruously [reads] *determinare* in place of *terminare*.

la: Ex vetustioribus mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 substituimus *ita* loco *sic*.

en: From the older manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 6 we substituted *ita* in place of *sic*.

la: Ed. 1 hic et paulo infra omittit *quae*. Mox cod. Z *non* et cod. V *autem non sint* loco *sine*.

en: Edition 1 here and a little below omits *quae*. Next, cod. Z reads *non* and cod. V *autem non sint* in place of *sine*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc praeter fidem antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 *donis gratum facientibus*. Mox cod. X *unum* pro *istud*, scil. propositio illa: *Spiritus sanctus est donum, in quo* etc.

en: The Vatican edition with cod. cc, against the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, [reads] *donis gratum facientibus*. Next, cod. X reads *unum* for *istud*, namely the proposition: *The Holy Spirit is the Gift, in which* etc.

la: In Vat. deest *iste*, quod tamen in mss. (in pluribus *ille*) et ed. 1 habetur.

en: In the Vatican *iste* is missing, which, however, is found in the manuscripts (in several, *ille*) and ed. 1.

la: Auctoritate plurimorum mss. posuimus *ut* pro minus distincto *et*, loco cuius ed. 1 *sicut* habet.

en: On the authority of very many manuscripts we placed *ut* in place of the less distinct *et*, in place of which ed. 1 has *sicut*.

la: Aliqui codd. ut V X cum ed. 1 *quod*.

en: Some codices (V, X), with ed. 1, [read] *quod*.

la: Ex multis mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus *ergo*. Paulo infra nonnulli codd. ut H K Z cum ed. 1 *quia ipse* pro *qui et ipse*.

en: From many manuscripts and ed. 1 we supplied *ergo*. A little below, several codices (H, K, Z) with ed. 1 [read] *quia ipse* in place of *qui et ipse*.

la: In cod. V deest *sub*. Mox post *Ratione* cum cod. Z et ed. omisimus *vero*, quod multi cod. cum Vat. habent. Paulo infra in cod. X post *aliqua* repetitur *appropriantur*.

en: In cod. V *sub* is missing. Next, after *Ratione*, with cod. Z and the edition, we omitted *vero*, which many codices with the Vatican have. A little below, in cod. X after *aliqua* is repeated *appropriantur*.

la: In corp. quaest. circa finem. Mox cod. O omittit *alia*.

en: In the body of the question, near the end. Next, cod. O omits *alia*.

la: Vers. 16.

en: Verse 16.

la: In cod. O deficit *et*.

en: In cod. O *et* is missing.

latin_scholion:
**I.** De hoc nomine *doni*, quod est proprium Spiritui sancto, Seraphicus uberius prae omnibus antiquis magistris in tota hac distinctione loquitur. — Propositio, quod Spiritus sanctus sit donum, in quo omnia alia dona donantur, si verba: *omnia dona* universaliter sumuntur, in sensu falso potest intelligi, cum quaedam sint dona, quae quidem donantur per Spiritum sanctum, sed non cum Spiritu sancto. Nam Concilium Tridentinum dicit (Sess. 14. c. 4. *de contritione*): «Timorem esse quidem donum Dei, non tamen inhabitantis Spiritus sancti, sed impellentis». — Si S. Doctor affirmat, timorem servilem nunquam esse cum Spiritu sancto, intelligit timorem serviliter servilem, qui non potest stare cum gratia sanctificante, bene vero timor simpliciter servilis, sicut et spes, quod constat ex Tridentino (Sess. 6. cap. 9.). De timore eiusque speciebus videsis III. *Sent.* d. 18. dub. 1. et d. 34. p. II. a. 1. et 2.[?]

**II.** Pro explicatione solutionis ad 5. servire possunt verba Richardi (hic q. 5. ad 2.): «Quamvis motus non principiet alium motum ut proprium eius terminum et immediatum, tamen certum est, quod per unum motum causatur alius. Et longe in infinitum fortius per donum aeternum, quod est res subsistens, potest immediate causari donum creatum». Eodem fere modo hanc obiectionem solvunt S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 3.); B. Albert. (hic a. 1. ad 1.); Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 3. a. 1. ad 6.).

**III.** Praeter iam nominatos auctores cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 64. m. 1. — S. Thom., loc. cit., et S. c. Gent. IV. c. 21. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 3. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 61. q. 9. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning this name *Gift*, which is proper to the Holy Spirit, the Seraphic [Doctor] speaks more fully than all the ancient masters in the whole of this distinction. — The proposition that the Holy Spirit is the Gift in which all other gifts are given, if the words *all gifts* are taken universally, can be understood in a false sense, since there are certain gifts which indeed are given through the Holy Spirit, but not with the Holy Spirit. For the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, c. 4, *On contrition*): «Fear is indeed a gift of God — not, however, of the indwelling Holy Spirit, but of the impelling [Spirit]». — If the holy Doctor affirms that servile fear is never with the Holy Spirit, he understands the slavishly servile fear, which cannot stand together with sanctifying grace; but [there is] indeed a fear simply servile, just as also hope, which is plain from Trent (Sess. 6, ch. 9). On fear and its species see III *Sent.*, d. 18, dub. 1, and d. 34, p. II, a. 1 and 2.[?]

**II.** For the explanation of the solution to the 5th [objection], the words of Richard (here q. 5, ad 2) can serve: «Although motion does not initiate another motion as its proper and immediate term, nevertheless it is certain that through one motion another is caused. And far more strongly, by an eternal Gift — which is a subsisting thing — a created gift can be caused immediately». In nearly the same way, this objection is solved by St. Thomas (here q. 1, a. 3); Bl. Albert (here a. 1, ad 1); Petrus a Tar[antasia] (here q. 3, a. 1, ad 6).

**III.** Besides the authors already named, cf. Alex. of Hales, *Summa* p. I, q. 64, m. 1. — St. Thomas, *loc. cit.*, and *Summa contra Gentiles* IV, c. 21. — Aegidius R[omanus], here, 1st *principium*, q. 3. — Henry of Ghent, *Summa* a. 61, q. 9. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

---


title: Dist. 18, Art. 1, Q. 2

title_alt: Utrum Spiritus sanctus sit donum vel ab aeterno, vel ex tempore.

title_alt: Whether the Holy Spirit is gift from eternity or from time

source_text:
<!-- page 325 -->

### QUAESTIO II.

#### *Utrum Spiritus sanctus sit donum ab aeterno, vel ex tempore.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Spiritus sanctus sit donum ab aeterno, vel ex tempore. Et quod ex tempore, videtur.

1. Augustinus decimo quinto *de Trinitate*[^1]: «Eo donum est, quod datur quibus datur»: sed datur ex tempore: ergo etc.

2. Item, quinto *de Trinitate*[^2]: «Eo donum dicitur, quod daturus ipsum erat Deus»; sed constat, quod daturus erat ex tempore: ergo si donum est aeternum, temporale est causa aeterni.

3. Item, hoc[^3] videtur per rationem. Donum enim non tantum dicit comparationem ad dantem, sed etiam ad eum cui datur: ergo posito dono, ponitur dans et recipiens, quia relatio ponit extrema[^4]; sed recipiens est creatura: ergo etc.

4. Item, donum addit supra datum, quia «donum est datio irreddibilis[^5]»: ergo si Spiritus sanctus non est datus nisi ex tempore, nec est donum nisi ex tempore.

5. Item, sicut Filii est generari, ita doni est donari; sed non est Filius, antequam generetur: ergo nec donum, antequam donetur: sed donatur tantum ex tempore: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Augustinus quinto *de Trinitate*[^6]: «Quia Spiritus procedebat, ut esset donabilis, iam donum erat»; sed procedere ut donabile, hoc est aeternum: ergo et donum ab aeterno.

2. Item, ibidem[^7] expressius: «Spiritus sanctus sempiterne donum est, temporaliter vero datur».

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione, quia ubi est amor gratuitus, ibi est ratio[^8] doni: sed ab aeterno est in Deo ponere amorem gratuitum: ergo et donum.

4. Item, ubi est perfecta ratio liberalitatis, ibi est donum: sed in divinis ab aeterno est perfecta ratio liberalitatis: ergo etc.

5. Item, sicut se habet ratio verbi ad rerum productionem, sic se habet ratio doni ad gratiarum distributionem[^9]: sed ante rerum productionem in principio fuit Verbum: ergo ante gratiarum collationem in principio fuit Donum.

> **Conclusio.** *Donum ut datum dicitur temporaliter; donum vero ut aliquando donandum vel ut donabile dicitur aeternaliter.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cum donum dicat respectum ad eum cui datur, hoc potest esse tripliciter: vel secundum actum, vel secundum habitum[^10], vel secundum aptitudinem. Si secundum actum, hoc modo dicitur donum, quia datur; si secundum habitum, hoc modo dicitur donum, quia donandum aliquando; si secundum aptitudinem, hoc modo dicitur donum, quia donabile.

Secundum primam acceptionem dicitur temporaliter; sed secundum secundam et tertiam dicitur aeternaliter. Et in his tribus sensibus accipit Augustinus. Concedendum est ergo, quod secundum aliquam acceptionem donum[^11] dicitur aeternaliter, sicut probant rationes inductae ad secundam partem.

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur in contrarium, dicendum, quod procedit de dono, ut dicit actum donationis, et sic ex tempore dicitur; unde non valet obiectio.

2. Ad illud quod secundo obiicitur, quod eo dicitur donum, quo daturus etc.; dicendum, quod secundum istam acceptionem dicitur aeternaliter, quia non dicit respectum ad creaturam secundum actum, sed secundum habitum, sicut et praedestinatio.

Quod ergo obiicitur, quod tunc temporale est causa aeterni; dicendum, quod illud participium *daturus* duo importat, videlicet ordinationem ad dandum et actum[^12] ordinationis; et ordinatio est aeterna, licet actus sit temporalis; et tunc ablativus non dicit causalitatem ratione actus, sed ratione ordinationis.

<!-- page 326 -->

Posset tamen dici, quod[^13] dicit causam consequentiae, non consequentis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod dicit relationem ad extrema; dicendum, quod relatio actualis ponit utrumque extremum in actu, non autem relatio habitualis[^14], sicut patet, quod Deus aeternaliter dicitur exemplar creaturae temporalis.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod donum addit supra datum; dicendum, quod donum in quibusdam consequitur rationem dati, ut puta sunt illa quae de se non dicunt liberalitatem, nisi prout additur eis ratio communicationis, ut liber, cultellus et huiusmodi. In aliquo datum consequitur rationem doni, ut puta in eo quod ex se importat liberalitatem, etiamsi nunquam detur donum[^15], ut est amor; et sic convenit Spiritui sancto.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sicut Filii est generari etc.; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia *generari* dicit emanationem Filii, quae secundum rationem intelligendi praecedit Filium; unde impossibile est, quod sit, nisi generetur; *donari* autem non solum dicit doni emanationem, sed amplius dicit eius communicationem; et hoc consequitur esse doni, et ideo non dicitur donum ex tempore, quamvis donetur ex tempore.

english:
### QUESTION II.

#### *Whether the Holy Spirit is Gift from eternity, or from time.*

Secondly it is asked, whether the Holy Spirit is *Gift* from eternity, or from time. And that [He is *Gift*] from time, is seen [thus]:

1. Augustine, in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*[^1]: "He is *Gift* by this, that He is given to those to whom He is given": but He is given from time: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in the fifth [book] *On the Trinity*[^2]: "He is called *Gift* by this, that God was about to give Him"; but it is established that He was about to give [Him] from time: therefore if the *Gift* is eternal, the temporal is the cause of the eternal.

3. Likewise, this[^3] is seen by reason. For *gift* says comparison not only to the giver, but also to the one to whom it is given: therefore, the gift being posited, the giver and the receiver are posited, since a relation posits its extremes[^4]; but the receiver is a creature: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, *gift* adds [something] beyond *given*, since "a gift is an irreddible giving"[^5]: therefore if the Holy Spirit is not given except from time, neither is He *Gift* except from time.

5. Likewise, just as it belongs to the Son to be generated, so it belongs to the Gift to be donated; but the Son is not, before He is generated: therefore neither is [there] *Gift*, before it is donated: but it is donated only from time: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine, in the fifth [book] *On the Trinity*[^6]: "Because the Spirit was proceeding so that He might be donatable, He was already *Gift*"; but to proceed as donatable, this is eternal: therefore also [He is] *Gift* from eternity.

2. Likewise, in the same place[^7] more expressly: "The Holy Spirit is everlastingly *Gift*, but is given temporally."

3. Likewise, this same thing is seen by reason, since where there is gratuitous love, there is the account[^8] of *gift*: but from eternity it [is right] to posit gratuitous love in God: therefore also [there is] *Gift*.

4. Likewise, where there is a perfect account of liberality, there is *gift*: but in the divine [things] from eternity there is a perfect account of liberality: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, as the account of *word* stands to the production of things, so the account of *gift* stands to the distribution of graces[^9]: but before the production of things in the beginning was the *Word*: therefore before the conferral of graces in the beginning was the *Gift*.

> **Conclusion.** *Gift, as given, is said temporally; but Gift, as something at some time to be donated or as donatable, is said eternally.*

**I respond:** It must be said that since *gift* says a relation to him to whom it is given, this can be in three ways: either according to act, or according to habit[^10], or according to aptitude. If according to act, in this way it is called *gift*, because it is given; if according to habit, in this way it is called *gift*, because it is to be donated at some time; if according to aptitude, in this way it is called *gift*, because it is donatable.

According to the first acception it is said temporally; but according to the second and third it is said eternally. And in these three senses Augustine takes [it]. It must therefore be conceded, that according to some acception *gift*[^11] is said eternally, as the reasons adduced for the second part prove.

1. To that, however, which is objected to the contrary, it must be said, that it proceeds about *gift* insofar as it says the act of donation, and thus it is said from time; whence the objection is not valid.

2. To that which is objected secondly, that He is called *gift* by that by which [God] was about to give etc.; it must be said, that according to this acception it is said eternally, since it does not say a relation to the creature according to act, but according to habit, as also predestination [does].

To that, then, which is objected, that in that case the temporal is the cause of the eternal; it must be said, that the participle *daturus* ("about to give") imports two things, namely the ordering toward giving, and the act[^12] of the ordering; and the ordering is eternal, although the act is temporal; and then the ablative does not say causality by reason of the act, but by reason of the ordering.

<!-- page 326 -->

It could however be said, that[^13] it says the cause of the consequence, not of the consequent.

3. To that which is objected, that it says a relation to extremes; it must be said, that an actual relation posits each extreme in act, but not a habitual relation[^14], as is evident, that God is eternally called the exemplar of a temporal creature.

4. To that which is objected, that *gift* adds [something] above *given*; it must be said, that *gift* in some [things] follows upon the account of *given*, as for instance are those things which of themselves do not say liberality, except insofar as the account of communication is added to them, as a book, a knife, and the like. In some [thing], *given* follows upon the account of *gift*, as for instance in that which of itself imports liberality, even if the gift were never given[^15], as is love; and thus it belongs to the Holy Spirit.

5. To that which is objected, that just as it belongs to the Son to be generated etc.; it must be said, that it is false, since *to be generated* says the emanation of the Son, which according to the order of understanding precedes the Son; whence it is impossible that He be, unless He be generated; but *to be donated* not only says the emanation of the gift, but says further its communication; and this follows upon the being of the gift, and therefore He is not called *Gift* from time, although He is donated from time.

la: Cap. 19. n. 36. Vide in lit. Magistri, c. 2. in princ.

en: Chapter 19, n. 36. See in the text of the Master, c. 2, at the beginning.

la: Cap. 15. n. 16. Cfr. lit. Magistri, c. 2. circa finem.

en: Chapter 15, n. 16. Cf. the text of the Master, c. 2, near the end.

la: Fide vetustiorum mss. et ed. 1 adiunximus *hoc*.

en: On the testimony of the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have added *hoc*.

la: Cod. 1 *utrumque extremum*, uti et infra in resp. ad hanc obiectionem habetur.

en: Codex 1 [reads] *utrumque extremum*, as is also had below in the response to this objection.

la: Aristot., IV. *Topic.* c. 4. — Sensus est: donum est datio liberalis, quae fit sine intentione retributionis.

en: Aristotle, IV. *Topics* c. 4. — The sense is: a gift is a liberal giving, which is done without the intention of return.

la: Cap. 15. n. 16; vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. circa medium.

en: Chapter 15, n. 16; see here the text of the Master, c. 2, near the middle.

la: Cap. 16. n. 17. Cfr. lit. Magistri, c. 2. circa medium. — Sequimur plurimos codd. cum ed. 1, substituendo *ibidem* pro *idem*.

en: Chapter 16, n. 17. Cf. the text of the Master, c. 2, near the middle. — We follow most codices together with edition 1, substituting *ibidem* in place of *idem*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc incongrue *gratia* pro *ratio*.

en: The Vatican edition with codex cc incongruously [reads] *gratia* in place of *ratio*.

la: Cod. X hic sicut in immediate sequentibus *collationem*.

en: Codex X here, as in the immediately following [places], [reads] *collationem*.

la: Licet mss. cum sex primis edd. ponant hic et paulo infra *habitudinem* loco *habitum*, praeferimus tamen lectionem Vat., tum quia nomen *habitudo* communiter a S. Doctore in alio sensu (cfr. infra q. 6.) accipitur, tum quia in sequentibus (excepta resp. ad 3, in qua multi codd. *habitudinalis* loco *habitualis* exhibent), praesertim q. 5, omnes codd. ponunt *habitum*. Quod attinet ad rem, notes, quod in hoc distinctionis membro respectu doni insinuetur specialis determinatio, quae infra ad 2. vocatur *ordinatio*, per quam constituatur in ratione futuri et ab aliis membris distinguatur.

en: Although the manuscripts together with the first six editions place here and a little below *habitudinem* in place of *habitum*, we nevertheless prefer the reading of the Vatican edition, both because the noun *habitudo* is commonly taken by the Holy Doctor in another sense (cf. below q. 6), and because in what follows (except for the response to [obj.] 3, in which many codices exhibit *habitudinalis* in place of *habitualis*), especially q. 5, all codices place *habitum*. As for the matter, note that in this member of the distinction, with respect to *gift*, a special determination is intimated, which below at [reply to obj.] 2 is called *ordinatio*, through which it is constituted in the character of [something] future and distinguished from the other members.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 addit *Dei*.

en: The Vatican edition with codex cc, against the older codices and edition 1, adds *Dei*.

la: Intellige: *executionem*.

en: Understand: *execution*.

la: Subaudi: *ablativus ille eo quod*. De distinctione consequentiae et consequentis cfr. infra d. 38. a. 2. q. 1. in corp. et alibi passim. — Explicationem huius solutionis accipe a B. Alberto, hic a. 6. ad 4: *Dicendum, quod est causalitas consequentiae et non consequentis, et sic bene effectus infert causam; et est causalitas consequentis, et sic non infert effectus causam, sed magis e converso, et sic est hic; unde quando ex temporali infertur aeternum, non est nisi ratio consequentiae et non consequentis*.

en: Supply: *that ablative [namely] "by this, that"*. On the distinction of *consequence* and *consequent* cf. below d. 38, a. 2, q. 1, in the body, and elsewhere passim. — Take the explication of this solution from B. Albert, here a. 6, ad 4: *It must be said, that there is a causality of the consequence and not of the consequent, and thus the effect well infers the cause; and there is a causality of the consequent, and thus it does not infer the cause of the effect, but rather conversely, and so it is here; whence when from the temporal the eternal is inferred, there is only a reason of consequence and not of the consequent*.

la: Plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 *habitudinalis*; aliqui ut F H P Q X *habitualis*; Vat. cum edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 *habitu*. Vide supra in corp. quaest.

en: Most codices with edition 1 [read] *habitudinalis*; some, such as F H P Q X, [read] *habitualis*; the Vatican edition with editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 [reads] *habitu*. See above in the body of the question.

la: Vat. contra mss. et sex primas edd. *dono*. Mox post *sic* cod. M addit *donum*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and the first six editions, [reads] *dono*. Shortly after, after *sic*, codex M adds *donum*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quoad sensum quaestionis notandum, quod differunt haec tria: *esse ante tempus, esse cum tempore, esse in tempore*. Primum significat, [aliquod ens habere initium, et dicitur de creaturis temporalibus][?]; secundum [significat], aliquod ens coexistere tempori, quod etiam de Deo dici potest; tertium autem, aliquid mensurari tempore, quod proprie dicitur de corruptibilibus.

**II.** Triplex conclusio eruitur ex hoc fundamento, quod donum dicit respectum ad eum cui datur, et quod hic respectus potest esse triplex. Secundus et tertius respectus, qui est tantum secundum rationem, non est relatio in actu, quae semper ponit etiam extrema sua in actu, sed relatio in habitu vel in aptitudine, ut bene explicatur in solut. ad 2. et 3. In re principali omnes magistri consentiunt. Alex. Hal., S. p. 1. q. 64. m. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. p. 1. tr. 8. q. 36. m. 2. partic. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 4. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 59. q. 5. n. 32. seqq. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seqq. tribus hic q. 2. circa finem. — Biel, de hac et tribus seqq. hic q. unica.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** As to the sense of the question it must be noted, that these three differ: *to be before time, to be with time, to be in time*. The first signifies, [that some being has a beginning, and is said of temporal creatures][?]; the second [signifies], that some being co-exists with time, which can also be said of God; but the third, that something is measured by time, which is properly said of corruptible [things].

**II.** A threefold conclusion is drawn from this foundation, that *gift* says a relation to him to whom it is given, and that this relation can be threefold. The second and third relation, which is only according to reason, is not a relation in act, which always also posits its extremes in act, but a relation in habit or in aptitude, as is well explained in the solutions to [objections] 2 and 3. In the principal matter all the masters consent. Alex. of Hales, *S.* p. 1, q. 64, m. 2. — B. Albert, here a. 6; *S.* p. 1, tr. 8, q. 36, m. 2, partic. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2, quaestiunc. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 4. — Henry of Ghent, *S.* a. 59, q. 5, n. 32 ff. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the three following [questions], here q. 2, near the end. — Biel, on this and the three following, here q. unica.

---