title: Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 202 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum Spiritus sanctus sit nexus sive unitas Patris et Filii.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Spiritus sanctus proprie sit nexus vel unitas amborum. Et quod sic, videtur hoc modo.

1. Augustinus *sexto de Trinitate*[^1]: «Non est aliquis duorum, quo uterque coniungitur»; sed coniungitur nexu: ergo nexus non est aliquis duorum: ergo est tertia persona proprie.

2. Item, amor in creaturis est nexus: sed sicut probatum est[^2], Spiritus sanctus est amor perfectissimus: ergo etc. Quod autem amor sit nexus, patet per Dionysium[^3]: «Amorem, sive divinum sive intellectualem, unitivam dicimus virtutem».

3. Item, Spiritus sanctus secundum Graecos procedit a Patre in[^4] Filium, secundum Latinos a Patre et Filio. Sed quocumque istorum modorum procedit, uniuntur in Spiritu Pater et Filius; sed ille, in quo uniuntur, est nexus amborum: ergo Spiritus sanctus est nexus.

4. Item, aut Spiritus Patris est Spiritus Filii, aut non. Si non: ergo cum nemo sciat, quae sunt in homine nisi spiritus eius, qui est in illo, sicut dicit Apostolus[^5], Pater non novit voluntatem Filii, nec Filius Patris: ergo, si idem est spiritus amborum, in Spiritu uniuntur.

**Contra:**

1. Non est nexus nisi separatorum, quae enim non separata[^6] sunt, non indigent aliquo connectente; sed Pater non est separatus a Filio, nec e converso, quia Filius in Patre et Pater in Filio: ergo etc.

2. Item, nexus est in quo duo aliqui conveniunt; sed Pater et Filius non conveniunt in persona: ergo nulla persona est nexus Patris et Filii.

3. Item, necti dicuntur illa quae conveniunt in aliquo, in quo uniuntur. Si ergo Filius et Spiritus sanctus originaliter conveniunt in Patre, ergo Pater est nexus Filii et Spiritus sancti: non ergo Spiritus sanctus est nexus.

4. Item, nexus dicitur, [^7] quia nectitur, aut quia nectit; si ergo Spiritus sanctus est nexus, aut ergo quia nectitur, aut quia nectit. Non quia nectitur: quia tunc similiter alia persona esset nexus, similiter Pater esset nexus; si quia nectit Patrem et Filium: ergo dat aliquid Patri et Filio; sed hoc est inconveniens: ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> *Spiritus sanctus proprie dicitur nexus sive unitas Patris et Filii.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod nexus proprie dicitur de Spiritu sancto sive unitas amborum. Ratio autem huius est, quia Pater et Filius communicant in uno[^8] Spiritu, et ideo amborum est unitas. Et rursum, ille Spiritus est amor, et ideo communicant in eo ut in uno amore; et quia amor propriissime nexus est, ideo Spiritus sanctus proprie nexus est, quia est amor mutuus, est[^9] amor unicus et substantificus.

**Ad argumenta in contrarium:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod non est nexus nisi separatorum; dicendum, quod separatio dicitur tripliciter: secundum distantiam, et sic dicitur separatio localis; et secundum differentiam per essentiam[^10], et sic dicitur separatio substantialis; et secundum differentiam proprietatis relativae, et sic non dicitur separatio proprie, sed distinctio. Et[^11] quolibet istorum modorum contingit esse nexum. Quia ergo Pater et Filius sunt distincti, ideo recte dicuntur connecti.

<!-- page 203 -->

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nexus est in quo aliqui duo conveniunt; dicendum, quod est convenientia essentialis, et est convenientia originis[^12]; et nexus utroque modo potest esse; et quamvis Pater et Filius non conveniant formaliter in persona una, tamen originaliter conveniunt, quia una persona oritur ab utroque uno et eodem modo.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Filius et Spiritus sanctus conveniunt in Patre[^13]; dicendum, quod convenientia originis dicitur dupliciter: aut quia oriuntur ab uno, aut quia ab eis oritur unus. Si quia ab uno, sic non dicitur nexus, quia nexus est unio consequens distinctionem, sed unitas in origine antecedit distinctionem. Si vero quia unius origo[^14], sic, cum ibi sit distinctio et consequens unio, propriissime est nexus; et sic est in Patre et Filio respectu Spiritus sancti.

Aliter tamen potest dici, quod non est simile, quia Filius et Spiritus sanctus non eodem modo producuntur a Patre, sed Pater et Filius eodem modo spirant Spiritum sanctum. Et iterum, Patris et Filii convenientia est in Spiritu sancto ut in amore, cuius est nectere; sic non conveniunt Filius et Spiritus sanctus in Patre.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nexus dicitur, aut quia nectit etc.; dicendum, quod quaedam sunt verba, quae in voce activa significant passionem, ut verba ad sensum pertinentia, ut *video*, *audio* et similia[^15]; quaedam in voce activa significant actionem, ut *facio* et *percutio*, similiter in passiva. Dicendum igitur, quod hoc quod est nectere, cum nectere dicatur Spiritus, quia ab utroque procedit, recte in voce activa passionem significat et in passiva actionem; et ideo non significatur[^16], quod aliquid det Patri et Filio, sed quod magis recipiat.

english:
### Question II. *Whether the Holy Spirit is the bond or unity of the Father and the Son.*

Secondly it is asked whether the Holy Spirit is properly the bond or unity of them both. And that it is so, seems to be the case in this way.

1. Augustine, *On the Trinity*, Book VI[^1]: «There is not anything of the two by which each is conjoined»; but [the Father and the Son] are conjoined by a bond: therefore the bond is not anything of the two: therefore it is properly the third person.

2. Likewise, love in creatures is a bond: but as has been proved[^2], the Holy Spirit is most perfect love: therefore etc. That love is a bond, however, is clear from Dionysius[^3]: «Love, whether divine or intellectual, we call a unitive power».

3. Likewise, the Holy Spirit, according to the Greeks, proceeds from the Father into[^4] the Son, according to the Latins from the Father and the Son. But by whichever of these modes he proceeds, the Father and Son are united in the Spirit; but that in which they are united is the bond of them both: therefore the Holy Spirit is the bond.

4. Likewise, either the Spirit of the Father is the Spirit of the Son, or not. If not: then since no one knows the things which are in a man except the spirit of him which is in him, as the Apostle says[^5], the Father does not know the will of the Son, nor the Son the will of the Father: therefore, if the spirit of them both is the same, they are united in the Spirit.

**On the contrary:**

1. There is no bond except of things separated, for those which are not separated[^6] need not anything connecting them; but the Father is not separated from the Son, nor conversely, because the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, a bond is that in which two things come together; but the Father and the Son do not come together in person: therefore no person is the bond of the Father and the Son.

3. Likewise, those things are said to be bound which come together in something in which they are united. If therefore the Son and the Holy Spirit originally come together in the Father, then the Father is the bond of the Son and the Holy Spirit: therefore the Holy Spirit is not the bond.

4. Likewise, a bond is so called [^7] either because it is bound, or because it binds; if therefore the Holy Spirit is a bond, then either because he is bound, or because he binds. Not because he is bound: because then likewise any other person would be a bond, and likewise the Father would be a bond; if because he binds the Father and the Son: then he gives something to the Father and the Son; but this is unsuitable: therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> *The Holy Spirit is properly called the bond or unity of the Father and the Son.*

**I respond:** It must be said that "bond" is properly said of the Holy Spirit, or the unity of them both. The reason for this is that the Father and the Son communicate in one[^8] Spirit, and so he is the unity of them both. And again, that Spirit is love, and so they communicate in him as in one love; and because love is most properly a bond, therefore the Holy Spirit is properly a bond, because he is mutual love, he is[^9] singular and substance-conferring love.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

1. To that which is objected to the contrary, that there is no bond except of things separated; it must be said that separation is spoken of in three ways: according to distance, and thus it is called local separation; and according to difference by essence[^10], and thus it is called substantial separation; and according to difference of relative property, and thus it is not called separation properly, but distinction. And[^11] in any of these modes there can be a bond. Since therefore the Father and the Son are distinct, therefore they are rightly said to be connected.

2. To that which is objected, that a bond is that in which two things come together; it must be said that there is essential agreement, and there is agreement of origin[^12]; and a bond can be in either mode; and although the Father and the Son do not come together formally in one person, nevertheless they come together originally, because one person arises from both of them in one and the same way.

3. To that which is objected, that the Son and the Holy Spirit come together in the Father[^13]; it must be said that agreement of origin is spoken of in two ways: either because they arise from one, or because from them one arises. If because from one, so it is not called a bond, because a bond is a union following upon distinction, but unity in origin precedes distinction. But if [it is] because [it is the] origin of one[^14], so, since there is distinction and consequent union, it is most properly a bond; and thus it is in the Father and the Son with respect to the Holy Spirit.

Otherwise, however, it can be said that the case is not the same, because the Son and the Holy Spirit are not produced from the Father in the same way, but the Father and the Son spirate the Holy Spirit in the same way. And again, the agreement of the Father and the Son is in the Holy Spirit as in love, whose function is to bind; the Son and the Holy Spirit do not thus come together in the Father.

4. To that which is objected, that "bond" is so called either because it binds etc.; it must be said that there are some verbs which in the active voice signify passion, as the verbs pertaining to the senses, as *I see*, *I hear*, and the like[^15]; and some which in the active voice signify action, as *I make* and *I strike*, similarly in the passive. It must therefore be said that this act of binding, since the Spirit is said to bind because he proceeds from both, in the active voice rightly signifies passion and in the passive action; and therefore it is not signified[^16] that he gives something to the Father and the Son, but rather that he receives.

la: Cap. 5. n. 7: *Manifestum est, quod non aliquis duorum est, quo uterque coniungitur.*

en: Ch. 5, n. 7: «It is manifest that there is not anything of the two by which each is conjoined.»

en: Here, a. 1, qq. 2 and 3.

la: *De Div. Nom.* c. 4. § 15: *Amorem... unitivam quandam et concretivam intelligimus virtutem.*

en: *On the Divine Names*, c. 4, § 15: «Love... we understand to be a certain unitive and cohesive power.»

la: Mss. et ed. 4 consentientibus, loco *per* substituimus *in*, quod et loquendi modo S. Doctoris magis correspondet, de quo cfr. d. seq. q. 1, et d. 14. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. Mox pauci mss. ut *aa bb procedat*, et aliqui codd. ut *IY* cum ed. 1 post *Spiritu* addunt *sancto*.

en: With the manuscripts and ed. 4 consenting, in place of *per* we have substituted *in*, which also more closely corresponds to the holy Doctor's manner of speaking, on which cf. the following distinction, q. 1, and d. 14, a. 1, q. 1, *in corpore*. A little further on a few manuscripts have *aa bb procedat*, and some codices like *IY* together with ed. 1 add *sancto* after *Spiritu*.

la: I. Cor. 2, 11. Vulgata: *Quis enim hominum scit, quae sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est?* — Vat., obnitentibus mss. et sex primis edd., post *sunt in* addit *aliquo*, et paulo infra post *Apostolus* adiungit *et*. Cod. O conclusionem argumenti exhibet: *ergo si est spiritus, et spiritus amborum; et si hoc, ambo in Spiritu uniuntur.*

en: 1 Cor. 2:11. Vulgate: «For who among men knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?» — The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and the first six editions, adds *aliquo* after *sunt in*, and a little further on after *Apostolus* it adds *et*. Codex O presents the conclusion of the argument as: *therefore if [there] is a spirit, [it is] also the spirit of them both; and if this, both are united in the Spirit.*

la: Cod. T *qui enim non separati sunt.*

en: Codex T reads *qui enim non separati sunt* («for those which are not separated»).

la: In Vat. praemittitur *aut*.

en: In the Vatican edition *aut* is prefixed.

la: Cod. E *eodem* pro *uno*, quod, ceteris mss. et ed. 1 refragantibus, Vat. minus bene omittit.

en: Codex E reads *eodem* in place of *uno*, which, with the remaining manuscripts and ed. 1 dissenting, the Vatican edition less well omits.

la: Plures codd. ut *ACGK LSU VW Y* perperam hic addunt *eius*. Mox post *ideo* ed. 1 adiungit *et*. — Vat. omittit *est* legendo *quia amor mutuus est amor unicus et substantificus*; ita etiam aliae edd. et plurimi codd. cum hac differentia, quod plures codd. pro *unicus* habent *unitus*, alii vero pauci *vivificus*. Probabilior nobis ob contextum visa est lectio codd. *HIM* in textum recepta.

en: Several codices like *ACGK LSU VW Y* wrongly here add *eius*. Soon after, ed. 1 adds *et* after *ideo*. — The Vatican edition omits *est*, reading *quia amor mutuus est amor unicus et substantificus*; thus also the other editions and very many codices, with this difference, that several codices have *unitus* in place of *unicus*, while others, a few, *vivificus*. The reading of codices *HIM*, received into the text, seemed to us more probable on account of the context.

la: Codd. *HV essentialem* et cod. *Z essentiali* loco *per essentiam*, quod multi codd. ut *AC FGK LORS TU V* etc. cum sex primis edd. omittunt.

en: Codices *HV* read *essentialem* and codex *Z* reads *essentiali* in place of *per essentiam*, which many codices like *AC FGK LORS TU V* etc. together with the first six editions omit.

la: Fide multorum mss. ut *AFGHI K TVX* etc. et ed. 1 substituimus *Et* pro *In*.

en: On the faith of many manuscripts like *AFGHI K TVX* etc. and ed. 1, we have substituted *Et* in place of *In*.

la: Vat., adstipulante nullo cod., *originalis*, et mox contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 post *potest* addit *dici*, deinde contra multos codd. ut *IKMRTZ* etc. ac ed. 1 loco *conveniunt* ponit *communicent*.

en: The Vatican edition, with no codex supporting it, reads *originalis*, and soon, against the older codices and ed. 1, after *potest* adds *dici*, then against many codices like *IKMRTZ* etc. and ed. 1 in place of *conveniunt* puts *communicent*.

la: Codd. *LO* hic addunt *sic Filius et Spiritus sanctus conveniunt originaliter in Patre, sed.*

en: Codices *LO* here add *sic Filius et Spiritus sanctus conveniunt originaliter in Patre, sed.*

la: Ita plurimi codd. cum edd. 2, 3, sed Vat. *quia a duobus unius origo*; cod. R cum ed. 1 *quia unus oritur*; cod. X *quia unus oritur a duobus*.

en: Thus very many codices together with eds. 2 and 3; but the Vatican edition reads *quia a duobus unius origo*; codex R with ed. 1 reads *quia unus oritur*; codex X reads *quia unus oritur a duobus*.

la: Ed. 1 *consimilia*, dein post *quaedam* adiungit *quae*.

en: Ed. 1 reads *consimilia*, then after *quaedam* adds *quae*.

la: Cod. X *significat*, cod. H *sequitur*.

en: Codex X reads *significat*, codex H reads *sequitur*.

latin_scholion:
Si Spiritus sanctus dicitur nexus, sensus est, quod est amor a duobus, scil. Patre et Filio, tanquam ab uno principio uniformiter productus. Cfr. solut. ad 2. Quoad ipsam conclusionem cfr. infra dub. I. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 53. m. 3. c. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3; S. 1. q. 37. a. 1. ad 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 8. 9. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
If the Holy Spirit is called a bond, the sense is that he is love from two, namely from the Father and the Son, uniformly produced as from one principle. Cf. the solution to 2. As to the conclusion itself, cf. below, dub. I. — Alex. of Hales, *Summa* p. I, q. 53, m. 3, c. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3; *Summa* I, q. 37, a. 1, ad 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 8, 9. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here Bk. I, princ. q. 3.

---


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 3

title_alt: Whether the Holy Spirit is properly *spirit*

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 203 -->

### Quaestio III

*Utrum Spiritus sanctus proprie sit spiritus.*

Tertio et ultimo quaeritur, utrum Spiritus sanctus proprie sit spiritus. Et quod sic, videtur hoc modo:

1. Quia persona Spiritus sancti isto nomine propriissime designatur, quod dicitur Spiritus sanctus[^1]; sed hoc nomen[^2] *sanctus* non coarctat hoc quod est *spiritus*, cum sit aeque commune: ergo *spiritus* proprie dicitur illa persona.

2. Item, *Spiritus* dicitur, quia[^3] spiratur; sed quod spiratur non generatur, nec e converso: ergo cum spirari non conveniat Patri nec Filio: ergo convenit Spiritui sancto.

3. Item, homines concordes in uno malo dicuntur *conspiratores*, non quia idem cogitent, sed quia idem malum appetunt, et ad idem malum unus omnium est colligatus affectus: ergo cum conspiratio[^4] a spiratione veniat, non dicitur spirari nisi amor: ergo nec Spiritus sanctus dicitur nisi amor: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. *Spiritus est Deus, et eos, qui adorant eum, in spiritu et veritate oportet adorare*, Ioannis quarto[^5]; sed tota Trinitas est adoranda: ergo tota Trinitas est spiritus; hoc idem dicit Augustinus[^6].

2. Item, ratione ostenditur hoc idem sic: spiritus dividitur contra corpus: ergo quod non est corpus est spiritus[^7]: ergo est nomen absolutum, non relativum: ergo etc.

3. Item, spiritus dicitur aut a spiritualitate, aut a spiratione. Si a spiritualitate, sic dividitur contra corpus, et constat quod toti[^8] conveniat Trinitati; si a spiratione; contra: spirare active dictum

<!-- page 204 -->

convenit toti Trinitati, quia tota Trinitas dicitur inspirare: ergo active dictum non dicitur relative, ergo nec passive.

4. Item, secundum quod dicitur a *spiratione*, videtur quod magis proprie conveniat Filio; et hoc patet per auctoritatem, Iob trigesimo secundo[^9]: *Inspiratio Omnipotentis dat intellectum*; sed hoc appropriatur Filio: ergo etc.

5. Item, spiratio est actus naturalis[^10]; sed solus Filius procedit per modum naturae: ergo solus Filius spiratur.

> **Conclusio.** Spiritus, quatenus dicitur a spiritualitate, convenit toti Trinitati; quatenus autem dicitur a spiratione, est proprium Spiritus sancti.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hoc nomen *spiritus* reperitur in corporibus, in substantiis rationalibus[^11] et in Deo; et licet in Deo sit propriissime, quia propriissime est in eo spiritualitas et spiratio, tamen ratio cognoscendi et dicendi tanquam a posteriori incipit a substantia corporali.

In substantia autem corporali *spiritus* dicitur dupliciter: aut a *spiritualitate* contra corpulentiam; et sic dicitur absolute, et vocatur spiritus corpus subtile, sicut accipitur in libro *de Differentia spiritus et animae*[^12]; aut a *spiratione*; et sic dicitur spiritus flatus, sicut accipit Chrysostomus, Ioannis tertio[^13]: *Spiritus ubi vult spirat* etc. Et in Psalmo[^14]: *Ignis, grando, spiritus* etc.

Secundum hunc duplicem modum accipitur in substantia spirituali sive rationali, aut a *spiritualitate* contra corporeitatem: et sic substantia rationalis vel eius potentia interior dicitur *spiritus*, Ecclesiastis tertio[^15]: *Quis novit, si spiritus filiorum* etc.; aut a *spiratione*; et sic affectus vel amor dicitur *spiritus*. Et ratio huius est, quia actus spirationis in corpore est actus internus, actus continuus, actus vivificus, et habens originem a calore[^16]. Quia igitur egressus amoris, ut amor est, venit ab intrinseco; et amor est actus vivificus, quia amor est vita; et iterum amor est actus continuus, quia continue debet reddi amor, et tunc est perfectus, quando homo sic amat; rursus est calor spiritualis: ideo solus amor dicitur spiritualiter spirari; et sic accipitur illud primae ad Thessalonicenses ultimo[^17]: *Ut integer spiritus* etc.

Secundum hunc duplicem modum accipitur in divinis. Nam secundum quod *spiritus* dicitur a spiritualitate, sic convenit toti Trinitati: nam tota Trinitas caret corporeitate et materialitate; et sic est nomen absolutum, Ioannis quarto[^18]: *Spiritus est Deus*. Secundum autem quod dicitur a spiratione, sic convenit illi soli personae, quae procedit[^19] ut amor, ratione iam dicta. Spirari enim in spiritualibus solius est amoris; et quoniam amor potest spirari recte et ordinate, et sic est purus; vel indirecte et immunde, et sic est libidinosus: ideo persona illa, quae est amor, non tantum dicitur *Spiritus*, sed *Spiritus sanctus*. Non sic Filius dicitur[^20] sanctus, quia generatio est motus naturalis, circa quem non attenditur sanctitas vel puritas, sicut attenditur circa amorem voluntatis.

**Ad argumenta pro parte contra:**

*Ad 1, 2, 3, 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod spirare est totius Trinitatis; dicendum, quod spirare dicitur dupliciter: uno modo est spirare idem quod Spiritum[^21] producere; et sic non convenit toti Trinitati; alio modo est spirare idem quod inspirare: et sic[^22] convenit toti Trinitati, quia inspirare dicit effectum spiritus, qui est a tota Trinitate. Dicitur enim inspirari quod in spiritu nostro spiritualiter immittitur, sive affectio sive cognitio.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod[^23] motus est naturalis; dicendum, quod sic est in corporalibus, quae spirant propter naturae indigentiam; sed non sic in spiritualibus substantiis, quae spirant ex liberalitate voluntatis. Unde ratione huius non transfertur[^24], sed ratione aliarum proprietatum.

english:
<!-- page 203 -->

### Question III

*Whether the Holy Spirit is properly* spirit.

Thirdly and lastly it is asked whether the Holy Spirit is properly *spirit*. And that it is so, seems to be the case in this way:

1. Because the person of the Holy Spirit is most properly designated by this name when he is called *Holy Spirit*[^1]; but this name[^2] *holy* does not restrict that which is *spirit*, since it is equally common: therefore *spirit* is properly said of that person.

2. Likewise, he is called *Spirit* because[^3] he is breathed forth; but what is breathed forth is not generated, nor conversely: therefore since to be breathed forth does not befit the Father nor the Son: therefore it befits the Holy Spirit.

3. Likewise, men in concord in one evil are called *conspirators*, not because they think the same, but because they desire the same evil, and the affection of all is bound together unto the same evil: therefore since *conspiracy*[^4] comes from *spiration*, only love is said to be breathed forth: therefore the Holy Spirit too is named nothing but love: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. *God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth*, John 4[^5]; but the whole Trinity is to be worshipped: therefore the whole Trinity is spirit; Augustine says the same[^6].

2. Likewise, the same is shown by reason thus: spirit is divided against body: therefore what is not body is spirit[^7]: therefore it is an absolute name, not a relative one: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, *spirit* is said either from *spirituality* or from *spiration*. If from spirituality, so it is divided against body, and it is plain that it belongs to the whole[^8] Trinity; if from spiration; on the contrary: *to breathe forth* taken actively

<!-- page 204 -->

befits the whole Trinity, because the whole Trinity is said *to inspire*: therefore taken actively it is not said relatively, and so neither passively.

4. Likewise, insofar as it is said from *spiration*, it seems that it more properly befits the Son; and this is plain from authority, Job 32[^9]: *The inspiration of the Almighty gives understanding*; but this is appropriated to the Son: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, spiration is a natural act[^10]; but only the Son proceeds by way of nature: therefore only the Son is breathed forth.

> **Conclusion.** *Spirit*, insofar as it is said from spirituality, belongs to the whole Trinity; but insofar as it is said from spiration, is proper to the Holy Spirit.

**I respond:** It must be said that this name *spirit* is found in bodies, in rational substances[^11], and in God; and although in God it is most properly [used], because spirituality and spiration are most properly in him, nevertheless the manner of knowing and naming, as from what is posterior, begins from corporeal substance.

In corporeal substance, *spirit* is said in two ways: either from *spirituality* opposed to bulkiness; and so it is said absolutely, and a subtle body is called spirit, as is taken in the book *On the Difference of Spirit and Soul*[^12]; or from *spiration*; and so *spirit* means breath, as Chrysostom takes it, John 3[^13]: *The Spirit breathes where it wills* etc. And in the Psalm[^14]: *Fire, hail, spirit* etc.

According to this twofold mode, it is taken also in spiritual or rational substance, either from *spirituality* opposed to corporeity: and so the rational substance, or its interior power, is called *spirit*, Ecclesiastes 3[^15]: *Who knows if the spirit of the sons* etc.; or from *spiration*; and so the affection or love is called *spirit*. And the reason of this is that the act of spiration in the body is an internal act, a continuous act, a life-giving act, and has its origin from heat[^16]. Therefore since the going-forth of love, as it is love, comes from within; and love is a life-giving act, because love is life; and again love is a continuous act, because love must continuously be returned, and then it is perfect, when a man so loves; again, [love] is a spiritual heat: therefore only love is said to be breathed forth spiritually; and thus is taken that text of First Thessalonians, the last [chapter][^17]: *That your whole spirit* etc.

According to this twofold mode, it is taken in divine things. For inasmuch as *spirit* is said from spirituality, so it belongs to the whole Trinity: for the whole Trinity lacks corporeity and materiality; and so it is an absolute name, John 4[^18]: *God is Spirit*. But inasmuch as it is said from spiration, so it belongs to that person alone who proceeds[^19] as love, for the reason already given. For to be breathed forth in spiritual matters belongs only to love; and since love can be breathed forth rightly and orderly, and so is pure; or indirectly and impurely, and so is libidinous: therefore that person which is love is not only called *Spirit*, but *Holy Spirit*. Not so is the Son called[^20] holy, because generation is a natural motion, with respect to which sanctity or purity is not considered, as it is considered with respect to the love of the will.

**To the arguments on the contrary:**

*To 1, 2, 3, 4.* To that which is objected, that to breathe forth belongs to the whole Trinity; it must be said that to breathe forth is said in two ways: in one mode, to breathe forth is the same as to produce the Spirit[^21]; and so it does not belong to the whole Trinity; in another mode, to breathe forth is the same as *to inspire*: and so[^22] it belongs to the whole Trinity, because *to inspire* names the effect of the spirit, which is from the whole Trinity. For that is said to be inspired which is sent into our spirit spiritually, whether affection or cognition.

*To 5.* To that which is objected, that[^23] the motion is natural; it must be said that so it is in corporeal things, which breathe forth on account of the indigence of nature; but not so in spiritual substances, which breathe forth from the liberality of the will. Hence by reason of this it is not transferred[^24], but by reason of other properties.

la: Codd. LO hic addunt: *sic Filius et Spiritus sanctus conveniunt originaliter in Patre, sed*.

en: Codices LO here add: *thus the Son and the Holy Spirit agree originally in the Father, but*.

la: Post *non coarctat hoc* adiungunt *nomen* H et ed. I; mox pro *ergo spiritus* adiicit *sanctus*.

en: After *non coarctat hoc* the manuscript H and ed. I add *nomen*; soon afterward in place of *ergo spiritus* it adds *sanctus*.

la: Fide multorum mss. ut AFGHIKMTVY etc. substituimus *quia* loco *quod*.

en: On the testimony of many manuscripts such as AFGHIKMTVY etc., we have substituted *quia* for *quod*.

la: Praestamus lectionem veram ex multis mss. ut AFGHISTVV etc. et ed. I ponendo *conspiratio* loco *spiratio*.

en: We give the true reading from many manuscripts such as AFGHISTVV etc. and ed. I by placing *conspiratio* in the place of *spiratio*.

la: Vers. 24.

la: Libr. V. *de Trin.* c. 11, n. 12, et ibid. XV. c. 19, n. 37.

en: Book V *On the Trinity*, c. 11, n. 12, and ibid. book XV, c. 19, n. 37.

la: Hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. — Ed. I *hoc ipsum* loco *hoc idem*.

en: Here the text of the Master [Lombard], c. 3. — Ed. I [reads] *hoc ipsum* in place of *hoc idem*.

la: In cod. 0 additur: *sed tota Trinitas non est corpus* etc. In fine argumenti supple: *ergo convenit toti Trinitati*.

en: In codex 0 there is added: *but the whole Trinity is not body* etc. At the end of the argument supply: *therefore it belongs to the whole Trinity*.

la: Vers. 8, in quo textu Vulgata cum ed. I habet *intelligentiam* loco *intellectum*. Mox ed. I *haec* pro *hoc*.

en: Verse 8, in which text the Vulgate together with ed. I has *intelligentiam* in place of *intellectum*. Soon ed. I [reads] *haec* for *hoc*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., *de Respiratione*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On Respiration*.

la: Substituimus ope multorum mss. ut AFGKT etc. et edd. 1, 2, 3 *rationalibus* loco *rationalium*.

en: We have substituted, with the aid of many manuscripts such as AFGKT etc. and editions 1, 2, 3, *rationalibus* in place of *rationalium*.

la: Liber iste a Richardo (hic a. 2, q. 3) attribuitur Constabulo; sed cfr. *Bibliotheca philosophorum mediae aetatis*, ed. a Baracli, Innsbruck 1876–1878, fasc. 2, ubi continentur: *Excerpta Costa-Ben Lucae de Differentia animae et spiritus*. Vide etiam libr. *de Spiritu*, c. 1 (inter opera Arist.).

en: This book is attributed by Richard (here a. 2, q. 3) to Constabulus; but cf. *Library of Philosophers of the Middle Ages*, ed. by Baracli, Innsbruck 1876–1878, fasc. 2, where there are contained: *Extracts of Costa-Ben Luca on the Difference of Soul and Spirit*. See also the book *On Spirit*, c. 1 (among the works of Aristotle).

la: Homil. 26 (alias 25) super Ioan. 3, 8.

en: Homily 26 (alias 25) on John 3, 8.

la: Vers. 21.

en: Verse 21. [Ecclesiastes 3:21.]

la: De his respirationis actibus vide Aristot., *de Respiratione*; et Nemesium, *de Natura hominis*, c. 28.

en: Concerning these acts of respiration see Aristotle, *On Respiration*; and Nemesius, *On the Nature of Man*, c. 28.

la: Vers. 23.

en: Verse 23. [1 Thessalonians 5:23.]

la: Cod. K adiungit *per modum amoris* etc. Mox post *recte* Vat. et cod. cc cum subnexis non cohaerenter et praeter fidem aliorum codd. cum ed. 1 *Spirare* loco *Spirari*.

en: Codex K adds *per modum amoris* etc. Soon after *recte*, the Vatican edition and codex cc, with their attached words incoherently and against the testimony of the other codices, together with ed. 1, [read] *Spirare* in place of *Spirari*.

la: Auctoritate mss. et sex primarum edd. expunximus hic perperam additum *Spiritus*.

en: On the authority of the manuscripts and the first six editions, we have here removed the wrongly added word *Spiritus*.

la: In mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 non additur *sanctum*, quod in Vat. habetur.

en: In the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3 the word *sanctum* is not added, which is found in the Vatican edition.

la: Vat. contra antiquiores mss. et ed. I *ille* pro *sic*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the more ancient manuscripts and ed. I, [reads] *ille* in place of *sic*.

la: Supple: *spiratio*. Paulo infra praeferimus lectionem plurium codd. ut F P X V et ed. 1 *spirant* loco *inspirant*.

en: Supply: *spiratio*. A little below, we prefer the reading of several codices such as F P X V and ed. 1, *spirant* in place of *inspirant*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc *transferiuntur*, sed falso, quia subiectum est *spiratio*, et contra vetustiores codd. et ed. I. Cod. K addit satis bene *ad divina*.

en: The Vatican edition with codex cc [reads] *transferiuntur*, but falsely, because the subject is *spiratio*, and against the more ancient codices and ed. I. Codex K adds aptly enough *ad divina*.

latin_scholion:
In conclusione antiqui Scholastici cum Patribus Latinis et Graecis consentiunt. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 43. m. 1, et q. 63. m. 1. — Scot., I. Sent. d. 18. q. unica in utroque scripto. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 36. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 4. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 1. 2. — Durand., S. p. 1. tr. 8. q. 36. m. 1.

---

english_scholion:
In the conclusion the ancient Scholastics agree with the Latin and Greek Fathers. Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. I, q. 43, m. 1, and q. 63, m. 1. — Scotus, *I Sent.* d. 18, q. unica, in either writing. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; *Summa* I, q. 36, a. 1. — Blessed Albert, here a. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. — Giles of Rome, here 1, princ. q. 4. — Henry of Ghent, *Summa* a. 1, 2. — Durandus, *Summa* p. 1, tr. 8, q. 36, m. 1.

---

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 10, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 205 -->

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation; each entry pairs **La.** (Latin) with **En.** (English).

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primum de hoc quod dicit, quod *Spiritus sanctus est amor Patris sive caritas sive dilectio.* Quaeritur ergo, utrum caritas et dilectio differant; et quod sic, videtur per Isidorum[^1] dicentem: *Amor* est rationalium et irrationalium, *dilectio* rationalium tantum. Sed contra: Dionysius *de Divinis Nominibus*, capite quarto[^2]: « Mihi videntur Theologi commune quid dicere dilectionis et amoris nomine »: et ibidem[^3] reprehendit distinguentes dicens, quod faciunt vim in levibus sonis, quasi nos non possimus *quatuor* per *bis duo*, et *patriam* per *natale solum* significare.

**Respondeo:** Aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod differunt, quia *dilectio* dicitur illa proprie, quae est ex voluntate ordinata, sed *amor* est affectio libidinosa. Sed haec distinctio est contra Dionysium[^4] et contra Augustinum *super Ioannem*[^5] et contra canonem sacrae Scripturae, quia Dominus primo quaesivit a Petro: *Simon Ioannis, diligis me?* et postea dixit: *amas me?* et ita pro eodem accipiuntur: et hanc differentiam[^6] reprehendit Dionysius.

Potest tamen nihilominus aliqua differentia assignari. Quamvis enim de una et eadem possint dici affectione, tamen alia et alia ratione. *Amor* enim dicit affectus adhaesionem respectu amati; unde Dionysius[^7]: « Amorem unitivum dicimus ». *Dilectio* vero ultra hoc addit electionem: unde *dilectio* ex *diversis electio*: unde Canticorum quinto[^8]: *Dilectus meus electus ex millibus*. *Caritas* autem ultra illa addit magnam appretiationem. *Carum* enim dicitur illud quod magni pretii aestimatur, secundum quod Apostolus in epistolis suis vocat fideles *carissimos*, primae ad Corinthios quarto[^9].

### Dub. II.

Item dubitatur de hoc quod dicit: *Proprie Verbum Dei etiam Dei sapientia dicitur*; quia aut accipitur proprie, quia soli convenit, aut proprie, quia appropriate: quia si soli, hoc falsum est, quia sapientia nullo modo dicit proprietatem personalem; si proprie, quia appropriate, hoc nihil facit ad propositum, quia Magister vult inquirere proprietatem Spiritus sancti, non appropriatum. Et iterum, caritas videtur magis appropriari Patri, secundum quod dicitur in illa prosa, « caritas Pater est »[^10]: Item, hoc videtur per Richardum[^11], quia « amor gratuitus est in Patre, in Spiritu sancto debitus, in Filio ex utroque permixtus »: ergo cum caritas dicat amorem gratuitum, debet ergo appropriari Patri.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod non est omnimoda similitudo[^12], sed in hoc est similitudo: nam commune potest appropriari, manente unitate vocis vel significationis. Potest similiter aliquod nomen simul dici per proprietatem et per essentiam, manente unitate vocis et significationis, et tamen est de se commune; et tale est hoc nomen *caritas*.

Aliter potest dici, quod *caritas* est commune et proprium et appropriatum; et Augustinus[^13] primo ostendit, quod est appropriatum per similitudinem ad sapientiam, et post ostendit, quod est vere[^14] proprium, infra: *Nunc, quod incepimus ostendere etc.* Unde ex hac auctoritate non habetur, quod caritas sit proprium, sed solum quod appropriatum. Sed tamen ex aliis verbis Augustini habetur, quod caritas non solum est appropriatum, sed etiam proprie proprium Spiritus sancti.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caritas appropriatur Patri: dicendum, quod caritas habet duplicem

<!-- page 206 -->

comparationem ad virtutes alias. Comparatur enim ut mater, ut dicit Ambrosius[^15], comparatur ut vinculum, ut dicit Apostolus ad Colossenses tertio[^16]: *Caritas est vinculum perfectionis*. Ratione primi appropriatur Patri, ratione secundi Spiritui sancto.

Ad illud quod obiicitur de Richardo, dicendum, quod *gratuitum* non dicit proprietatem amoris sive amandi, sed proprietatem personae, quae dat et non recipit.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *Spiritus sanctus est dilectio, qua Pater et Filius se invicem et nos diligunt*. Quaeritur, utrum Pater et Filius diligant nos Spiritu sancto. Utrum enim diligant se Spiritu sancto, quaeretur[^17] distinctione trigesima secunda, ubi istam quaestionem specialiter movet. Sed prima videtur omnino falsa et impropria. Cum enim dicitur: *Pater et Filius diligunt nos etc.*, constat quod verbum diligendi tenetur essentialiter; ergo si diligant[^18] Spiritu sancto, sunt Spiritus sanctus. Et iterum, dicit Augustinus[^19], quod haec nullo modo conceditur: *Pater diligit se Spiritu sancto*, quia *diligere* tenetur essentialiter: ergo similiter in proposito.

**Respondeo:** *Quidam* dicunt, quod ablativus ille exponitur per hanc praepositionem *per* cum accusativo, id est *per Spiritum sanctum*; et regula[^20] est, quod haec praepositio *per* cum verbis transitivis dicit subauctoritatem, cum absolutis vero auctoritatem. Unde cum *diligere* sit transitivum, sensus est, quod Pater et Filius diligunt nos *per* Spiritum sanctum, quasi diceret: Pater operatur *per* Filium. — Sed haec expositio non videtur conveniens, quia similiter posset[^21] dici: Pater et Filius puniunt sive odiunt nos Spiritu sancto; quod non vult dicere Augustinus.

Propterea notandum, quod *diligere* aliquando tenetur pure essentialiter, ut cum dicitur: *Pater diligit se*[^22]; aliquando pure notionaliter, ut cum dicitur: *Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto*, sicut patebit[^23]; aliquando partim essentialiter, partim notionaliter, sicut cum dicitur: *diligunt nos Spiritu sancto*; et hoc[^24] patet, quia idem est Patrem et Filium diligere nos Spiritu sancto, quod Spiritum sanctum nobis mittere sive inspirare. *Mittere* autem sive *inspirare* importat actum notionalem et essentialem, quia sensus est, quod Spiritum producunt et donum eius nobis conferunt; unde dicit simul Spiritus sancti productionem et gratiae collationem. Et quamvis respectu actus essentialis non recipiatur habitudo ablativi, recipitur tamen ratione notionis, sicut et hic: *Pater dicit se suo Verbo*, dicit etiam creaturas Verbo; simili modo intelligendum est in proposito.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Sive enim sit unitas amborum sive sanctitas*; quid dicatur per hoc nomen *unitas*; quia aut *unitas* dicit unitatem essentialem, aut notionalem, aut personalem. Non essentialem, quia tunc non esset amborum, sed trium; non notionalem, quia Spiritus sanctus non est communis spiratio; non personalem, quia Pater et Filius non sunt unum in persona. Item quaeritur, quo modo haec[^25] distinguantur, *unitas*, *sanctitas*, *caritas*.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *unitas* personaliter tenetur. Sed attendendum, quod *unitas aliquorum* dicitur dupliciter: aut *qua aliqui sunt unum*, et sic Patris et Filii non est unitas personalis; aut *qua aliqui sunt uniti*, et sic Pater et Filius unica persona uniuntur, sicut persona Spiritus sancti, quae est amor et vinculum nectens.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, quomodo differunt illa tria; dicendum, quod unum[^26] addit supra alterum. Nam *unitas* dicit conditionem omnis amoris, quoniam omnis amor est *vis unitiva*; *sanctitas* dicit conditionem amoris casti contra libidinosum, qui non est purus; *caritas* dicit conditionem amoris praecipui: ideo enim *caritas* dicitur, quia est amor inaestimabiliter habens carum amatum.

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Si uterque non participatione, sed essentia sua... servantes unitatem spiritus.* Videtur enim non bene dicere, quia *servare unitatem spiritus* est producere Spiritum sanctum: ergo secundum hoc Pater et Filius sua essentia Spiritum sanctum producunt, et ita videtur

<!-- page 207 -->

essentia[^27] spirare. Item videtur etiam falsum quod dicitur, *non participatione*, quia Pater et Filius participatione spirationis[^28] servant unitatem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Augustinus[^29] vult ostendere, duplicem modum unitatis esse inter Patrem et Filium, qui est inter membra Christi, scilicet *naturae* et *voluntatis*; sed differenter, quia in nobis est unitas naturae per participationem unius communis essentiae, sed non sumus ipsa essentia[^30]. Pater vero et Filius non participant essentiam quasi diversum, immo sunt ipsa essentia. Similiter in nobis est conformitas voluntatis per donum Dei, quod unit nos; sed Pater et Filius uniuntur non dono accepto ab alio, sed Spiritu proprio; et sic patet responsio[^31].

### Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de ratione Augustini: *Quia enim communis est ambobus, id vocatur ipse proprie, quod ambo communiter*; ergo secundum hoc pari ratione Spiritus sanctus dicitur Deus proprie, cum Deus sit commune ambobus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aequivocatio est in *communitate*. Nam Augustinus non vocat *commune* quod est in pluribus et de pluribus, sed quod a pluribus; et ita *commune* dicitur magis a *communione*, quam a *communitate*, ut fiat vis in verbo, sicut fit inter *unionem* et *unitatem*. Et quoniam caritas non tantum dicit communitatem, quia in pluribus, sed communionem per unitatem[^32] distinctorum: ideo quamvis dicatur essentialiter, potest tamen nihilominus dici personaliter.

---

english:
### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning what he says, namely that *the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father, or charity, or love (dilection).* It is asked therefore whether *caritas* and *dilectio* differ; and that they do is seen through Isidore[^1], who says: *Amor* belongs to rational and irrational beings, *dilectio* to rational beings only. But on the contrary: Dionysius, *On the Divine Names*, chapter four[^2]: « To me the theologians seem to say something common under the name of *dilectio* and *amor* »: and in the same place[^3] he rebukes those who distinguish, saying that they make much of light sounds, as though we could not signify *four* through *twice two*, and *fatherland* through *native soil*.

**I respond:** Some have wished to say that they differ, because *dilectio* is properly said of that which is from an ordered will, but *amor* is a libidinous affection. But this distinction is against Dionysius[^4] and against Augustine *on John*[^5] and against the canon of sacred Scripture, since the Lord first asked Peter: *Simon son of John, do you love (diligis) me?* and afterwards said: *do you love (amas) me?* — and so they are taken for the same: and Dionysius rebukes this difference[^6].

Nevertheless some difference can be assigned. For although they may be said of one and the same affection, yet by different accounts. For *amor* expresses the affection's adhesion in respect of the beloved; whence Dionysius[^7]: « We call *amor* unitive ». But *dilectio* adds election beyond this: hence *dilectio* (love-by-choice) is "election from various ones"; whence Canticles 5[^8]: *My beloved (dilectus) is chosen out of thousands.* But *caritas* adds beyond these a great appreciation. For that is called *carum* (dear) which is esteemed of great price, according to which the Apostle in his epistles calls the faithful *carissimi* (most dear), 1 Corinthians 4[^9].

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is doubted concerning what he says: *Properly the Word of God is also called the wisdom of God*; for either it is taken properly because it belongs to him alone, or properly because by appropriation: for if to him alone, this is false, because wisdom in no way states a personal property; if properly, because by appropriation, this does nothing for the matter in hand, because the Master wishes to inquire into a property of the Holy Spirit, not something appropriated. And again, *caritas* seems rather to be appropriated to the Father, according to what is said in that prose, « charity is the Father »[^10]: Likewise this seems so through Richard[^11], because « gratuitous love is in the Father, owed love in the Holy Spirit, mingled from both in the Son »: therefore since *caritas* signifies gratuitous love, it ought to be appropriated to the Father.

**I respond:** It must be said that the similitude is not in every way[^12], but there is a similitude in this: for what is common can be appropriated, the unity of the vocable or of the signification remaining. Likewise some name can at the same time be said by property and by essence, the unity of the vocable and signification remaining, and yet it is of itself common; and such is this name *caritas*.

Otherwise it can be said that *caritas* is common and proper and appropriated; and Augustine[^13] first shows that it is appropriated by similitude to wisdom, and afterwards shows that it is truly[^14] proper, below: *Now, what we have begun to show, etc.* Hence from this authority it is not gathered that *caritas* is proper, but only that it is appropriated. But nevertheless from other words of Augustine it is gathered that *caritas* is not only appropriated, but also properly proper to the Holy Spirit.

To that which is objected, that *caritas* is appropriated to the Father: it must be said that *caritas* has a twofold

comparison to the other virtues. For it is compared as a mother, as Ambrose says[^15], and it is compared as a bond, as the Apostle says to the Colossians 3[^16]: *Charity is the bond of perfection.* By reason of the first it is appropriated to the Father, by reason of the second to the Holy Spirit.

To that which is objected from Richard, it must be said that *gratuitous* does not state a property of the love or of loving, but a property of the person who gives and does not receive.

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that *the Holy Spirit is the love by which the Father and the Son love one another and us.* It is asked whether the Father and the Son love us by the Holy Spirit. For whether they love themselves by the Holy Spirit will be asked[^17] in distinction 32, where he moves this question specifically. But the first seems altogether false and improper. For when it is said: *the Father and the Son love us etc.*, it is established that the verb *to love* is held essentially; therefore if they love[^18] by the Holy Spirit, they are the Holy Spirit. And again, Augustine says[^19] that this is in no way conceded: *The Father loves himself by the Holy Spirit*, because *to love* is held essentially: therefore likewise in the matter in hand.

**I respond:** *Some* say that this ablative is expounded through this preposition *per* (through) with the accusative, that is, *through the Holy Spirit*; and the rule[^20] is that this preposition *per* with transitive verbs states sub-authority, but with absolute verbs authority. Hence since *to love* is transitive, the sense is that the Father and the Son love us *through* the Holy Spirit, as though one were saying: the Father works *through* the Son. — But this exposition does not seem fitting, because likewise it could[^21] be said: the Father and the Son punish or hate us by the Holy Spirit; which Augustine does not wish to say.

Therefore it must be noted that *to love* is sometimes held purely essentially, as when it is said: *The Father loves himself*[^22]; sometimes purely notionally, as when it is said: *The Father and the Son love themselves by the Holy Spirit*, as will be shown[^23]; sometimes partly essentially, partly notionally, as when it is said: *they love us by the Holy Spirit*; and this[^24] is clear, because it is the same thing for the Father and the Son to love us by the Holy Spirit, and for them to send or inspire the Holy Spirit into us. But *to send* or *to inspire* implies a notional and an essential act, because the sense is that they produce the Spirit and confer his gift upon us; whence he says at one stroke the production of the Holy Spirit and the conferral of grace. And although in respect of an essential act the relation of the ablative is not received, nevertheless it is received by reason of the notion, just as also here: *the Father speaks himself by his Word*, he also speaks creatures by the Word; in a similar way it is to be understood in the matter in hand.

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *Whether (this) be the unity of the two or their sanctity*; what is said by this name *unitas*; for either *unitas* states essential unity, or notional, or personal. Not essential, because then it would not be of the two, but of the three; not notional, because the Holy Spirit is not common spiration; not personal, because the Father and the Son are not one in person. Likewise it is asked, in what way these three[^25] are distinguished — *unitas*, *sanctitas*, *caritas*.

**I respond:** It must be said that *unitas* is held personally. But it must be observed that the *unity of some* is said in a twofold way: either *that by which some are one*, and thus there is not a personal unity of the Father and the Son; or *that by which some are united*, and thus the Father and the Son are united by a single person, namely the person of the Holy Spirit, who is love and the binding bond.

To what is asked, in what way these three differ; it must be said that one[^26] adds upon another. For *unitas* states the condition of every love, since every love is a *unitive power*; *sanctitas* states the condition of chaste love over against libidinous love, which is not pure; *caritas* states the condition of pre-eminent love: for *caritas* is so called because it is a love having its beloved as dear beyond estimation.

### Dub. V.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *If each (loves) not by participation but by his own essence... preserving the unity of the spirit.* For he seems not to speak well, because *to preserve the unity of the spirit* is to produce the Holy Spirit: therefore according to this the Father and the Son by their essence produce the Holy Spirit, and so it seems

that they spirate by essence[^27]. Likewise also what is said seems false, *not by participation*, because the Father and the Son by participation in spiration[^28] preserve the unity.

**I respond:** It must be said that Augustine[^29] wishes to show that the twofold mode of unity between the Father and the Son is the same as that between the members of Christ, namely of *nature* and of *will*; but differently, because in us there is unity of nature through participation in one common essence, but we are not that essence itself[^30]. But the Father and the Son do not participate in essence as in something distinct; rather, they are the essence itself. Similarly in us there is conformity of will through the gift of God which unites us; but the Father and the Son are united not by a gift received from another, but by their proper Spirit; and so the response is clear[^31].

### Dub. VI.

Likewise it is asked concerning the argument of Augustine: *For because it is common to both, that is properly called the same which both (are) in common*; therefore according to this, by parity of reasoning the Holy Spirit is properly called God, since God is common to both.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is equivocation in *commonness*. For Augustine does not call *common* what is in many and of many, but what is from many; and so *commune* is called rather from *communio* (communion) than from *communitas* (community), so that emphasis falls upon the word, just as happens between *unio* (union) and *unitas* (unity). And because *caritas* states not only community, because in many, but communion through the unity[^32] of distinct ones: therefore although it is said essentially, it can nevertheless also be said personally.

---

la: Colligi potest ex his verbis VIII. *Etymolog.* c. 2: *Omnis autem dilectio carnalis non dilectio, sed magis amor dici solet. Dilectionis autem nomen tantum in melioribus rebus accipi solet.* Idem dicit I. *Differentiarum*, sub verbo *amare* et *diligere*: *Alii dixerunt amare nobis naturaliter insitum, diligere vero ex electione.*

en: It can be gathered from these words of *Etymologies* VIII, c. 2: *Every carnal love (dilectio) is not properly called dilectio but rather amor. The name dilectio is usually accepted only in better things.* The same is said in *Differentiae* I, under the word *amare* and *diligere*: *Others have said that to love (amare) is naturally implanted in us, but to choose-love (diligere) is from election.*

la: Loc. paulo supra cit.

en: The passage just cited above.

la: *Tract.* 123. n. 5, ubi in expositione horum verborum *Simon Ioannis, diligis me etc.* (Ioan. 21, 15-17.) ait: *Ubi etiam demonstratur unum atque idem esse amorem et dilectionem.*

en: *Tractate* 123, n. 5, where in the exposition of the words *Simon son of John, do you love me etc.* (John 21:15-17), he says: *Here also it is shown that amor and dilectio are one and the same.*

la: Cod. *dd* *distinctionem*.

en: Codex *dd* reads *distinctionem*.

la: *De Div. Nom.* c. 4. § 15. Vide hic a. 2. q. 2. fundam. 2. — in quo textu multi codd. cum sex primis edd. falso *mutuum* pro *unitivum*.

en: *On the Divine Names* c. 4, § 15. See here a. 2, q. 2, fund. 2. — in which text many codices, with the first six editions, falsely read *mutuum* for *unitivum*.

la: Vers. 10.

en: Verse 10.

la: Vers. 14. et 17. — Plura de his vide infra d. 17. p. I. dub. 1. Consentiunt S. Thom. *S.* p. I. II. q. 26. a. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 2. Richard. et Petrus, hic circa lit.

en: Verses 14 and 17. — See more on these below at d. 17, p. I, dub. 1. St. Thomas agrees, *Summa* I-II, q. 26, a. 3; Blessed Albert here, a. 2; Richard and Peter [Lombard] here on the text.

la: In officio Ss. Trinitatis, I. Ant. 3. Nocturn.

en: In the office of the Most Holy Trinity, 1st antiphon of the 3rd Nocturn.

la: Libr. V. *de Trin.* c. 17. et seqq. Vide supra a. 1. q. 3. opp. 4. — Mox ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *quia* loco *quod*.

en: Book V *On the Trinity*, c. 17 and following. See above a. 1, q. 3, opp. 4. — Shortly afterwards, from the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted *quia* in place of *quod*.

la: Nempe inter sapientiam et caritatem quoad appropriationem et sensum proprii, prout patet paulo infra ex secunda solutione.

en: Namely, between wisdom and charity as regards appropriation and the sense of "proper," as appears a little below from the second solution.

la: Vide lit. Magistri, c. 2, et pro sequentibus c. 3.

en: See the text of the Master, c. 2, and for what follows, c. 3.

la: Fide mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus hic *vere*, et mox post *infra* expunximus *eadem distinctione*. Nonnulli codd. ut A G H I T etc. cum ed. 1 *vere proprie*, sed non ita congrue; cod. *cc* *vere et proprie*.

en: On the faith of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have added *vere* here, and shortly after *infra* we have expunged *eadem distinctione*. Several codices, such as A, G, H, I, T etc., with ed. 1 read *vere proprie*, but not so fittingly; codex *cc* reads *vere et proprie*.

la: Comment. in I. *Epist. ad Cor.* c. 8, 2: *Dum enim caritatem, quae mater omnium bonorum est, non sectantur, non sciunt, sicut oportet.* Ceterum hic Comment. non est genuinus. De auctore (Ambrosiaster vulgo vocatur) vide infra d. XIX. c. 4, nota ad textum Magistri.

en: Commentary on 1 *Epistle to the Corinthians* c. 8, 2: *For while they do not pursue charity, which is the mother of all good things, they do not know as they ought.* Moreover this Commentary is not genuine. On the author (commonly called Ambrosiaster) see below at d. XIX, c. 4, note on the text of the Master.

la: Vers. 14.

en: Verse 14.

la: Vat. cum aliquibus codd. *quaeritur*. Paulo infra post *movet* unus alterve cod. ut IZ addit *Magister*.

en: The Vatican (edition) with some codices reads *quaeritur*. A little below, after *movet*, one or another codex such as IZ adds *Magister*.

la: Ed. 1 *diligunt*. Mox cod. T *sunt Spiritu sancto* pro *sunt Spiritus sanctus*.

en: Ed. 1 reads *diligunt*. Shortly afterwards codex T reads *sunt Spiritu sancto* in place of *sunt Spiritus sanctus*.

en: Book XV *On the Trinity*, c. 7, n. 12, and c. 17, n. 28.

la: Cod. O *et ratio huius* loco *et regula*. Mox post *absolutis* ex antiquis mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *vero* pro *autem*.

en: Codex O reads *et ratio huius* in place of *et regula*. Shortly after *absolutis*, from the old manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted *vero* for *autem*.

la: Vat. cum cod. *cc*, aliis autem codd. cum ed. 1 obnitentibus, *potest*.

en: The Vatican (edition) with codex *cc* reads (as we print); but the other codices with ed. 1 resisting, read *potest*.

la: Codd. inter se non conveniunt; multi ut AFGHK ST X Y etc. cum ed. 1 exhibent lectionem nostram; Vat. cum cod. *cc* minus distincte *Pater et Filius diligunt se*; cod. I *Pater et Filius diligit se*.

en: The codices do not agree among themselves; many such as A F G H K S T X Y etc. with ed. 1 exhibit our reading; the Vatican (edition) with codex *cc* less distinctly: *Pater et Filius diligunt se*; codex I: *Pater et Filius diligit se*.

en: Distinction 32, art. 1, q. 1 and 2.

la: Mendosa lectio Vat. *ex hoc* pro *hoc*, et paulo infra *scilicet* loco *quod* castigatur ex mss. et ed. 1.

en: The faulty reading of the Vatican (edition) *ex hoc* for *hoc*, and a little below *scilicet* in place of *quod*, is corrected from the manuscripts and ed. 1.

la: Codd. *dd* *hic*.

en: Codex *dd* (reads) *hic*.

la: Plura de hoc vide hic, a. 2. q. 2.

en: See more on this here at a. 2, q. 2.

la: Fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *essentia* loco *essentialiter*.

en: On the faith of the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted *essentia* in place of *essentialiter*.

la: Pauci codd. ut K V X *Spiritus sancti* pro *spirationis*.

en: A few codices, such as K, V, X, read *Spiritus sancti* in place of *spirationis*.

la: Verba Augustini vide in lit. Magistri, c. 2. circa finem.

en: See the words of Augustine in the text of the Master, c. 2, near the end.

la: Codd. L O addunt *nisi cum aliquo* addito, et mox bene ponunt *vero* pro *enim*, quod edd. et plurimi codd. habent.

en: Codices L and O add *nisi cum aliquo* with an addition, and shortly afterwards they rightly put *vero* in place of *enim*, which the editions and most codices have.

la: Codd. V X *illud* loco *responsio*.

en: Codices V and X read *illud* in place of *responsio*.

la: Codd. H M N *connexionem* pro *unitatem*; cod. Y *per unionem et connexionem*; cod. *cu* *sed communitatem per unionem*. Paulo infra fide antiquiorum mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 adiecimus *tamen*.

en: Codices H, M, N read *connexionem* in place of *unitatem*; codex Y reads *per unionem et connexionem*; codex *cu* reads *sed communitatem per unionem*. A little below, on the faith of the older manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 6, we have added *tamen*.


title: Dist. 11

title_alt: Littera Magistri — De processione Spiritus sancti a Patre et Filio

title_alt: Lombard's text — On the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son

source_text:
<!-- page 207 -->

## Distinctio XI

### Cap. I

*Quod Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre et Filio, quem tamen Graeci a Filio procedere diffitentur.*

Hic dicendum est, Spiritum sanctum esse a Patre et Filio, et procedere a Patre et Filio, quod multi haeretici negaverunt. Quod autem de utroque procedat, «multis divinorum eloquiorum testimoniis comprobatur[^1]». Dicit enim Apostolus: «*Misit Deus Spiritum Filii sui in corda nostra*». Ecce hic dicitur *Spiritus Filii*. Et alibi[^2]: «*Qui autem Spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius*». Ipse etiam Filius de Spiritu sancto dicit in Evangelio[^3]: «*Quem ego mittam vobis a Patre*». Patris autem *Spiritus* dictus est, ubi legitur[^4]: «*Si Spiritus eius, qui suscitavit Iesum a mortuis, habitat in vobis*». Et ipse Christus dicit[^5]: «*Non enim vos estis, qui loquimini, sed Spiritus Patris vestri, qui loquitur*». Et in alio loco[^6]: «*Quem mittet Pater in nomine meo*». Et alibi ipse Filius de Spiritu sancto ait: «*De Patre procedit*». His et aliis pluribus auctoritatibus ostenditur, quod Spiritus sanctus a Patre et Filio procedit.

Graeci tamen dicunt, Spiritum sanctum procedere tantum a Patre, et non a Filio. Quod ideo dicunt, quia Veritas in Evangelio fidem integre[^7] continente, de processione Spiritus loquens, solum Patrem commemorat dicens: «*Spiritus, qui a Patre procedit*»; et etiam ideo, quia in principalibus Conciliis, quae apud eos celebrata sunt[^8], ita Symbola eorum subiunctis anathematibus sancita sunt, ut nulli de Trinitatis fide aliud docere vel aliter praedicare, quam ibi continetur, liceat. In quibus quidem Symbolis cum Spiritus sanctus commemoretur procedere a Patre, et non a Filio, quicumque, inquiunt, a Filio eum procedere addunt, anathema incurrunt; unde et nos arguunt anathematis reos. Addunt etiam ad assertionem suae opinionis et in testimonium nostrae damnationis de Symbolo fidei, quod secundum traditionem praedictorum Conciliorum Leo tertius Romae transcriptum in tabula argentea post altare beati Pauli posita posteris reliquit, pro amore, ut ipse ait, et cautela fidei orthodoxae. In quo quidem Symbolo in processione Spiritus solus commemoratur Pater his verbis: «*Et in Spiritum sanctum, Dominum et vivificatorem, ex Patre procedentem, cum Patre et Filio coadorandum et glorificandum*[^9]» etc.

<!-- page 208 -->

Illud est Symbolum, quod in Missa cantatur, editum in Nicaeno Concilio, in fine cuius subiunctum est: «*Qui aliud docuerit vel aliter praedicaverit, anathema sit*». Ideoque Graeci nos anathematizatos dicunt, quia dicimus, Spiritum sanctum a Filio procedere, quod ibi non continetur. Quod enim secundum nos ibi dicitur: «*Qui a Patre Filioque procedit*», alterum a Latinis additum, scilicet *Filioque*.

Nos autem illa verba ita determinamus: «*qui aliud docuerit, vel aliter praedicaverit*», id est, *contrarium* docuerit vel *contrario modo* praedicaverit, *anathema sit*. *Aliud* ergo posuit pro *opposito*, qualiter et Apostolus in Epistola ad Galatas[^10]: «*Si quis aliud evangelizaverit*», id est *contrarium*, «*anathema sit*». Non dicit: «*si quis addiderit*». «Nam si illud diceret, sibi ipsi, ut ait Augustinus[^11], praeiudicaret, qui cupiebat venire ad quosdam, quibus scribebat, sicut ad Thessalonicenses, ut suppleret, quae illorum fidei deerant. Sed qui supplet, quod minus erat addit, non quod inerat tollit. Qui autem praetergreditur fidei regulam, non accedit in via, sed recedit a via.» Ad illud autem, quod de Evangelio opponunt, respondemus ita: quia cum dicat in eo Veritas, Spiritum sanctum a Patre procedere, non addit *solo*, et ideo etiam a se procedere non negat; sed ideo Patrem tantum nominat, quia ad eum solet referre etiam quod ipsius est, quia ab illo habet.

### Cap. II

*De convenientia Latinorum et Graecorum in sensu, et differentia in verbis.*

Sciendum est tamen, quod Graeci confitentur, Spiritum sanctum esse Filii, sicut et Patris, quia et Apostolus dicit[^12] *Spiritum Filii*, et Veritas in Evangelio *Spiritum veritatis*. Sed cum non sit aliud Spiritum sanctum esse Patris vel Filii, quam esse a Patre et Filio, etiam in hoc in eandem nobiscum fidei sententiam convenire videntur, licet in verbis dissentiant.

Unde etiam quidam eorum catholici doctores, intelligentes unam eandemque fore sententiam praedictorum verborum, quibus dicitur Spiritus sanctus *procedere a Filio* et *esse Filii*, professi sunt, Spiritum sanctum etiam a Filio procedere. Unde Athanasius in Symbolo fidei[^13]: «*Spiritus sanctus a Patre et Filio, non factus nec creatus nec genitus, sed procedens*». Ecce Spiritum sanctum aperte dixit procedere a Patre et Filio. Didymus etiam, eorum maximus Doctor, in libro *de Spiritu sancto*[^14] Spiritum sanctum a Filio procedere dicit: «*Salvator*, inquit, *qui et Veritas, dicit: 'Non enim loquetur a semetipso', hoc est, non sine me et sine meo et Patris arbitrio, quia inseparabilis est a me et a Patris voluntate, quia ex se non est, sed ex Patre et me est. Hoc enim ipsum, quod subsistit et loquitur, a Patre et a me illi est*». Item[^15]: «*Spiritus sanctus, qui est Spiritus veritatis Spiritusque sapientiae, non potest audire a Filio loquente quae nescit, cum hoc ipsum sit, quod profertur a Filio, id est, procedens Deus de Deo, Spiritus Veritatis procedens a Veritate, consolator manans ex consolatore*». Item Cyrillus episcopus in Epistola Nestorio directa ait[^16]: «*Spiritus intelligitur per se, secundum quod Spiritus est, et non Filius; sed tamen non est alienus ab eo. Spiritus enim Veritatis nominatur et profluit ab eo, sicut ex Deo Patre*». Ioannes quoque Chrysostomus in homilia quadam de Expositione Symboli[^17] sic ait: «*Iste est Spiritus sanctus procedens de Patre et Filio, qui dividit dona propria, prout vult*». Idem in alia homilia: «*Credendum est, Spiritum sanctum Patris esse et Filii. Istum Spiritum sanctum dicimus Patri et Filio coaequalem et procedentem de Patre et Filio. Hoc credite, ne colloquia mala corrumpant bonos mores*[^18]». Ecce a doctoribus Graecorum aperta habemus testimonia, quibus Spiritus sanctus a Patre et Filio procedere ostenditur. Omnis ergo lingua confiteatur, Spiritum sanctum procedere a Patre et Filio.

---

english:
<!-- page 207 -->

## Distinction XI

### Chapter I

*That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, although the Greeks deny that He proceeds from the Son.*

Here it must be said that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from the Father and the Son, which many heretics have denied. That He proceeds from each is "*proved by many testimonies of the divine eloquences*"[^1]. For the Apostle says: "*God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts*". See, here He is called *Spirit of the Son*. And elsewhere[^2]: "*But whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ, this one is not His*". The Son Himself also says of the Holy Spirit, in the Gospel[^3]: "*Whom I will send to you from the Father*". And He is called the *Spirit* of the Father where it is read[^4]: "*If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you*". And Christ Himself says[^5]: "*For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks*". And in another place[^6]: "*Whom the Father will send in my name*". And elsewhere the Son Himself says of the Holy Spirit: "*He proceeds from the Father*". By these and many other authorities it is shown that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Greeks, however, say that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and not from the Son. They say this because the Truth in the Gospel — which contains the faith integrally[^7] — speaking of the procession of the Spirit, mentions the Father alone, saying: "*The Spirit, who proceeds from the Father*"; and also because in the principal Councils which were celebrated among them[^8], their Creeds were so confirmed under attached anathemas that no one is permitted to teach or preach anything other than what is contained therein concerning the faith of the Trinity. In which Creeds, since the Holy Spirit is mentioned as proceeding from the Father and not from the Son, whoever (they say) adds that He proceeds from the Son incurs the anathema; whence they accuse us also as guilty of the anathema. They add also, in support of their opinion and in testimony of our condemnation, the Creed which, according to the tradition of the said Councils, Leo III left to posterity, transcribed at Rome on a silver tablet placed behind the altar of blessed Paul, "for love" (as he himself says) "and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith". In which Creed, in the procession of the Spirit, the Father alone is mentioned in these words: "*And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-giver, proceeding from the Father, to be co-adored and glorified with the Father and the Son*[^9]" etc.

<!-- page 208 -->

That is the Creed which is sung in the Mass, issued in the Nicene Council, at the end of which is added: "*Whoever shall teach otherwise or preach otherwise, let him be anathema*". And so the Greeks call us anathematized, because we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, which is not contained there. For what according to us is said there: "*Who proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque)*", the second part has been added by the Latins, namely *Filioque*.

We, however, determine those words thus: "*whoever shall teach otherwise or preach otherwise*" — that is, shall teach *the contrary* or preach *in a contrary manner*, "*let him be anathema*". So he placed *otherwise* (*aliud*) for *opposite*, in the manner that the Apostle also does in the Epistle to the Galatians[^10]: "*If anyone shall preach another* (*aliud*) *gospel*" — that is, *the contrary* — "*let him be anathema*". He does not say: "*if anyone shall add*". "For if he were saying that, as Augustine[^11] says, he would be prejudicing his own self, since he wished to come to certain to whom he was writing — as to the Thessalonians — *that he might supply what was lacking in their faith*. But he who supplies adds what was missing; he does not take away what was there. He, however, who steps beyond the rule of faith does not advance on the way, but recedes from the way." To that, however, which they object from the Gospel, we respond thus: that since the Truth says in it that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, He does not add *only*, and so He does not deny that He proceeds from Himself also; but He names the Father alone because He is wont to refer to Him even what is His own, since He has it from Him.

### Chapter II

*On the agreement of the Latins and Greeks in meaning, and the difference in words.*

It is to be known, however, that the Greeks confess the Holy Spirit to be of the Son just as also of the Father, because both the Apostle says[^12] *Spirit of the Son*, and Truth in the Gospel says *Spirit of truth*. But since for the Holy Spirit to be of the Father or of the Son is nothing other than to be from the Father and the Son, in this also they seem to agree with us in the same opinion of faith, although they dissent in words.

Whence also some of their catholic doctors, understanding that the meaning of the foresaid words by which the Holy Spirit is said to *proceed from the Son* and to *be of the Son* is one and the same, have professed that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son. Whence Athanasius in the Creed of the faith[^13]: "*The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding*". Behold, He openly said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Didymus also, their greatest Doctor, in his book *On the Holy Spirit*[^14], says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son: "*The Savior*, he says, *who is also Truth, says: 'For He shall not speak from Himself' — that is, not without me and not without my and the Father's will, because He is inseparable from me and from the Father's will, because He is not from Himself, but is from the Father and from me. For this very thing — that He subsists and speaks — He has from the Father and from me*". Likewise[^15]: "*The Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of truth and the Spirit of wisdom, cannot hear from the Son speaking what He does not know, since He Himself is what is uttered by the Son — that is, God proceeding from God, the Spirit of Truth proceeding from Truth, the consoler flowing forth from the Consoler*". Likewise Bishop Cyril, in the Epistle directed to Nestorius, says[^16]: "*The Spirit is understood by Himself, in so far as He is Spirit, and not Son; but nevertheless He is not foreign to Him. For He is named Spirit of Truth, and flows forth from Him, as from God the Father*". John Chrysostom too, in a certain homily on the Exposition of the Creed[^17], speaks thus: "*This is the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, who divides His own gifts as He wills*". The same in another homily: "*It must be believed that the Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son. We say that this Holy Spirit is co-equal with the Father and the Son, and proceeds from the Father and the Son. Believe this, lest evil conversations corrupt good morals*[^18]". Behold, from the doctors of the Greeks we have open testimonies by which the Holy Spirit is shown to proceed from the Father and the Son. Therefore let every tongue confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

---

la: August. *de Trin.* XV. c. 28. n. 45. — Plerique textus s. Scripturae, qui sequuntur, apud eundem exhibentur, sed alio ordine et multis interpositis verbis. Primus textus Apostoli est Gal. 4, 6, ubi Vulgata cum Augustino et edd. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 habet *corda vestra* pro *corda nostra*.

en: Augustine, *De Trinitate* XV, c. 28, n. 45. — Most of the Scripture texts that follow are presented by him, but in a different order and with many intervening words. The first text from the Apostle is Galatians 4:6, where the Vulgate together with Augustine and editions 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 has *corda vestra* (*your hearts*) in place of *corda nostra* (*our hearts*).

la: Rom. 8, 9. — Codd. et ed. 1 citant *ibi* pro *alibi*, sed perperam.

en: Romans 8:9. — The codices and ed. 1 cite *there* in place of *elsewhere*, but wrongly.

la: Rom. 8, 11, ubi edd. contra mss. ACE legunt *Christum* pro *Iesum*.

en: Romans 8:11, where the editions, against codices ACE, read *Christum* in place of *Iesum*.

la: Matth. 10, 20. — Codd. BD addunt cum Vulgata *in nobis*.

en: Matthew 10:20. — Codices BD add, with the Vulgate, *in nobis*.

la: Ioan. 14, 26 et sequens locus ibid. 15, 26, ubi Vulgata: *a Patre procedit*. — Codd. omittunt *in* ante *alio loco*.

en: John 14:26, and the following passage at 15:26, where the Vulgate reads *proceeds from the Father*. — The codices omit *in* before *alio loco*.

la: Ioan. 15, 26. — Paulo ante pro *integre* Vat. cum nonnullis edd. *integram*, sed refragantibus codd. et melioribus edd. Etiam Abaelardus (*Theol. christ.* lib. IV. col. 1300. seq.) legit *integre*, ex quo Magister fere ad verbum excerpsit quae sequuntur usque ad: *Illud est Symbolum*.

en: John 15:26. — Slightly earlier, in place of *integre* (*integrally*), the Vatican edition with some editions reads *integram*, but against the codices and the better editions. Abelard also (*Theologia christiana* IV, col. 1300 ff.) reads *integre*, from whom the Master excerpted nearly verbatim what follows, up to: *Illud est Symbolum*.

la: Haec Concilia sunt Nicaenum (a. 325), Constantinopolitanum I. (a. 381), Ephesinum (a. 430) et Chalcedonense (a. 451).

en: These Councils are the Nicene (year 325), Constantinople I (year 381), Ephesus (year 430), and Chalcedon (year 451).

la: In his verbis Symboli ed. 1 legit *vivificantem* pro *vivificatorem*; et ed. 5 *conglorificandum* pro *glorificandum*. — Textus vulgo receptus est: «Dominum et vivificantem (in graeco, Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν) qui ex Patre procedit (ἐκπορευόμενον), qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur». Magister erronee vocat hoc Symbolum *Nicaenum*, cum sit Concilii Constantinopolitani I.

en: In these words of the Creed, ed. 1 reads *vivificantem* (*the life-giving One*) for *vivificatorem* (*Life-giver*); and ed. 5 *conglorificandum* for *glorificandum*. — The commonly received text is: "*The Lord and Life-giver* (in Greek, *the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life*), *who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is at the same time adored and conglorified*". The Master erroneously calls this Creed the *Nicene*, since it is in fact of the First Council of Constantinople.

la: Gal. 1, 8. et 9. — Sed Vulgata cum Augustino in loco mox sequenti non legit *aliud*, sed v. 8. *praeter quam quod*, et v. 9. *praeter id quod*; Augustinus *praeter quod*.

en: Galatians 1:8 and 9. — But the Vulgate together with Augustine in the immediately following passage does not read *aliud*, but at v. 8 *praeter quam quod*, and at v. 9 *praeter id quod*; Augustine *praeter quod*.

la: Tract. 98. in Ev. Ioan. n. 7. — Respicitur in textu Augustini ad I. Thess. 3, 10. — In fine textus Vat. et aliae edd., excepta 1, legunt *incedit* pro *accedit*, refragantibus omnibus codd. et textu Augustini; in nostra lectione subaudi: *ad terminum*.

en: Tractate 98 on the Gospel of John, n. 7. — Augustine's text refers to 1 Thessalonians 3:10. — At the end of the text the Vatican edition and the other editions, except ed. 1, read *incedit* in place of *accedit*, against all codices and the text of Augustine; in our reading, supply: *toward the goal*.

la: Gal. 4, 6, et mox Ioan. 16, 13. — Paulo supra ante *Patris* codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 omittunt *et*; in fine sequentis propositionis codd. BCDE omittunt *in* ante *verbis*.

en: Galatians 4:6, and shortly after John 16:13. — Slightly earlier, before *Patris*, the codices and editions 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 omit *et*; at the end of the following sentence the codices BCDE omit *in* before *verbis*.

la: Symbolum: *Quicumque*, sub nomine Athanasii notissimum. — Hic Vat. sola praetermittit *nec genitus* post *creatus*.

en: The Creed *Quicumque*, very well known under the name of Athanasius. — Here the Vatican edition alone omits *nec genitus* after *creatus*.

la: Num. 14. *Patrolog. Graec.* tom. 39. col. 1063. — Vat. cum plerisque edd. contra mss. et originale ante *Veritas* legit *est* pro *et*. Adiunximus *dicit* post *Veritas*, auctoritate cod. B et originalis, ac postulante contextu. — Textus Scripturae est Ioan. 16, 13. — Immediate post Vat. et edd. 4, 9 *inseparabiliter* pro *inseparabilis*, quod etiam habet Didymus; tum prosequitur: *inseparabilis a mea* pro *me*.

en: Number 14. *Patrologia Graeca*, vol. 39, col. 1063. — The Vatican edition, with most editions, against the manuscripts and the original, before *Veritas* reads *est* in place of *et*. We have added *dicit* after *Veritas*, on the authority of codex B and the original, and as the context demands. — The Scripture text is John 16:13. — Immediately afterward, the Vatican edition and editions 4, 9 read *inseparabiliter* for *inseparabilis*, which also Didymus has; it then continues: *inseparabilis a mea* for *me*.

la: Loc. cit. n. 36. — In fine huius textus omnes mss. et edd. praeter Vat. legunt *consolatione* pro *consolatore*. Cum autem versio Hieronymi habeat *consolatore* et textus graecus perierit, nihil mutavimus.

en: The same place cited, n. 36. — At the end of this text, all manuscripts and editions except the Vatican read *consolatione* for *consolatore*. Since, however, Jerome's version has *consolatore* and the Greek text has perished, we have changed nothing.

la: Epist. 17. — Immediate ante sola Vat. *Nam Cyrillus* pro *Item Cyrillus*.

en: Letter 17. — Immediately before, the Vatican edition alone reads *Nam Cyrillus* in place of *Item Cyrillus*.

la: Hae homiliae in ed. Maurinorum Chrysostomi non inveniuntur. Eodem modo citantur et eadem verba utriusque textus referuntur ab Abaelardo, *Theol. Christ.* lib. V. (Ed. Migne) col. 1322 et 1323. — Impressae autem sunt istae homiliae in ed. latina omnium operum S. Ioan. Chrysostomi, Antwerpiae apud Ioan. Keerbergium 1614. tom. V. p. 287: *In Symbolum Apostolorum expositio*. Homil. I. incipit: *Universalis gaudet*... p. 288. col. 1. sic legitur: «Credo in Spiritum sanctum. Iste Spiritus ubique totus est, ubi vult spirat. Ipse est qui dixit: 'Separate mihi Paulum et Barnabam in opus, ad quod assumpsi eos'. Iste est Spiritus procedens de Patre et Filio, qui dividit propria dona singulis prout vult. Ergo iste Spiritus consecrat, sanctificat etc.» Ibid. Homil. II. incipit: *Super fabricam totius* etc.; ubi circa med. legitur: «Natus de Spiritu sancto. Istum Spiritum sanctum dicimus Patri et Filio esse coaequalem et procedentem de Patre et Filio. Hoc credite, ne colloquia mala corrumpant mores vestros bonos. Sunt enim haeretici» etc. — In quo textu post *Spiritus* codd. ABDE addunt *sanctus*. — Locus sequens Scripturae est I. Cor. 12, 11; Vulgata: *dividens singulis prout vult*.

en: These homilies are not found in the Maurist edition of Chrysostom. They are cited in the same manner, and the same words of both texts are reported, by Abelard, *Theologia Christiana* V (Migne edition), col. 1322 and 1323. — These homilies are however printed in the Latin edition of all the works of St. John Chrysostom, Antwerp, by Joannes Keerbergius 1614, vol. V, p. 287: *Exposition on the Apostles' Creed*. Homily I begins: *Universalis gaudet...*; on p. 288, col. 1, is read: "*I believe in the Holy Spirit. This Spirit is wholly everywhere, breathes where He wills. He is the one who said: 'Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the work to which I have called them'. This is the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, who divides His own gifts to each as He wills. Therefore this Spirit consecrates, sanctifies, etc.*". The same place, Homily II, begins: *Super fabricam totius* etc.; where in the middle is read: "*Born of the Holy Spirit. We say this Holy Spirit is co-equal with the Father and the Son, and proceeding from the Father and the Son. Believe this, lest evil conversations corrupt your good morals. For there are heretics*", etc. — In which text, after *Spiritus*, codices ABDE add *sanctus*. — The following Scripture passage is 1 Corinthians 12:11; Vulgate: *dividing to each as He wills*.

la: Respicitur ad I. Cor. 15, 33, et mox in verbis *omnis lingua* etc. ad Philip. 2, 11.

en: This refers to 1 Corinthians 15:33, and shortly after, in the words *every tongue* etc., to Philippians 2:11. ---

translators_notes: [Notes pending]


title: Dist. 11, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XI — Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction XI — Division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 208 -->

## Commentarius in Distinctionem XI

*De aeterna processione Spiritus sancti quantum ad principium, a quo procedit.*

«*Hic dicendum est, Spiritum sanctum esse a Patre et Filio.*»

### Divisio textus

Supra egit Magister de processione Spiritus sancti in comparatione ad ipsum procedentem; haec est secunda pars, in qua agit[^1] de eadem in comparatione ad principium *a quo*. Et dividitur haec pars in duas. In prima ostendit, quod Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre et Filio. In secunda determinat, qualiter procedat ab eis, infra distinctione duodecima. Item quaeritur, cum Spiritus sanctus procedat a Patre et Filio.

Prima iterum[^2] pars habet quatuor. In prima ostendit Magister per multas auctoritates, quod procedit a Patre et Filio. In secunda vero e contra per rationes Graecorum ostendit, quod a solo Patre, ibi: «*Graeci tamen dicunt, Spiritum sanctum tantum procedere a Patre*». In tertia auctoritates et rationes Graecorum solvit et determinat, ibi: «*Nos autem illa verba ita determinamus*». In quarta ostendit, confessionem fidei Graecorum implicite continere nostram[^3], ibi: «*Sciendum tamen, quod Graeci confitentur*».

### Tractatio quaestionum

Ad intelligentiam huius partis duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de processione Spiritus sancti quantum ad principium, et quaeritur, *utrum Spiritus sanctus procedat a Patre et Filio*.

Secundo, *utrum procedat a Patre et Filio, in quantum sunt unum, aut in quantum sunt differentes*.

---

english:
<!-- page 208 -->

## Commentary on Distinction XI

*On the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit as regards the principle from which He proceeds.*

"*Here it must be said that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son.*"

### Division of the text

Above the Master treated of the procession of the Holy Spirit in relation to the one proceeding; this is the second part, in which he treats[^1] of the same procession in relation to the principle *from which*. And this part is divided in two. In the first he shows that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. In the second he determines in what way He proceeds from them — below, in distinction twelve. Likewise it is asked, since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, [in what manner].

The first part again[^2] has four [subdivisions]. In the first the Master shows by many authorities that He proceeds from the Father and the Son. In the second, on the contrary, by the reasons of the Greeks, he shows that He proceeds from the Father alone, beginning at: "*The Greeks, however, say that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father*". In the third he resolves and settles the authorities and reasons of the Greeks, beginning at: "*We, however, determine those words thus*". In the fourth he shows that the Greeks' confession of faith implicitly contains our own[^3], beginning at: "*It is to be known, however, that the Greeks confess*".

### Treatment of the questions

For the understanding of this part, two principal points are asked.

First it is asked concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit as regards the principle, and it is asked: *whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son*.

Second, *whether He proceeds from the Father and the Son in so far as they are one, or in so far as they are different*.

---

la: Sequimur plures codd. ut F H T W etc. cum ed. 1 ponendo *agit* loco *agitur*.

en: We follow many codices (F H T W etc.) with ed. 1 in setting *agit* in place of *agitur*.

la: Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 omittit *iterum*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, omits *iterum*.

la: Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 *convenire* loco *nostra*.

en: The Vatican edition, without the authority of the manuscripts and ed. 1, reads *convenire* in place of *nostra*. ---