title: Dist. 11, Dubia

title_alt:
Dubia circa litteram Magistri
Doubts on the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 217 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dubium I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram et primo de hoc quod dicit: *In principalibus Conciliis, quae apud eos celebrata sunt*. Quaeritur ergo, quae sunt illa quatuor principalia Concilia?

**Respondeo:** Et dicendum, quod fuerunt quatuor principalia[^1] Concilia Apostolorum in Ecclesia primitiva, ut dicit quaedam Glossa super Actus[^2]. Primum fuit ad electionem Matthiae, Actuum primo[^3]; secundum ad electionem septem diaconorum, Actuum sexto[^4]; tertium fuit ad non imponenda legalia gentibus, Actuum decimo quinto[^5]; quartum ad tolerandum legalia ad tempus, Actuum vigesimo primo[^6].

Concilia vero Patrum principalia apud Graecos similiter fuerunt quatuor, scilicet *Nicaenum*, *Ephesinum*, *Chalcedonense* et *Constantinopolitanum*.

### Dubium II.

Item quaeritur de expositione illa, quam ponit Magister super illud: *Qui aliud docuerit vel aliter praedicaverit* etc.; et exponit: *id est, contrarium docuerit vel contrario modo* etc.; quia non videtur ista expositio probabilis, eo quod ille qui contradicit articulis, excommunicatus est ipso iure: ergo non oportebat pro contrario dare sententiam: ergo videtur, quod pro *diverso* tulerunt sententiam. Praeterea, unde venit ista expositio? Pro Deo![^7] quare non dixerunt: *quisquis contradixerit*?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut dicit Anselmus[^8]: *Omnis veritas sacrae Scripturae potest dici, quae sacrae Scripturae non contradicit*, propter suam generalitatem et dignitatem; et ideo praedicta expositio habet hic locum. Nec fuit inconveniens exprimere excommunicationem haereticorum, quia sancti Patres in Conciliis ordinabant quae iuris erant, et propterea[^9] ad terrorem est dictum; et maluerunt dicere *aliud*, quamvis intellexerint *contrarium*, ut magis compescerent ora praesumptuosorum, ne adinvenirent novitates in fide. Secundum veritatem autem excommunicationis sententia non se extendit nisi ad contradicentes; quia non fuit eorum intentio, praecludendi viam ad explanationem fidei faciendam maiorem, si Deus alios magis illuminaret; et si hoc dixissent, constat quod non bene moti fuissent, et sententia eorum merito abolenda esset[^10].

### Dubium III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *non est aliud Spiritum sanctum esse Filii quam esse a Filio*. Sed contra: aliud est dicere *cappa Socratis* quam *cappa facta a Socrate*: ergo similiter videtur in proposito; aut si non, quaeritur ratio[^11].

Et dicendum, quod genitivus, quamvis denominetur ab habitudine principii, tamen aliam habitudinem importat, immo alias[^12], ut possessionis; sed cum in divinis non cadat diversitas nec habitudo nisi originis, ratione materiae in divinis determinatur ad habitudinem principii; et ideo in Deo idem est dicere *Spiritus Filii*, quod *Spiritus procedit a Filio*.

<!-- page 218 -->

Praeterea, alia est ratio, quia *Spiritus*, secundum quod est nomen absolutum, sicut hoc nomen *Deus*, non habet proprie idioma cum genitivo, quia tunc idem esset dicere *Spiritus Filii* quod *Deus Filii*: ergo oportet, quod accipiatur *Spiritus*, secundum quod dicitur a *spiratione*; et sic est nomen importans originem: ergo sicut sequitur: *Filius Patris*, ergo Filius qui est a Patre, et ita est dicere *Spiritus Filii*, id est, Spiritus qui est a Filio.

### Dubium IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Non sine me et sine meo et Patris arbitrio* etc. Videtur male dicere, quia qui habet arbitrium super aliquem habet dominium super illum[^13]: ergo videtur secundum hoc, quod Spiritus sanctus sit inferior Filio. Si tu dicas, quod *arbitrium* dicat *voluntatem*; hoc nihil est, quia[^14] similiter cum una voluntas sit trium, similiter Filius non loquitur sine arbitrio Spiritus sancti, et Pater similiter; quod non dicitur proprie.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Spiritus sanctus est Patri et Filio consubstantialis, ita quod a Patre et Filio procedit; operatio ergo Spiritus sancti communis est Patri et Filio, et similiter aeque habet esse[^15] a Patre et Filio; ita quod non est dicere, quod habeat locutionem propriam, nec quod habeat locutionem a se; et haec duo voluit excludere Dominus cum dixit: *Non loquetur a semetipso*[^16], ut excludatur ratio *proprii* et ratio *primi principii*. Et hoc exponens Didymus contra rationem proprii dicit: *Non sine me*; contra rationem primi principii dicit: *Sine meo et Patris arbitrio*; et arbitrium non importat dominium vel[^17] causalitatem, sed solum *auctoritatem* in Patre et Filio respectu Spiritus sancti vel eius operationis.

---

english:
### DOUBTS ON THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts on the text, and first on what he says: *In the principal Councils which were celebrated among them*. It is asked, then, which were those four principal Councils?

**I respond:** And it must be said that there were four principal[^1] Councils of the Apostles in the primitive Church, as a certain Gloss on Acts says[^2]. The first was for the election of Matthias, Acts 1[^3]; the second for the election of the seven deacons, Acts 6[^4]; the third for not imposing the legal observances on the gentiles, Acts 15[^5]; the fourth for tolerating the legal observances for a time, Acts 21[^6].

The principal Councils of the Fathers among the Greeks were likewise four, namely *Nicaea*, *Ephesus*, *Chalcedon*, and *Constantinople*.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about that exposition which the Master places upon the words *Whoever shall have taught another thing or preached otherwise* etc.; and he expounds: *that is, who shall have taught the contrary or in a contrary way* etc.; because that exposition does not seem probable, because he who contradicts the articles is excommunicated *ipso iure*: therefore it was not necessary to give a sentence against the contrary: therefore it seems that they passed a sentence against the *diverse*. Moreover, whence comes that exposition? For God's sake![^7] why did they not say: *whoever shall contradict*?

**I respond:** It must be said that, as Anselm says[^8]: *Every truth which does not contradict sacred Scripture can be said [to belong to] sacred Scripture*, on account of its generality and dignity; and therefore the aforesaid exposition has place here. Nor was it unfitting to express the excommunication of heretics, because the holy Fathers in the Councils ordained the things that pertained to discipline (*quae iuris erant*), and on that account[^9] [it was] said for the sake of terror; and they preferred to say *another thing* (*aliud*), although they understood the *contrary*, in order more strongly to restrain the mouths of the presumptuous, lest they invent novelties in the faith. According to truth, however, the sentence of excommunication does not extend except to those who contradict; because it was not their intention to preclude the way to a fuller explanation of the faith, if God should illuminate others more; and if they had said this, it is plain that they would not have been well moved, and their sentence would deservedly be liable to abolition[^10].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *it is not anything else for the Holy Spirit to be of the Son than to be from the Son*. But on the contrary: it is one thing to say *the cape of Socrates*, and another *the cape made by Socrates*: therefore it seems likewise in the case at hand; or if not, the reason is asked[^11].

And it must be said that the genitive, although it be denominated from the relation of *principle*, yet it imports another relation, indeed others[^12], such as that of *possession*; but since in the divine being there falls no diversity nor relation save that of *origin*, by reason of the matter in the divine being [the genitive] is determined to the relation of *principle*; and therefore in God to say *Spirit of the Son* is the same as [to say] *the Spirit proceeds from the Son*.

Moreover, there is another reason, because *Spirit*, insofar as it is an *absolute* name, like the name *God*, does not properly have an idiom with the genitive, because then it would be the same to say *Spirit of the Son* as *God of the Son*: therefore it must be the case that *Spirit* be taken according as it is said from *spiration*; and so it is a name importing origin: therefore just as it follows: *Son of the Father*, [therefore] Son who is from the Father, so also to say *Spirit of the Son* is to say: *the Spirit who is from the Son*.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he [the Master] says: *Not without me and without my and the Father's arbitrium [decision]* etc. He seems to say [this] badly, because he who has *arbitrium* over someone has dominion over him[^13]: therefore it seems according to this that the Holy Spirit is inferior to the Son. If you say that *arbitrium* denotes *will*; this is nothing, because[^14] similarly, since the will is one of the three, likewise the Son does not speak without the arbitrium of the Holy Spirit, and the Father likewise; which is not properly said.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, in such a way that He proceeds from the Father and the Son; therefore the operation of the Holy Spirit is common to the Father and the Son, and likewise [the Holy Spirit] has being equally[^15] from the Father and the Son; in such a way that it is not [right] to say that He has a *proper* speaking, nor that He has speaking *from Himself*; and these two the Lord wished to exclude when He said: *He shall not speak from Himself*[^16], in order that the formal character of *proper* and the formal character of *first principle* might be excluded. And expounding this, Didymus, against the formal character of *proper*, says: *Not without me*; against the formal character of *first principle* he says: *Without my and the Father's arbitrium*; and *arbitrium* does not import dominion or[^17] causality, but only *authority* in the Father and the Son with respect to the Holy Spirit or to His operation.

---

la: Ex vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus *principalia*.

en: From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied *principalia*.

la: Cap. 21, 21. Vide apud Lyranum.

en: [Glossa Ordinaria,] cap. 21, 21. See in Nicholas of Lyra.

la: Vers. 15 seqq.

en: Acts 1:15 ff.

la: Vers. 2 seqq.

en: Acts 6:2 ff.

la: Vers. 6 seqq.

en: Acts 15:6 ff.

la: Vers. 18 seqq. — Paulo ante ed. 1 *toleranda* loco *tolerandum*.

en: Acts 21:18 ff. — Just before, ed. 1 reads *toleranda* in place of *tolerandum*.

la: Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 pro hac interiectione ponit *et quaeritur*.

en: The Vatican, against the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, places *et quaeritur* in place of this interjection [*Pro Deo!*].

la: Libr. *de Conc. praesc. Dei cum libr. arb.* q. 3, c. 6: *Quoniam ipsa (S. Scriptura), sicuti nulli adversatur veritati, ita nulli favet falsitati, hoc ipso quia non negat, quod ratione dicitur eius auctoritate suscipitur.* — Et paulo post: *Sic itaque sacra Scriptura omnis veritatis, quam ratio colligit, auctoritatem continet, cum illam aut aperte affirmat aut nullatenus negat.*

en: [Anselm,] *On the Concord of God's Foreknowledge with Free Choice*, q. 3, c. 6: «For since [Sacred Scripture], just as it is opposed to no truth, so favors no falsehood, by this very fact that it does not deny what is said by reason, [that truth] is received by its authority». — And a little after: «So, then, sacred Scripture contains the authority of every truth which reason gathers, when [Scripture] either openly affirms it or in no way denies it».

la: Vat. contra multos codd. ut A F G H I T X Z etc. et ed. 1 *praeterea*, sed minus bene, quia verba *quae iuris erant* hic significant decretum ad disciplinam spectans, non stricte ad fidem. Vat. et paulo infra *intellexerunt* loco *intellexerint*. Mox aliqui codd. ut V W X *praesumptuosa* pro *praesumptuosorum*.

en: The Vatican, against many codices (A F G H I T X Z etc.) and ed. 1, reads *praeterea*, but less well, because the words *quae iuris erant* here signify a decree pertaining to *discipline*, not strictly to faith. The Vatican, a little below, also reads *intellexerunt* in place of *intellexerint*. Just after, some codices, as V W X, read *praesumptuosa* in place of *praesumptuosorum*.

la: S. Doctor loquitur tantum hypothetice et praecise de prohibitione explanationis, quatenus est res disciplinaris; minime autem supponit — quod innuit nota marginalis in Vaticana ed. — decreta Concilii vere generalis in rebus fidei esse reformabilia.

en: The Holy Doctor speaks only hypothetically and precisely about the prohibition of [further] exposition, insofar as it is a matter of discipline; he by no means supposes — as a marginal note in the Vatican edition indicates — that the decrees of a truly general Council in matters of faith are reformable.

la: Unus alterve cod. ut V bb *quare non* loco *quaeritur ratio*.

en: A codex or two, as V bb, read *quare non* in place of *quaeritur ratio*.

la: Vat. desunt verba *immo alias*, quae tamen habentur in pluribus codd. et ed. 1.

en: In the Vatican the words *immo alias* are missing, which however are found in several codices and in ed. 1.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc *illud*, et paulo ante *aliquid* loco *aliquem*, sed obest auctoritas antiquiorum codd. et ed. 1.

en: The Vatican with codex cc reads *illud*, and just before *aliquid* in place of *aliquem*, but the authority of the older codices and of ed. 1 stands against [the Vatican reading].

la: Cod. Z cum ed. 1 addit *tunc*.

en: Codex Z with ed. 1 adds *tunc*.

la: In cod. bb additur *et loqui*.

en: In codex bb *et loqui* is added.

la: Ex antiquis mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *vel* loco *sive*.

en: From the ancient manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted *vel* in place of *sive*.

translators_notes:
These are Bonaventure's four *dubia circa litteram Magistri* on Lombard's text in d. 11. They cluster around the Master's discussion of the *Filioque*: which Councils Lombard had in mind, how to read the conciliar excommunication formula, the grammar of *Spiritus Filii*, and Didymus's *non sine me et sine meo et Patris arbitrio*.

**Doctrinal core of dub. III.** Bonaventure's resolution of *Spiritus Filii* = *Spiritus a Filio* turns on two points: (1) in the divine being the genitive, which in creatures can carry many relations (origin, possession, etc.), is reduced *ratione materiae* to the single relation of origin, since no other relation obtains there; (2) *Spiritus*, when taken as denominated from *spiratio*, is itself a relational/origin-importing name. So both prongs converge: in God *Spiritus Filii* names the Spirit as proceeding from the Son.

**Doctrinal core of dub. IV.** *Arbitrium* in Didymus's formula is read as *auctoritas*, not as *dominium* or *causalitas*. The two errors the Lord meant to exclude with *Non loquetur a semetipso* (John 16:13) are: that the Spirit has a *proper* speaking (against *Non sine me*), and that the Spirit has speaking *from Himself* / as *first principle* (against *Sine meo et Patris arbitrio*). The Holy Doctor's appeal to Didymus is the canonical patristic gloss on this verse for the Latin tradition.

Cross-reference: dub. II's qualification on conciliar reformability is Bonaventure being careful — *only* in *res disciplinaris*, never in *res fidei*. Quaracchi's footnote [^10] flags this against any later reformist misreading.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 12

title_alt: Distinctio XII (Lombard): Utrum Spiritus sanctus prius vel plenius procedat a Patre quam a Filio

title_alt: Distinction XII (Lombard): Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds prior or more fully from the Father than from the Son

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 218 -->

### DISTINCTIO XII.

### Caput I. *Utrum Spiritus sanctus prius vel plenius procedat a Patre quam a Filio.*

Item quaeritur, cum Spiritus sanctus procedat a Patre et[^1] Filio, utrum prius vel magis processerit a Patre quam a Filio; quod nititur haereticus ostendere ita dicens: si processit Spiritus sanctus a Patre, processit utique aut nato iam Filio, aut nondum nato Filio. Si vero iam nato Filio processit, ante natus est Filius, quam processerit Spiritus sanctus: praecessit igitur nativitas Filii processionem Spiritus sancti. Si autem processit a Patre non genito Filio, ante processit, quam Filius genitus fuerit.

*Responsio Augustini.* His et huiusmodi quaestionibus magis laboriosis quam fructuosis respondet Augustinus in decimo quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^2] dicens: «In illa summa Trinitate, quae Deus est, intervalla temporum nulla sunt, per quae possit ostendi aut saltem requiri, utrum prius de Patre natus sit Filius, et postea de ambobus processerit Spiritus sanctus». «Numquid ergo possumus quaerere, utrum iam processerat de Patre Spiritus sanctus, quando natus est Filius, an nondum processerat et, illo nato, de utroque processit? Non possunt prorsus ista ibi quaeri, ubi nihil ex tempore inchoatur, ut consequenti[^3] perficiatur in tempore. Ideo qui potest intelligere sine tempore generationem Filii de Patre, intelligat sine tempore processionem Spiritus sancti de utroque». Ecce his verbis absoluta est quaestio illa, qua quaerebatur, utrum prius processerit Spiritus sanctus a Patre quam a Filio.

### Caput II. *Quod Spiritus sanctus principaliter et proprie dicitur procedere a Patre.*

Nunc tractandum est quod secundo quaerebatur, scilicet an plenius vel[^4] magis procedat Spiritus sanctus a Patre quam a Filio. Ad quod dicimus, quia sicut non ante procedit a Patre quam a Filio, ita non magis vel plenius procedit a Patre quam a Filio. Augustinus tamen in decimo quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^5] dicit, quod Spiritus sanctus *principaliter* procedit de Patre. «Non frustra, inquit, in hac Trinitate non dicitur Verbum Dei nisi Filius, nec Donum Dei nisi Spiritus sanctus, nec de quo genitum est Verbum, et de quo procedit principaliter Spiritus sanctus, nisi Deus Pater». Ecce audistis, quia Spiritus sanctus *principaliter* procedit a Patre. Sed ne te hoc turbaret, ipse continuo ex quo sensu dixerit aperit, subdens[^6]: «Ideo addidi *principaliter*, quia et de Filio Spiritus sanctus procedere reperitur, sed hoc quoque illi Pater dedit, non iam existenti et nondum habenti. Sed quidquid unigenito Verbo dedit, gignendo dedit. Sic ergo eum genuit, ut etiam de illo Donum commune procederet, et Spiritus sanctus Spiritus esset amborum». Ecce exposuit ipsemet, quomodo Spiritus principaliter procedat a Patre, non quia prius vel magis procedat a Patre quam a Filio, sed quia, cum procedat a Filio, hoc ipsum habet Filius a Patre.

<!-- page 219 -->

Ex eodem sensu dicitur etiam *proprie* procedere de Patre. Unde Hieronymus in *expositione catholicae fidei Nicaenique Symboli*[^7] ait: «Credimus in Spiritum sanctum[^8], qui de Patre procedit *proprie*». Item: «Spiritum sanctum verum Deum invenimus in Scriptura, et de Patre *proprie* esse». Et item: «De Patre Filius, et Spiritus sanctus *proprie* et vere de Patre procedit». Ecce aperte dicit, Spiritum sanctum proprie esse de Patre et proprie procedere a Patre. Quod non ita est intelligendum, tanquam prius vel plenius a Patre procedat quam a Filio, sed quia hoc habet Pater *a se*, non *ab alio*, ut de ipso[^9] sit et procedat Spiritus sanctus; Filius autem non *a se*, sed *a Patre* hoc habet, ut de ipso sit et procedat Spiritus sanctus.

Forte etiam iuxta hanc intelligentiam dicitur Spiritus sanctus[^10] *mitti per Filium* et *a Patre esse per Filium*. Unde Hilarius ad Deum Patrem de Spiritu sancto et Filio loquens in duodecimo libro *de Trinitate*[^11] ait: «In sancto Spiritu tuo ex te profecto et per eum misso». Item: «Ante tempora Unigenitus tuus ex te natus manet, ita quod ex te per eum Spiritus sanctus tuus est; quod etsi sensu non percipiam, tamen teneo conscientia. In spiritualibus enim rebus tuis hebes sum». Item in eodem: «Conserva hanc, oro, fidei meae religionem, ut quod in regenerationis meae Symbolo professus sum, semper obtineam: Patrem scilicet te[^12] et Filium tuum una tecum adorem; sanctum Spiritum tuum, qui ex te per Unigenitum tuum est, promerear». Ecce aperte dicit, Spiritum sanctum a Patre per Filium et[^13] mitti et esse; quod non est intelligendum, quasi a Patre per Filium minorem mittatur vel sit, sed quia ex Patre et Filio est et mittitur ab utroque. Sed hoc ipsum habet Filius a Patre, ut ab ipso et sit et mittatur Spiritus sanctus. Hoc ergo voluit significare Hilarius, distinctionem faciens in locutione, ut ostenderet in Patre esse *auctoritatem*. Inde est etiam, quod Veritas ostendens, Patrem esse auctorem processionis, qua procedit Spiritus sanctus a Filio, dixit in Evangelio[^14]: *De Patre procedit*, cum de Patre et Filio procedat Spiritus sanctus. Unde Augustinus in decimo quinto libro *de Trinitate*[^15]: «Si de Patre et Filio procedit Spiritus sanctus, cur Filius dixit: *De Patre procedit*? Cur putas, nisi quia solet ad eum referre etiam quod ipsius est, de quo et ipse est, sicut ait[^16]: *Mea doctrina non est mea, sed eius, qui misit me*? Si ergo hic intelligitur eius doctrina, quam tamen non dixit suam, sed Patris, quanto magis illic intelligendus est Spiritus sanctus de ipso procedere, ubi sic ait: *De Patre procedit*, ut non diceret: *De me non procedit*. A quo autem habet Filius, ut sit Deus — est enim Deus de Deo — ab illo utique habet, ut etiam de illo procedat Spiritus sanctus. Et ideo Spiritus sanctus, ut etiam de Filio procedat, sicut procedit de Patre, ab ipso habet Patre». «Quapropter, qui potest intelligere in eo, quod ait Filius[^17]: *Sicut habet Pater vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et Filio vitam habere in semetipso*, non sine vita existenti iam Filio vitam Patrem dedisse, sed ita eum sine tempore genuisse, ut vita, quam Pater Filio gignendo dedit, coaeterna sit vitae Patris, qui dedit; intelligat etiam, sicut habet Pater in semetipso, ut de illo procedat Spiritus sanctus, sic dedisse Filio, ut etiam de isto procedat idem Spiritus sanctus, et utrumque sine tempore. Ita ergo dictum est, Spiritum sanctum de Patre procedere, ut intelligatur, quod etiam procedit de Filio de Patre esse Filio[^18]. Si enim quidquid habet, de Patre habet Filius, de Patre habet utique, ut et de illo procedat Spiritus sanctus. Sed nulla ibi tempora cogitentur, quae habeant prius et posterius, quia ibi omnino nulla sunt».

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XII.

### Chapter 1. *Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds prior or more fully from the Father than from the Son.*

Likewise it is asked, since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and[^1] the Son, whether He has proceeded prior or more fully from the Father than from the Son; which the heretic strives to show, speaking thus: if the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father, He proceeded either when the Son was already born, or when the Son was not yet born. If when the Son was already born, then the Son was born before the Holy Spirit proceeded: therefore the nativity of the Son preceded the procession of the Holy Spirit. But if He proceeded from the Father when the Son was not yet generated, He proceeded before the Son was generated.

*The reply of Augustine.* To these and the like questions — more laborious than fruitful — Augustine replies in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*[^2], saying: «In that supreme Trinity which is God, there are no intervals of time through which it can be shown, or even inquired, whether the Son was first born of the Father, and afterwards the Holy Spirit proceeded from both». «Can we then ask whether the Holy Spirit had already proceeded from the Father when the Son was born, or had not yet proceeded, and, the Son having been born, He proceeded from both? These things cannot at all be asked there, where nothing is begun in time so as to be perfected[^3] in [a subsequent] time. Therefore he who is able to understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, let him understand without time the procession of the Holy Spirit from both». Behold, by these words that question is settled, by which it was asked whether the Holy Spirit proceeded prior from the Father than from the Son.

### Chapter 2. *That the Holy Spirit is said principally and properly to proceed from the Father.*

Now must be treated what was asked second, namely whether the Holy Spirit proceeds *more fully or*[^4] more from the Father than from the Son. To which we say that, just as He does not proceed prior from the Father than from the Son, so He does not proceed more or more fully from the Father than from the Son. Augustine, however, in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*[^5], says that the Holy Spirit *principally* proceeds from the Father. «Not in vain, he says, in this Trinity is none called *Word of God* except the Son, nor *Gift of God* except the Holy Spirit; nor [is anyone] *He from whom the Word is begotten and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds* except *God the Father*». Behold, you have heard that the Holy Spirit *principally* proceeds from the Father. But lest this disturb you, he immediately reveals in what sense he said it, adding[^6]: «Therefore I added *principally*, because the Holy Spirit is also found to proceed from the Son; but this also the Father gave to Him, not to one already existing and not yet having, but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting. So therefore He begot Him, that the common Gift might also proceed from Him, and the Holy Spirit be the Spirit of both». Behold, he himself has expounded how the Spirit principally proceeds from the Father — not because He proceeds prior or more from the Father than from the Son, but because, since He proceeds from the Son, the Son has this very [property] from the Father.

In the same sense [the Spirit] is also said to proceed *properly* from the Father. Hence Jerome, in the *exposition of the Catholic faith and the Nicene Symbol*[^7], says: «We believe in the Holy Spirit[^8], who *properly* proceeds from the Father». Likewise: «We find in Scripture the Holy Spirit to be true God, and to be *properly* from the Father». And again: «From the Father is the Son, and the Holy Spirit *properly* and truly proceeds from the Father». Behold, he plainly says that the Holy Spirit is properly from the Father and properly proceeds from the Father. Which is not to be understood as if He proceeds prior or more fully from the Father than from the Son, but because the Father has this *from Himself*, not *from another*, that the Holy Spirit be from Him and proceed; whereas the Son has this not *from Himself*, but *from the Father*, that from Him[^9] also the Holy Spirit be and proceed.

Perhaps also according to this same understanding the Holy Spirit[^10] is said to be *sent through the Son* and *to be from the Father through the Son*. Hence Hilary, addressing God the Father concerning the Holy Spirit and the Son, in the twelfth book *On the Trinity*[^11], says: «In Thy Holy Spirit, gone forth from Thee and sent through Him». Likewise: «Before times, Thy Only-begotten, born from Thee, abides, in such wise that from Thee through Him is Thy Holy Spirit; which, even if I do not perceive by sense, yet I hold by conscience. For in Thy spiritual things I am dull». Likewise in the same book: «Preserve, I pray, this religion of my faith, that what I professed in the Symbol of my regeneration I may always retain: namely that the Father — Thee[^12] — and Thy Son together with Thee I may adore; that Thy Holy Spirit, who is from Thee through Thy Only-begotten, I may merit to receive». Behold, he plainly says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son both[^13] sent and existent; which is not to be understood as though He were sent or were from the Father through the Son as a *lesser*, but because He is from the Father and the Son and is sent by both. But this very thing the Son has from the Father, that from Him the Holy Spirit both is and is sent. This therefore Hilary wished to signify by making a distinction in mode of speech, in order to show that in the Father is the *authority*. Hence also it is, that the Truth, showing that the Father is the *author* of the procession by which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, said in the Gospel[^14]: *He proceeds from the Father*, although the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Hence Augustine in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*[^15]: «If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, why did the Son say: *He proceeds from the Father*? Why think you, except that He is wont to refer to Him even what is His own — Him from whom He Himself is — as He says[^16]: *My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me*? If, then, here is to be understood His doctrine, which He yet did not call His own, but the Father's, how much more there is the Holy Spirit to be understood as proceeding from Him, where He thus says: *He proceeds from the Father*, in such wise as not to say: *He does not proceed from me*. From Him, however, from whom the Son has it, that He is God — for He is God from God — from Him certainly He has it that from Him also the Holy Spirit proceeds. And therefore the Holy Spirit, that He may also proceed from the Son, just as He proceeds from the Father, has from the Father Himself». «Wherefore, he who is able to understand, in that which the Son says[^17]: *Just as the Father has life in himself, so He gave to the Son also to have life in himself*, that the Father did not give life to the Son already existing without life, but begot Him without time, in such wise that the life which the Father gave the Son in begetting is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave; let him understand also that, just as the Father has it in Himself that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him, so He has given to the Son that from Him also the same Holy Spirit proceeds, and both without time. So therefore it has been said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, in such wise that it may be understood that He also proceeds from the Son [as] from the Father — [this being given] to the Son[^18]. For if the Son has whatever He has from the Father, He has from the Father certainly that from Him also the Holy Spirit proceeds. But let no times be thought of there which would have prior and posterior, because there are altogether none there».

---

la: Solummodo edd. omnes repetunt hic *a*. Infra post *Spiritus sanctus* codd. B C D E legunt *de loco a*.

en: Only the editions all repeat here [the preposition] *a*. Below, after *Spiritus sanctus*, codices B C D E read *de loco a*.

la: Cap. 26, n. 43; sequens locus ibid. n. 47. — Contra nostros codd. et textum Augustini omnes edd. in primo loco *posset ostendi* pro *possit ostendi*.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* XV] cap. 26, n. 43; the following passage [is] in the same place, n. 47. — Against our codices and the text of Augustine, all editions in the first passage [read] *posset ostendi* in place of *possit ostendi*.

la: Edd. praeter 1 ponunt *ex consequenti*; sed delendum ex auctoritate omnium codd. et textus Augustini. Paulo supra nonnulli codd. bis ponunt *processerit* pro *processerat*.

en: Editions other than ed. 1 place *ex consequenti*; but it is to be deleted on the authority of all the codices and of Augustine's text. A little above, some codices twice place *processerit* in place of *processerat*.

la: Vat. cum paucis edd. *aut*. In principio propositionis post *tractandum est* cod. D adiicit *de eo*.

en: The Vatican with a few editions reads *aut*. At the beginning of the proposition, after *tractandum est*, codex D adds *de eo*.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* XV] cap. 17, n. 29.

la: Vat. cum nonnullis codd. *dicens*, et paulo ante, post *sensu* addit *hoc*.

en: The Vatican with some codices reads *dicens*, and a little before, after *sensu* it adds *hoc*.

la: [Hieronymi] *Explan. ad Cyrillum* c. 1 et 3.

en: [Pseudo-]Jerome, *Explanation to Cyril* (= *Exposition of the Catholic Faith and Nicene Symbol*), cc. 1 and 3.

la: Omnes codd. omittunt *sanctus*.

en: All the codices omit *sanctus*.

la: Codd. D E cum sola Vat. *de se ipso*, quod antea, ubi prima vice occurrit, habet cod. C.

en: Codices D E with only the Vatican read *de se ipso*, which earlier — at its first occurrence — codex C has.

la: Omnes codd. bene addunt *a Patre*, sed cum hoc desit in omnibus nostris edd., nihil immutavimus in textu.

en: All the codices well add *a Patre*, but since this is missing in all our editions, we have changed nothing in the text.

la: [Hilar., *de Trin.* XII] num. 55; sequens locus n. 56, tertius n. 57.

en: [Hilary, *On the Trinity* XII] n. 55; the following passage [is at] n. 56, the third [at] n. 57.

la: Edd. omnes contra originale et codd. sic transponunt verba: *te Patrem scilicet*.

en: All the editions, against the original and the codices, transpose the words thus: *te Patrem scilicet*.

la: Vat. cum paucis edd. omittit *et*.

en: The Vatican with a few editions omits *et*.

la: Ioan. 15, 26; Vulgata *a Patre*. — Mox multae edd. contra edd. 1, 7 et mss. addunt *et* post *cum*; insuper edd. pleraeque omittunt *sanctus* post *Spiritus*.

en: John 15:26; the Vulgate has *a Patre*. — Just after, many editions, against editions 1, 7 and the manuscripts, add *et* after *cum*; moreover most editions omit *sanctus* after *Spiritus*.

en: [Augustine, *De Trin.* XV] cap. 27, n. 48.

la: Ioan. 7, 16. — Immediate antea Vat. cum paucis edd. contra originale et mss., addendo *sicut* et transponendo *et*, sic habet: *ipsius est, sicut et de quo*.

en: John 7:16. — Immediately before, the Vatican with a few editions, against the original and the manuscripts, by adding *sicut* and transposing *et*, has thus: *ipsius est, sicut et de quo*.

la: Vat. cum aliis edd., excepta 1, perperam et contradicentibus mss. et textu Augustini praemittit *et* ante *Filio*. Sensus est: *intelligatur, a Patre datum esse Filio, quod Spiritus sanctus etiam de ipso procedit*. — Paulo post Vat. cum nonnullis edd. omittit *et* ante *de illo procedat*. Denique edd. 2, 3 *cogitantur* loco *cogitentur*.

en: The Vatican with the other editions, except ed. 1, wrongly and against the manuscripts and the text of Augustine prefixes *et* before *Filio*. The sense is: «let it be understood that it has been given to the Son by the Father that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him». — A little after, the Vatican with some editions omits *et* before *de illo procedat*. Finally, editions 2 and 3 read *cogitantur* in place of *cogitentur*.

translators_notes:
This is Peter Lombard's text for *Sentences* I, d. 12 — the *littera Magistri* on which Bonaventure's Commentarius (next chunks: divisio, a1-q1 through a1-q4, dubia) builds. Lombard's text divides cleanly into four sub-questions:

1. Whether the Spirit proceeds *prior* from the Father than from the Son (cap. 1) — answered: no, settled by Augustine *De Trin.* XV.26.
2. Whether the Spirit proceeds *more fully* from the Father (opening of cap. 2) — answered: no.
3. Whether the Spirit proceeds *principally* from the Father — answered: yes, but only in the sense that the Father gives the procession-from-the-Son to the Son, by begetting.
4. Whether the Spirit proceeds *properly* from the Father — answered: yes, in the same sense.

A consequent question — whether the Spirit is *sent through the Son* / *is from the Father through the Son* — is added at the end (Hilary, *De Trin.* XII; Augustine, *De Trin.* XV.27).

**Patristic apparatus.** Lombard's argument rests almost entirely on three texts: Augustine *De Trin.* XV (cited four times: 26.43, 26.47, 17.29, 27.48), Hilary *De Trin.* XII (nn. 55–57), and (Pseudo-)Jerome's *Explanatio ad Cyrillum* / *Exposition of the Catholic Faith*. Bonaventure's commentary will deploy these same texts but reorganize the four sub-questions around their underlying *modes of priority* (origin, fullness, mediation, intellectual-order).

**Cross-reference.** The four-fold structure of Lombard's text maps onto Bonaventure's four quaestiones in d. 12 a1: q1 = prius? q2 = plenius? q3 = mediante Filio? q4 = ordo intelligendi? — see d12-divisio for the explicit mapping.

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. 12, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in distinctionem XII: Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum

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

source_text:
<!-- page 219 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XII.

*De aeterna processione Spiritus sancti, qualiter a Patre et Filio procedat.*

> *Item quaeritur, cum Spiritus sanctus procedat a Patre et Filio.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Haec est secunda pars, in qua Magister determinat, qualiter Spiritus sanctus procedit[^1] a Patre et Filio; et haec pars habet quatuor capitula secundum quatuor, quae determinat in quatuor capitulis[^2].

Nam *primo* quaerit et determinat, utrum Spiritus sanctus prius procedat a Patre, et determinat, quod *non*.

<!-- page 220 -->

*Secundo*, utrum *principalius et plenius*, ibi: *Nunc tractandum est quod secundo quaerebatur.*

*Tertio* vero determinat, utrum *proprie* a Patre procedat, et dicit quod *sic*, ibi: *Ex eodem sensu dicitur etiam proprie procedere de Patre.*

*Quarto* determinat, utrum Spiritus sanctus *proprie procedat a Patre per Filium*, ibi: *Forte etiam iuxta hanc intelligentiam*, ubi confirmat auctoritate Hilarii, quod Spiritus sanctus mittitur a Patre per Filium et procedit.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Supposito ex praecedentibus, quod Spiritus sanctus procedat a Patre et Filio, ad intelligentiam huius partis quatuor quaeruntur de processione Spiritus sancti in comparatione ad utrumque.

*Primo* quaeritur, utrum Spiritus sanctus *prius* procedat a Patre quam a Filio.

*Secundo*, utrum *plenius* a Patre quam a Filio.

*Tertio*, utrum procedat a Patre *mediante Filio*.

*Quarto* et ultimo, utrum processio Filii *prior sit secundum ordinem intelligendi* processione Spiritus sancti, vel e converso.

### ARTICULUS UNICUS.

*De processione Spiritus sancti in comparatione ad Patrem et Filium.*

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XII.

*On the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit — in what manner He proceeds from the Father and the Son.*

> *Likewise it is asked, since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

This is the second part, in which the Master determines in what manner the Holy Spirit proceeds[^1] from the Father and the Son; and this part has four chapters according to the four [points] which he determines in four chapters[^2].

For *first*, he asks and determines whether the Holy Spirit proceeds prior from the Father, and he determines that He does *not*.

*Secondly*, [he asks] whether [He proceeds] *more principally and more fully* [from the Father], at: *Now must be treated what was asked second.*

*Thirdly* he determines whether [the Spirit] proceeds *properly* from the Father, and he says *yes*, at: *In the same sense He is also said properly to proceed from the Father.*

*Fourthly*, he determines whether the Holy Spirit *properly proceeds from the Father through the Son*, at: *Perhaps also according to this same understanding*, where he confirms by the authority of Hilary that the Holy Spirit is sent and proceeds from the Father through the Son.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Supposing from what precedes, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, for the understanding of this part four [questions] are asked concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit in comparison to both.

*Firstly* it is asked, whether the Holy Spirit proceeds *prior* from the Father than from the Son.

*Secondly*, whether [He proceeds] *more fully* from the Father than from the Son.

*Thirdly*, whether He proceeds from the Father *with the Son as medium*.

*Fourthly* and last, whether the procession of the Son *is prior in the order of understanding* to the procession of the Holy Spirit, or conversely.

### SOLE ARTICLE.

*On the procession of the Holy Spirit in comparison to the Father and the Son.*

---

la: Aliqui codd. ut A I S T V Y *procedat*.

en: Some codices, as A I S T V Y, read *procedat*.

la: Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 paulo ante ponendo *partes* loco *capitula*, et omissis verbis *in quatuor capitulis*, pronuntiat...

en: The Vatican, without the authority of the manuscripts and ed. 1, just before placing *partes* in place of *capitula*, and omitting the words *in quatuor capitulis*, pronounces... [reading truncated in OCR]

translators_notes:
Bonaventure's commentary on d. 12 is structured as a single article (*articulus unicus*) with four questions, paralleling the four sub-points he reads out of Lombard's two chapters:

| Lombard's text (cap.) | Bonaventure's question | Answer |
|---|---|---|
| Cap. 1 (*prius*?) | Q. 1: *prius?* | No |
| Cap. 2 *principaliter / plenius* | Q. 2: *plenius?* | No |
| Cap. 2 *proprie* | (folded into the framing) | — |
| Cap. 2 *per Filium* (Hilary) | Q. 3: *mediante Filio?* | — |
| (added by Bonaventure) | Q. 4: *ordo intelligendi?* | — |

Bonaventure adds the fourth question (the order of intelligibility between the procession of the Son and that of the Holy Spirit) as a metaphysical follow-up not directly raised by Lombard's chapters but native to the scholastic apparatus on emanation in God.


title: Dist. 12, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 220 -->

### Quaestio I. *Utrum Spiritus sanctus a Patre prius quam a Filio procedat.*

Circa primum, quod prius sit a Patre quam a Filio, sic ostenditur.

**Ad oppositum:**

1. *Causa* prima est, in qua est status, ergo et *principium* primum est, in quo est status; sed status est in Patre: ergo Pater est principium primum; sed *primum* supponit *prius*[^1]: ergo prius procedit a Patre quam a Filio.

2. Item, causa prima est quae agit, alia non supposita[^2]: si ergo Pater producit non per suppositionem alterius principii, Filius per suppositionem, prius producit Pater quam Filius.

3. Item, quod habet aliquis ex se per prius habet, quam quod habet ex alio; sed producere Spiritum sanctum habet Pater a se, et Filius a Patre: ergo per prius habet Pater quam Filius.

**Contra. Fundamenta:**

1. Ubi non est ponere posterius, nec prius, quia *prius* respectu *posterioris* dicitur; sed in Trinitate non est ponere posterius: ergo nec prius. Si ergo processio Spiritus sancti a Patre et Filio est aeterna, patet etc.

2. Item, ubi est ponere prius et posterius, est[^3] ponere diversitatem principiorum; sed Pater et Filius producunt Spiritum sanctum in quantum unum, ut supra monstratum est[^4]: ergo non est ibi ratio prioris.

3. Item, si per prius procedit a Patre quam a Filio, aut[^5] a Filio non procedit, aut bis procedit; sed procedit a Filio et non procedit bis: ergo etc.

4. Item, contingit intelligere prius, non intellecto posteriori: ergo si per prius procedit a Patre, contingit intelligere, quod procedit[^6], non cointellecto Filio. Sed contra: Spiritus sanctus est amor uniens et amor nectens; sed non est accipere mutuum amorem ad minus quam inter duos, ergo nec Spiritum sanctum esse[^7] nisi a duobus: ergo nec per prius procedit ab uno quam ab alio.

> **Conclusio.** *Spiritus sanctus auctoritate quidem prius procedit a Patre quam a Filio, non vero prius duratione, vel causalitate, vel etiam origine.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *prius* dicitur multipliciter. Dicitur enim *prius duratione*, dicitur *prius causalitate*, dicitur *prius origine*, dicitur *prius auctoritate*[^8]. Et primis duobus modis *prius* nullo modo cadit in Deo; quia *prius duratione* contrarium est *aeternitati*, *prius causalitate* contrarium est *essentiae unitati*[^9]. Sed *prius origine*, quo alter ex altero, et *prius auctoritate*, quo alter accipit ab altero[^10], cadit ibi.

<!-- page 221 -->

Sed *prius origine* cadit respectu producentis et producti, cum alter oritur ex altero; cum vero unus oritur a duobus, non cadit ibi *prius origine*, quia tunc ambo sunt unum *originale principium*; tamen cadit ibi *prius auctoritate*, quia quamvis Pater et Filius sint unum in producendo, tamen hoc accipit Filius a Patre.

Si igitur quaeritur, utrum per prius procedat Spiritus sanctus a Patre quam a Filio; si intelligatur prius[^11] *duratione*, falsum est; similiter si prius *causalitate*; similiter si prius *origine*, sicut probant primae rationes ad hoc inductae. Si autem prius *auctoritate*, ut *prius* idem sit quod *principalius*, veritatem habet.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo[^12] quod primo obiicitur, quod Pater est primum principium et causa; dicendum, quod illae rationes habent veritatem, ubi est pluralitas causarum vel principiorum; sed respectu Spiritus sancti nec est pluralitas causarum nec principiorum.

*Ad 2 et 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod per[^13] prius habet quod habet ex se: dicendum, quod si intelligatur *prius*, id est *principalius*, verum est; si autem alio modo, falsum, quia unum et idem potest haberi a pluribus personis, ita quod ab una per aliam; nec talis est prioritas aliquo trium praedictorum modorum.

english:
### Question I. *Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father prior to [proceeding from] the Son.*

Concerning the first point — that He is from the Father prior to [being from] the Son — it is shown thus.

**For the affirmative:**

1. The first *cause* is that in which there is rest [*status*], and likewise the first *principle* is that in which there is rest; but rest is in the Father: therefore the Father is first principle; but *first* presupposes *prior*[^1]: therefore [the Spirit] proceeds prior from the Father than from the Son.

2. Likewise, the first cause is that which acts when no other [cause] is presupposed[^2]: if therefore the Father produces without presupposition of another principle, while the Son [produces] by presupposition, the Father produces prior to the Son.

3. Likewise, what someone has from himself he has prior to what he has from another; but the Father has [the power] to produce the Holy Spirit *from Himself*, and the Son [has it] *from the Father*: therefore the Father has it prior to the Son.

**On the contrary. Foundations:**

1. Where there is no *posterior*, there is no *prior*, because *prior* is said with respect to *posterior*; but in the Trinity there is no *posterior*: therefore neither *prior*. If, then, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is eternal, [the conclusion] is plain.

2. Likewise, where there is *prior* and *posterior*, there is[^3] a diversity of principles; but the Father and the Son produce the Holy Spirit *insofar as one*, as was shown above[^4]: therefore the formal character of *prior* is not there.

3. Likewise, if [the Spirit] proceeds prior from the Father than from the Son, either[^5] He does not proceed from the Son, or He proceeds twice; but He proceeds from the Son and does not proceed twice: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, it is possible to understand the prior without the posterior being understood: therefore if [the Spirit] proceeds prior from the Father, it is possible to understand that He proceeds[^6] without the Son being co-understood. But on the contrary: the Holy Spirit is *uniting love* and *binding love*; but a mutual love cannot be taken between fewer than two, therefore neither can the Holy Spirit be[^7] except from two: therefore neither does He proceed prior from one than from the other.

> **Conclusion.** *The Holy Spirit indeed proceeds prior from the Father than from the Son in [the order of] authority, but not prior in duration, nor in causality, nor even in origin.*

**I respond:** It must be said that *prior* is said in many ways. For there is said *prior in duration*, *prior in causality*, *prior in origin*, *prior in authority*[^8]. And in the first two ways *prior* in no way falls in God; because *prior in duration* is contrary to *eternity*, [and] *prior in causality* is contrary to *the unity of essence*[^9]. But *prior in origin*, by which the one [is] from the other, and *prior in authority*[^10], by which the one *receives* from the other, do fall there.

But *prior in origin* falls with respect to producer and produced, when the one arises from the other; but when one arises from two, *prior in origin* does not fall there, because then both are *one originative principle*; yet *prior in authority* does fall there, because although the Father and the Son are one in producing, yet the Son receives this from the Father.

If, then, it is asked whether the Holy Spirit proceeds prior from the Father than from the Son: if *prior*[^11] is understood *in duration*, it is false; likewise if *prior in causality*; likewise if *prior in origin*, as the first reasons adduced for this prove. But if *prior in authority*, so that *prior* be the same as *more principal*, it has truth.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*To 1.* To that, then[^12], which is first objected — that the Father is first principle and cause — it must be said that those reasons hold true where there is plurality of causes or principles; but with respect to the Holy Spirit there is neither plurality of causes nor of principles.

*To 2 and 3.* To what is objected, that one has prior[^13] what one has from oneself: it must be said that if *prior* is understood, that is, *more principally*, it is true; but if in another way, false, because one and the same can be had by several persons, in such wise that by one through another; and such priority is not in any of the three aforesaid modes.

la: Cod. K adiungit: *quia superlativum supponit comparativum*.

en: Codex K adds: *because a superlative presupposes a comparative*.

la: Aristot., IV *Phys.* text. 7 (c. 1) ait: *Id enim, sine quo aliorum nihil aliud est, ipsum vero est sine aliis, necesse est esse primum*. — Paulo infra post *Filius* in cod. O additur *vero*.

en: Aristotle, *Physics* IV, text 7 (c. 1), says: «For that without which nothing else exists, but which is itself without the others, must be first». — A little below, after *Filius*, codex O adds *vero*.

la: Cod. 1 praemittit *ibi*.

en: Codex 1 prefixes *ibi*.

la: Cod. T cum ed. 1 bene addit *ergo*.

en: Codex T with ed. 1 well adds *ergo*.

la: In cod. T et ed. 1 adiungitur bene *a Patre*.

en: In codex T and ed. 1 *a Patre* is well added.

la: Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 *Spiritus sanctus est*.

en: The Vatican, without the authority of the manuscripts and ed. 1, [reads] *Spiritus sanctus est*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., *de Praedicam.* c. *de Priori*, et V *Metaph.* text. 16 (IV, c. 11). — In hac propositione ex multis mss. ut A F G H I K T V W Z aa etc. et ed. 1 ter supplevimus *dicitur*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Categories*, ch. *On the Prior*, and *Metaphysics* V, text 16 (IV, c. 11). — In this proposition, from many manuscripts (A F G H I K T V W Z aa etc.) and ed. 1, we have three times supplied *dicitur*.

la: Cod. X *immutabilitati*.

en: Codex X reads *immutabilitati*.

la: Cod. R addit *bene*.

en: Codex R adds *bene* (well).

la: Fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus *prius*. Paulo infra sequimur codd. M Y et ed. 1 addendo: *similiter si prius origine.* — Consentit Anselm., de *Proces. Spir. sanct.* c. 23–25.

en: On the testimony of the older mss. and ed. 1, we have added *prius*. A little below, we follow codd. M Y and ed. 1 in adding: *similiter si prius origine* (likewise if [it is understood as] prior in origin). — Anselm agrees, *On the Procession of the Holy Spirit*, c. 23–25.

la: Vat. omittit contra vetustiores codd. et ed. 1 *ergo*. Mox ed. 1 post *et bene* addit *prima*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the more ancient codd. and ed. 1, omits *ergo*. Shortly afterwards, ed. 1 adds *prima* after *et bene*.

la: Fide aliquorum mss. ut YZ et ed. 1 supplevimus *per*, quod et supra in ipsa obiectione habetur. Paulo ante unus alterve codex *aliud* loco *illud*.

en: On the testimony of some manuscripts (YZ) and ed. 1, we have supplied *per*, which is also found above in the objection itself. Shortly before, one or another codex has *aliud* in place of *illud*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Posita quadruplici prioritatis distinctione, primo negatur, Spiritum sanctum procedere prius *duratione*, *causalitate*, *origine* a Patre quam a Filio. Prioritas enim durationis et causalitatis in Deo esse omnino non potest; prioritas autem originis dici quidem potest in divinis, sed tantum, quatenus una persona procedit ab uno, et altera a duabus. Ergo non est ponenda inter Patrem et Filium, quatenus producunt Spiritum sanctum. Deinde conceditur, quod Spiritus sanctus prius procedat *auctoritate*, vel etiam *principalius* a Patre quam a Filio. Hoc nulla alia ratione asseritur, nisi quia Pater a se ipso habet potentiam spirativam, Filius vero a Patre; unde Patri quaedam *principalitas* convenit, quae tamen nec subiectionem Filii nec distinctionem in principio spirativo importat. In re hoc idem est cum eo quod dicit Scot. (hic q. 2.): «Non est ergo ordo originis inter spirationem Patris et Filii, quasi spiret Pater in aliquo signo originis, in quo non spiret Filius, sed in eodem signo originis simul spirant. Est tamen ibi ordo spirantium in spirando, quia Pater (producto termino primae fecunditatis) in illo tertio signo originis spirat a se, Filius autem non a se».

**II.** Pro maiore explicatione solutionis ad 3. serviunt quae dicit B. Albert., hic n. 3. ad 2: «Dicendum, quod hoc (quod una proprietas non est duorum subiectorum) verum est in illis suppositis, quae per essentiam et substantiam dividuntur ab invicem; in illis enim quod inest uni idem numero non inest alii. Sed duobus suppositis, quae in nulla diversa sunt, nisi (quod) inter ea est relationis oppositio, potest inesse idem, in quantum non relative opponuntur. Pater autem et Filius talia sunt supposita divinae naturae; et secundum quod comparantur ad virtutem spirativam et ad Spiritum sanctum, non habent oppositionem relativam inter se; ergo secundum hoc remanent idem, et sic unum numero erit quod in hac comparatione inest eis. Hoc autem est proprietas spirandi, et sic unum sunt principium spirandi Spiritus sancti».

**III.** Cfr. infra d. 20. a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Scot., de hac et duabus seqq. qq. hic q. 2. — S. Thom., de hac et seq. hic q. 1. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 2; de hac et seq. q.; S. p. I. tr. 7. m. 3. q. 2. incident. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unic. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 4. princ. q. 2. — Henr. Gand., de hac et duab. seqq. qq. S. a. 54. q. 5. et 7; a. 60. q. 9. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et duabus seqq. qq. hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et duab. seqq. qq. hic q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** With the four-fold distinction of priority laid down: *first*, it is denied that the Holy Spirit proceeds prior in *duration*, *causality*, or *origin* from the Father than from the Son. For priority of duration and of causality cannot be in God at all; priority of origin can indeed be spoken of in the divine being, but only insofar as one person proceeds from one, and another from two. Therefore it is not to be posited between the Father and the Son insofar as they produce the Holy Spirit. Thereafter it is conceded that the Holy Spirit proceeds prior in *authority*, or also more principally from the Father than from the Son. This is asserted on no other ground than that the Father has the spirative power *from Himself*, the Son from the Father; whence to the Father a certain *principality* belongs, which yet imports neither subjection of the Son nor distinction in the spirative principle. In substance this is the same as what Scotus says (here q. 2): «There is therefore no order of origin between the spiration of the Father and that of the Son, as if the Father spirates in some sign of origin in which the Son does not spirate, but in the same sign of origin they spirate together. Yet there is here an order of the spirators in spirating, because the Father (the term of the first fecundity having been produced) in that third sign of origin spirates *from Himself*, while the Son [spirates] not *from Himself*».

**II.** For greater clarification of the *reply to 3*, what Bl. Albert says here serves (n. 3, ad 2): «It must be said that this (that one property is not of two subjects) is true in those supposits which are divided from one another by essence and substance; for in them what is in the one is not in the other identically. But in two supposits which are not diverse in anything, save (that) between them there is opposition of relation, the same can be in [both], insofar as they are not relatively opposed. Now the Father and the Son are such supposits of the divine nature; and according as they are compared to the spirative power and to the Holy Spirit, they have no relative opposition between them; therefore according to this they remain the same, and so it will be one in number that in this comparison is in them. Now this is the property of spirating, and so they are one principle of spirating the Holy Spirit».

**III.** Cf. below d. 20, a. 2, qq. 1–2. — Scotus, on this and the two following questions, here q. 2. — St. Thomas, on this and the following, here q. 1, a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 2; on this and the following question; S. p. I, tr. 7, m. 3, q. 2, incident. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. unica, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here 4. princ. q. 2. — Henry of Ghent, on this and the two following questions, S. a. 54, qq. 5 and 7; a. 60, q. 9. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the two following questions, here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the two following questions, here q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
Bonaventure's first question on d. 12 is the *prius* question. His four-fold distinction of *prior* (duration / causality / origin / authority) is the structural core of the response and is reused throughout the next three questions of the article.

| Mode of *prior* | Falls in God? | Falls between Father and Son re: spirating Spirit? |
|---|---|---|
| duratione | No (against eternity) | — |
| causalitate | No (against unity of essence) | — |
| origine | Yes (Father→Son, Father+Son→Spirit) | **No** — when one arises from two, both are *unum principium originale* |
| auctoritate | Yes | **Yes** — Son receives spirative power from Father |

The doctrinal yield: *prior in authority* = *more principal*, but this principality imports neither subordination of the Son nor any real distinction in the spirative principle.


title: Dist. 12, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 221 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum Spiritus sanctus a Patre plenius et principalius quam a Filio procedat.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum plenius procedat a Patre quam a Filio. Et quod sic, videtur:

**Ad oppositum:**

1. Quia *propter quod unumquodque, et illud magis*[^1]: ergo cum Filius spiret per Patrem, quia hoc habet a Patre, ergo Pater magis spirat.

2. Item, *omnis causa prima plus influit quam secunda*[^2]; sed Pater est primum principium spirandi: ergo plus influit quam Filius.

3. Item, plenius procedit aliquid, a quo procedit *proprie* et *principaliter*, quam a quo nec principaliter nec proprie; sed Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre proprie et principaliter, sicut dicitur in littera[^3] et Augustinus dicit: ergo etc.

4. Item, plenius procedit aliquis ab eo, a quo habet quidquid habet, scilicet *substantiam* et *proprietatem*, quam a quo non habet; sed Spiritus sanctus habet a Patre quod sit, et quod procedat a Patre et Filio[^4]: a Filio autem non habet, quod procedat a Patre, quia tunc Filius daret aliquid Patri: ergo etc.

**Contra. Fundamenta:**

1. Si plenius a Patre, ergo perfectius: ergo a Filio non procedit perfectissime, ergo in Trinitate est aliquid imperfectionis.

2. Item, si plenius a Patre quam a Filio, plus accipit a Patre quam a Filio; sed ubi est ponere plus et minus, ibi est diversitas: ergo in persona Spiritus sancti est diversitas.

3. Item, videtur quod nec principalius a Patre, quia qui perfecte dat aliquid alicui, dat ei usum[^5] et iurisdictionem sive auctoritatem; si ergo dat Pater Filio posse spirare, ergo dat ei auctoritatem spirandi: ergo aeque principaliter procedit a Filio ut a Patre[^6].

> **Conclusio.** *In sano sensu dici potest, Spiritum sanctum procedere a Patre principaliter vel principalius et per se; non tamen procedit plenius nec perfectius.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Spiritus sanctus dicitur procedere[^7] a Patre *principaliter* et *per se*: *principaliter*, quia auctoritas est in Patre; *per se*, quia non tantum mediante Filio, sed etiam immediate. Non tamen plenius procedit a Patre nec perfectius, quia *plenius* ponit gradum perfectionis, ponit etiam compositionem substantiae in producto, quorum neutrum est in divinis. Unde si proponatur haec: *quod illud quod procedit ab aliquo principalius, procedit plenius*, simpliciter est neganda[^8].

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

*Ad 1 et 2.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de causa prima et *propter quod* etc.; dicendum, quod sicut dictum est prius[^9], illud solum habet locum, ubi pluralitas causarum est; hic autem non est pluralitas nec causarum nec principiorum: ideo non habet hic locum.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non habet Spiritus sanctus a Filio, quod procedat a Patre; dicendum ad hoc, quod *habere a se* vel *ab alio* non ponit gradum plenitudinis. Unde quamvis Filius divinitatem habeat a Patre, ita[^10] tamen est perfectus Deus ut Pater; et ideo non sequitur, quod plenius a Patre procedat, *quia* principalius. — Quod[^11] obiicitur: *plenius habet quod habet essentiam et proprietatem*; responderi potest interimendo minorem; habet enim Spiritus sanctus a Filio proprietatem, licet non habeat secundum omnem respectum; habet enim processionem a Filio, sed non *ut a Patre*.

<!-- page 223 -->

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Pater dat Filio auctoritatem; dicendum, quod dando auctoritatem super Spiritum sanctum, nihilominus ex ipso habet auctoritatem[^12], quia ex hoc debet Filius eam referre ad Patrem, quia habet a Patre; et inde est, quod in Filio est *auctoritas* et *subauctoritas*. Unde etiam principaliter producit Spiritum sanctum[^13], sed Pater principalius, quia in eo est tantum *auctoritas*, non *subauctoritas*. *Principalitas* autem dicitur *auctoritas* in divinis.

english:
### Question II. *Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father more fully and more principally than from the Son.*

Secondly it is asked, whether [the Spirit] proceeds *more fully* from the Father than from the Son. And that He does so seems [to follow]:

**For the affirmative:**

1. Because *that on account of which each thing [is], that more so*[^1]: therefore since the Son spirates *through* the Father — because He has this from the Father — the Father spirates more.

2. Likewise, *every first cause infuses more than the second*[^2]; but the Father is the first principle of spirating: therefore He infuses more than the Son.

3. Likewise, [a thing] proceeds more fully from one from whom it proceeds *properly* and *principally* than from one [from whom it does] neither principally nor properly; but the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father properly and principally, as is said in the text[^3] and as Augustine says: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, one proceeds more fully from him from whom one has whatever one has, namely *substance* and *property*, than from him from whom one does not have [it]; but the Holy Spirit has from the Father that He be, and that He proceed from the Father and the Son[^4]: but from the Son He does not have that He proceeds from the Father, because then the Son would give something to the Father: therefore etc.

**On the contrary. Foundations:**

1. If [He proceeds] more fully from the Father, therefore more perfectly: therefore He does not proceed most perfectly from the Son, therefore in the Trinity there is some imperfection.

2. Likewise, if [He proceeds] more fully from the Father than from the Son, He receives *more* from the Father than from the Son; but where there is *more* and *less*, there is diversity: therefore in the person of the Holy Spirit there is diversity.

3. Likewise, it seems that not even *more principally* from the Father: because he who perfectly gives something to someone gives him use[^5] and jurisdiction or *authority*; if therefore the Father gives to the Son the power to spirate, He gives him the authority of spirating: therefore [the Spirit] proceeds equally principally from the Son as from the Father[^6].

> **Conclusion.** *In a sound sense it can be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally or more principally and per se; yet He does not proceed more fully nor more perfectly.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the Holy Spirit is said[^7] to proceed from the Father *principally* and *per se*: *principally*, because the *authority* is in the Father; *per se*, because [He proceeds] not only with the Son as medium, but also immediately. Yet He does not proceed more fully or more perfectly from the Father, because *more fully* posits a degree of perfection, and also posits composition of substance in the produced — neither of which is in the divine being. Hence if the proposition be advanced: *what proceeds from someone more principally, proceeds more fully*, it is simply to be denied[^8].

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*To 1 and 2.* To what is objected concerning the first cause and the *propter quod* etc.; it must be said that, as has been said before[^9], that [maxim] holds only where there is plurality of causes; but here there is plurality neither of causes nor of principles: therefore it does not hold here.

*To 4.* To what is objected — that the Holy Spirit does not have from the Son that He proceeds from the Father — it must be said in reply that *to have from oneself* or *from another* does not posit a degree of fullness. Hence although the Son has divinity from the Father, yet[^10] He is as perfectly God as the Father; and therefore it does not follow that He proceeds more fully from the Father, *because* more principally. — As to[^11] what is objected: *He proceeds more fully who has substance and property*; the reply can be made by *killing the minor*: for the Holy Spirit does have from the Son His property, although He does not have it according to every respect; for He has procession from the Son, but not *as from the Father*.

*To 3.* To what is objected, that the Father gives authority to the Son; it must be said that, by giving authority over the Holy Spirit, [the Son] nonetheless has the authority from Him [the Father][^12], because from this the Son ought to refer it back to the Father, since He has it from the Father; and from this it is, that in the Son there is *authority* and *sub-authority*. Hence also He principally produces the Holy Spirit[^13], but the Father more principally, because in Him there is only *authority*, not *sub-authority*. Now *principality* is called *authority* in the divine being.

la: Aristot., I *Poster.* c. 2. Cfr. etiam II *Metaph.* text. 4 (1. brev. c. 1.). — In quo textu plures codd. post *unumquodque* addunt *tale*. Mox circa finem argumenti ope mss. et primarum edd. restituimus *habet*.

en: Aristotle, *Posterior Analytics* I, c. 2. Cf. also *Metaphysics* II, text 4 (lesser book, c. 1). — In which text several codices after *unumquodque* add *tale*. Just after, near the end of the argument, by the help of the manuscripts and the early editions, we have restored *habet*.

la: Libr. *de Causis*, prop. 1, in quo textu plures codd. ut B D E F G M X etc. cum edd. 2, 3 falso *prius* loco *plus*.

en: *Liber de Causis*, prop. 1, in which text several codices, as B D E F G M X etc., with editions 2 and 3 falsely [read] *prius* in place of *plus*.

la: Cap. 2; ubi et verba Augustini habentur. — Unus alterve codex ut Y Z *Magister dicit* pro *dicitur*.

en: [Lombard, d. 12,] cap. 2; where Augustine's words are also given. — A codex or two, as Y Z, read *Magister dicit* in place of *dicitur*.

la: Multi codd. cum edd. 2, 3 forte ex eo, quod eadem verba immediate post occurrant, indebite omittunt *et Filio*; e contra cod. R omittit *Patre et*, cum quo conveniunt codd. aa bb legendo *et procedat etiam a Filio*; lectio non spernenda. Mox post *non habet*, quod cod. Y bene addit *a Patre sit et*.

en: Many codices with editions 2 and 3 — perhaps because the same words occur immediately after — improperly omit *et Filio*; on the contrary, codex R omits *Patre et*, with which codices aa bb agree by reading *et procedat etiam a Filio*; a reading not to be despised. Just after *non habet*, codex Y well adds *a Patre sit et*.

la: Emendavimus lectionem Vat. et cod. cc ex aliis mss. et ed. 1 ponendo *usum* pro *vim*.

en: We have emended the reading of the Vatican and codex cc from other manuscripts and ed. 1, placing *usum* in place of *vim*.

la: Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 ordinem argumentorum invertit, ponendo ultimum hoc argumentum quinto loco inter argumenta ad oppositum, licet in margine etiam respectu ipsius habeat: *Fundamenta*. Ratio huius inversionis videtur fuisse, quod hoc argumentum partem conclusionis neget, scil. quod Spiritus sanctus *principalius* a Patre procedat. Sed melius cum codd. hoc argumentum, licet sub aliquo respectu ad oppositum pertineat, ultimo loco ponitur, quia est argumentum speciale seu sui generis, scil. negans, quod Spiritus sanctus *principalius* a Patre procedat, dum cetera argumenta vel probant vel negant, quod Spiritus sanctus *plenius* a Patre procedat.

en: The Vatican, against the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, inverts the order of the arguments, placing this last argument in the fifth slot among the arguments for the affirmative — though even in [the Vatican's] margin it has *Fundamenta* with respect to it as well. The reason for this inversion seems to have been that this argument denies part of the conclusion, namely that the Holy Spirit proceeds *more principally* from the Father. But better, with the codices, this argument is placed last, because — although in some respect it pertains to the affirmative — it is a special argument *sui generis*, namely denying that the Holy Spirit proceeds *more principally* from the Father, while the other arguments either prove or deny that He proceeds *more fully*.

la: Unus alterve codd. ut V X *procedit* loco *dicitur procedere*.

en: A codex or two, as V X, read *procedit* in place of *dicitur procedere*.

la: Multi codd., ordine inverso, *quod procedit ab aliquo plenius, procedit principalius*. Licet utraque lectio, attentis definitionibus terminorum, in se vera sit, attamen unus terminus verificatur in divinis, alter non, et attento ordine terminorum inter se, praeferenda videtur lectio in textum recepta, quae iam in pluribus antiquis mss. ut H L O et ed. 1 invenitur. Cfr. resp. ad 4. — Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 *ponatur* loco *proponatur*, et post *plenius* addit *aut si non plenius, neque principalius*. Codd. H Y post haec addunt *quaestio*, sed melius subintelligendum: *propositio, quod procedat principalius*.

en: Many codices, in inverse order, [read] *what proceeds from someone more fully, proceeds more principally*. Although either reading is in itself true given the definitions of the terms, yet one term is verified in the divine being, the other not; and given the order of the terms among themselves, the reading received into the text is to be preferred, which is found already in several ancient manuscripts (H L O) and in ed. 1. Cf. *reply to 4*. — The Vatican, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, reads *ponatur* in place of *proponatur*, and after *plenius* adds *aut si non plenius, neque principalius*. Codices H Y after this add *quaestio*, but it is better to understand: *the proposition, that He proceeds more principally*.

la: Quaest. praeced. ad 1.

en: Preceding question, *reply to 1*.

la: Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus non bene omissum *ita*. Concordat Anselm., *de Process. Spir. sanct.* c. 24.

en: From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied *ita*, which had been wrongly omitted. Anselm agrees, *On the Procession of the Holy Spirit*, c. 24.

la: Pauci codd. ut H S ee *Ad illud quod*.

en: A few codices, as H S ee, read *Ad illud quod*.

la: Codd. L O adiiciunt *super Spiritum sanctum*.

en: Codices L O add *super Spiritum sanctum*.

la: Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 *Filius* pro *Spiritum sanctum*.

en: The Vatican, without the authority of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 6, [reads] *Filius* in place of *Spiritum sanctum*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quo sensu hic intelligenda sint vocabula *plenius*, *principaliter*, *auctoritas*, *subauctoritas*, satis apparet ex ipsis verbis S. Doctoris, hic et infra dub. 3. positis. Negatur, quod Spiritus sanctus *plenius* procedat a Patre quam a Filio, quia hic terminus significat gradus perfectionis, vel saltem connotat compositionem in aliquo; affirmatur vero, quod *principalius* Pater producat Spiritum sanctum, in sensu et ex ratione in q. 1. expressis. Filius autem *principaliter* Spiritum sanctum producere asseritur, quia dat ei quidquid habet; unde dicitur habere *auctoritatem* respectu eiusdem, *subauctoritatem* vero respectu Patris, a quo omnia habet. Habere igitur *auctoritatem* et *principalitatem* nostro Doctori idem est. Unde in fine solut. ad 4. respondet «interimendo» i.e. ut falsam negando minorem. — Hunc modum dicendi, quod Pater principalius producat Filium [scil. Spiritum sanctum], S. Doctor, Magistrum aliosque antiquos theologos secutus, non reprobat. Immerito nonnulli moderni theologi cum Suarez hanc locutionem Seraphici tanquam erroneam reiiciunt. Attendere enim debuissent, ipsum S. Doctorem eam explicasse in sensu certe orthodoxo nec eam commendasse, sed sane explicatam solummodo tolerasse, uti apparet ex ultima propositione in corp. Ad 3. oppositum non respondetur explicite, quia iam solutum est in corp. Quo sensu dici possit, quod Spiritus sanctus *proprie* a Patre procedit, cfr. infra dub. 3.

**II.** Quoad conclusionem cfr. S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2; S. I. q. 36. a. 3. ad 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. i. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 2. — Aegid. R., 2. princ. q. 1. — Durand., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** In what sense the words *more fully*, *principally*, *authority*, *sub-authority* are here to be understood is sufficiently apparent from the very words of the Holy Doctor placed here and below at *dub.* 3. It is denied that the Holy Spirit proceeds *more fully* from the Father than from the Son, because this term signifies degrees of perfection, or at least connotes composition in something; but it is affirmed that *more principally* the Father produces the Holy Spirit, in the sense and on the ground expressed in q. 1. The Son, however, is said *principally* to produce the Holy Spirit, because [the Father] gives Him whatever He has; whence He is said to have *authority* with respect to the same [Spirit], but *sub-authority* with respect to the Father, from whom He has all things. Therefore to have *authority* and *principality* are, for our Doctor, the same. Hence at the end of the *reply to 4* he replies «by killing» — i.e. by denying the minor as false. — This way of speaking — that the Father more principally produces the Son [scil. Holy Spirit] — the Holy Doctor, following the Master and other ancient theologians, does not reject. Without justification, some modern theologians with Suárez reject this expression of the Seraphic [Doctor] as erroneous. For they should have noticed that the Holy Doctor himself explained it in a certainly orthodox sense, and did not commend it but only tolerated it when soundly explained, as is plain from the last proposition in the body of the article. To the third [argument] for the contrary no explicit reply is given, because it has already been resolved in the body. In what sense it can be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds *properly* from the Father, see below at *dub.* 3.

**II.** As to the conclusion, cf. St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2; S. I, q. 36, a. 3, ad 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3, i. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 2. — Giles of Rome, 2. princ. q. 1. — Durandus, here q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
The *plenius* question. Bonaventure splits the title's binomial — *plenius et principalius* — into a yes-and-no answer:

| | *plenius* / *perfectius*? | *principaliter* / *principalius* / *per se*? |
|---|---|---|
| Spirit ← Father | **No** | **Yes** |
| Spirit ← Son | (equally full/perfect) | *principaliter* but not *principalius*; has *subauctoritas* not *auctoritas* alone |

**Key vocabulary** (locked here for use through the rest of d. 12 and d. 20):
- *plenius* — degrees of perfection; rejected of God because it would imply composition in the produced.
- *principaliter* — being-a-principle as such; affirmed of both Father and Son.
- *principalius* (= *auctoritate*) — affirmed of the Father alone; means only that the Father has the spirative power *a se* while the Son has it *a Patre*.
- *auctoritas / subauctoritas* — the Father has only *auctoritas*; the Son has both *auctoritas* (over the Spirit) and *subauctoritas* (under the Father).

The Quaracchi scholion defends Bonaventure against Suárez's later charge that this language is erroneous: Bonaventure does not *commend* the *Pater principalius* formula, he only *tolerates* it when soundly explained.