Dist. 11, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 11
Articulus unicus.
### Quaestio I. Utrum Spiritus sanctus a Patre et a Filio procedat.
Quod autem solum a Patre procedat, probant Graeci ratione et auctoritate.
1. Ratione sic: emanatio Spiritus sancti est processio; sed processio est motus ab uno in alium: ergo si recte est processio in divinis, Spiritus sanctus aeterna processione procedit ab uno in alium. Si ergo procedit a Filio, aut procedit in Patrem, aut in aliam personam; non in Patrem, quia Pater nihil accipit a Filio, nec in aliam personam, cum non sit dare quartam: ergo non procedit a Filio.
2. Item, alia ratione sic: quia Spiritus sanctus procedit per modum spirationis, sicut Verbum per modum locutionis; sed ita videmus in creaturis, quod exitus locutionis non praecedit spirationem, nec egressus spiritus est a verbo: ergo nec in divinis Spiritus sanctus a Filio.
3. Item, Spiritus sanctus, ut omnes dicunt, procedit per modum nexus, sed nexus tenet rationem medii; sed si procederet a Patre et Filio, teneret rationem tertii et extremi, non medii: ergo non procedit a Patre et Filio, sed potius a Patre in Filium.
4. Item, Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre aut sufficienter, aut non. Si non sufficienter et plene, ergo Pater imperfectus est in spirando; si sufficienter, ergo superfluum est fieri per duo quod potest fieri per unum sufficienter1: ergo si a Filio procedit, cum procedat plene a Patre, in illa summa Trinitate est superfluitas, quod absurdum est.
5. Item, hoc ipsum nituntur Graeci ostendere per auctoritatem; sed non possunt per sacrae Scripturae introductionem2, ideo arguunt per privationem in Evangeliis, et maxime in Evangelio Ioannis et Epistolis, ubi integre traditur nostra fides, sed in nullo dicitur, quod Spiritus sanctus procedat nisi a Patre tantum; Ioannis decimo quinto3: Spiritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit: ergo aut Evangelia insufficienter fidem docent, aut Spiritus sanctus tantum procedit a Patre.
6. Item, in quatuor Conciliis apud Graecos celebratis, ubi a Patribus fides sufficienter est explicata, dicitur, quod Spiritus sanctus procedat a Patre, et nihil dicitur de Filio: ergo si Deus sufficienter illis fidem revelavit: ergo etc.
7. Item, hunc errorem munire4 nituntur per Doctores, qui non solum apud eos, sed etiam apud nos celebres sunt. Et primo per Gregorium Nazianzenum5, qui dicitur Theologus: «Filius et Spiritus sanctus, geminus Patris radius, usque ad nos miserunt claritatem suam»: ergo exeunt a Patre, ut duo radii.
8. Et Dionysius etiam dicit in libro de Divinis Nominibus6: «Ex immateriali et impartibili bono cordialia exorta sunt lumina», — loquitur de Patre — ergo exeunt ut lumina; sed talia sic se habent, quod unum non est ab altero: ergo etc.
9. Item, Damascenus7 expressius: «Spiritum sanctum ex Patre dicimus et Spiritum Patris nominamus; Spiritum vero sanctum ex Filio non dicimus, et tamen Spiritum Filii nominamus».
10. Item, si Latini hoc cognoverunt, cum Graeci non cognoverunt, aut fuit hoc Scripturae auctoritate, aut praedicatione, aut ratione, aut revelatione. Scripturae auctoritate non; quia eandem per omnia Scripturam habent Graeci; similiter nec praedicatione, quia idem doctor Graecorum, qui est et Latinorum, qui eis fidem perfecte tradidit, scilicet Paulus Apostolus; si ratione, sed ratione non sufficit aliquid affirmare in his quae sunt fidei. Unde Dionysius et Damascenus dicunt, quod nihil est dicendum nec cogitandum de illa summa Trinitate praeter id quod nos sacra eloquia docuerunt, et Hieronymus8: «Nil credatur mihi, nisi confirmavero per novum et vetus Testamentum». Si revelatione, quaeritur, cui fuerit revelatum et cum Deus velit omnes homines salvos fieri, quare hoc non revelavit Graecis? Et iterum, quomodo constat quod hoc fuerit a Deo?
Contrarium9. Fundamenta.
1. Arguitur ratione ostensiva sic: Spiritus sanctus secundum omnes fideles procedit ut donum, sicut ex multis locis Scripturae probatur; et iterum, omnes tam Graeci quam Latini dicunt, Spiritum sanctum a Filio nobis donari: ergo omnes concedunt, procedere ab utroque, cum non detur, nisi a quo procedit.
2. Item, Spiritus sanctus secundum omnes, et sicut supra ostensum est10, procedit ut amor; sed amare non tantum est Patris, sed etiam Filii, unde et per omnia amat Filius, sicut et Pater: ergo si a Patre amante amor procedit, eadem ratione a Filio.
3. Item, Spiritus sanctus secundum omnes procedit ut nexus11; sed perfectior nexus est, qui ab extremo utroque procedit, quam qui ab altero: ergo si Spiritus sanctus est nexus perfectissimus, non solum a Patre procedit, sed etiam a Filio.
4. Item, hoc idem ostenditur ratione ducente ad impossibile sic: omnis distinctio personarum in divinis attenditur secundum relationem et originem: ergo si Spiritus sanctus non procedit a Filio, nec e converso, nulla est ibi origo: ergo nulla est ibi mutua relatio, ergo nec distinctio.
5. Item, maior germanitas est inter duos, quando unus procedit ab altero, et ambo a tertio, quam si unus nihil habeat ab altero; haec est per se nota: ergo si Spiritus sanctus non est a Filio, nec e converso, non12 est perfecta unio: ergo nec summa nec perfecta beatitudo.
6. Item, perfectior est expressio, quando generans communicat genito non tantum substantiam, sed etiam actum, qui naturae geniti non repugnat; sed actus spirandi non repugnat Filio, quia nullum ex hoc inconveniens sequitur, si spiret: ergo si Pater hunc actum ei non communicat, Filius non est perfecta imago.
7. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur auctoritatibus, et primo auctoritate Apostoli ad Galatas quarto13: Misit Deus Spiritum Filii sui etc.; ergo cum Pater non mittat Spiritum nisi Filii, idem est Spiritus Patris et Filii; sed eius est Spiritus, a quo procedit: ergo Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre et Filio. Si dicas, quod non sequitur, quia non dicitur Filii, quia procedit a Filio, sed quia est in Filio: ergo eadem ratione, cum Filius sit in Spiritu sancto, potest dici Filius Filius Spiritus sancti14.
8. Item, Ioannis decimo quinto15: «Quem ego mittam vobis a Patre Spiritum veritatis». Ex hoc arguitur sic: nullus mittit alium, nisi habeat auctoritatem super illum; nullus autem habet auctoritatem super alium, nisi aliquid tribuat ei; sed nulla persona tribuit alii16, nisi ab ipsa procedat: ergo a primo, Spiritus sanctus procedit a Filio. Si dicas, quod a Filio mittitur ex tempore et ex tempore procedit; contra: Filius non ideo habet auctoritatem, quia mittit, sed ideo mittit, quia habet auctoritatem: ergo ante habet auctoritatem, quam mittat temporaliter: ergo antequam mittat temporaliter, necesse est Spiritum sanctum procedere a Filio: ergo etc.
9. Item, Ioannis decimo sexto17: Ille me clarificabit, quia de meo accipiet. Ex hoc arguitur sic: quisquis est omne quod habet, est omne quod accipit; sed Spiritus sanctus, cum sit Deus summe simplex, est omne quod habet, ergo omne quod accipit: ergo si accipit aliquid ab aliquo, accipit esse; sed a quo accipit esse, ab illo procedit: ergo si aliquid accipit a Filio, procedit a Filio. Si dicas, quod accipere illud est temporaliter; tunc obiicitur ex hoc, quia omne quod temporaliter accipit aliquid ab aliquo, mutatur, etc.
Conclusio. Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre et a Filio.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut ostensum est auctoritatibus et rationibus, fidei veritas est, quod Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre et Filio.
Ad intelligentiam autem controversiae Latinorum et Graecorum et originem18 eius notandum est, quod circa processionem Spiritus sancti de Filio est duo considerare, scilicet articuli cogniti et eiusdem cogniti professionem. In primo orta19 est differentia, in secundo controversia.
Cognitio autem huius articuli fundamentum habet a Scriptura, profectum vel incrementum a ratione, sed consummationem20 a revelatione. In Scripturae auctoritate Graeci et Latini conveniunt, quae dicit, Spiritum sanctum esse Filii et mitti a Filio; sed in ratione et revelatione differunt.
In ratione quidem intelligendi. Nam cum Scriptura dicat21, Spiritum sanctum procedere, Graeci ad intelligendum usi sunt alio modo et alia similitudine processionis, alio modo Latini. Nam cum processio dicatur in creaturis motus localis ab uno in alium et dicatur motus causalis unius ex22 alio, Graeci intellexerunt processionem primo modo, ab uno in alium; Latini vero secundo modo. Et in hoc melius intellexerunt Latini quam Graeci, quia comparaverunt processionem aeternam processioni magis spirituali; et ideo magis simili23 comparaverunt, et sic melius.
Similiter, Scriptura dicit, Spiritum sanctum per spirationem procedere. Et cum duplex sit spiratio, scilicet flatus exterioris et amoris interioris, Graeci comparaverunt Spiritum spirationi flatus exterioris; sed Latini spirationi amoris interioris: et ideo Latini melius, quia spiritualiori et similiori similitudini aptaverunt.
Similiter, cum Scriptura dicat24, Spiritum sanctum procedere ut nexum et communionem, et duplex possit esse nexus, vel sicut medium iungens unum25 alteri, vel sicut extremum, in quo coniunguntur; Graeci comparaverunt primo modo, Latini secundo, et ideo spiritualiori modo26 et similiori, quia ille nexus magis habet similitudinem personae.
Quia ergo differentiam habuerunt in ratione, et Latini spiritualius et convenientius comparaverunt; ideo in ratione sua sunt elevati, et per hoc ad intelligentiam Scripturae dispositi, et ideo manifesta revelatione edocti sunt de Spiritus sancti processione. Graeci vero, quia similitudines differentes et minus proprias aptabant, ideo sunt sua ratione depressi; et non valentes intelligere, Spiritum a Verbo procedere, nec in alium ab aeterno procedere, arctaverunt Scripturam ad intelligendum de processione temporali, et ideo sibi viam revelationis clauserunt. Haec est ergo ratio diversitatis in huius articuli cognitione.
Controversia vero venit ex huius articuli professione. Professio vero huius27 articuli venit ab Ecclesia Latinorum ex triplici causa, videlicet ex fidei veritate, ex periculi necessitate et ex Ecclesiae auctoritate. Fides dictabat hoc, et periculi necessitas imminebat, ne forte aliquis hoc negaret28, in quod periculum inciderunt Graeci; et Ecclesiae auctoritas aderat: et ideo sine mora exprimi debebat.
Negatio vero huius articuli venit ex triplici causa, scilicet ex ignorantia, ex superbia et29 pertinacia. Ex ignorantia, quia nec Scripturam intellexerunt nec habuerunt congruam rationem nec apertam revelationem. Ex superbia, quia, cum reputarent se sciolos et vocati non fuerunt30, noluerunt profiteri quod non erat per eos inventum. Ex pertinacia, ne convincerentur et irrationabiliter moveri viderentur, invenerunt pro se rationes contra veritatem: et ideo suam sententiam defendere ausi sunt et auctoritati Ecclesiae Romanae obviare; et ideo facti sunt haeretici, quia denegant31 fidei veritatem, et schismatici, quia recesserunt ab Ecclesiae unitate.
Sed quia mos est haereticorum et schismaticorum, cum se non possunt rationibus communire, adversam partem accusare; ideo nos accusant, et redarguunt tanquam curiosos et tanquam excommunicatos et schismaticos. Curiosos32, quia sine huius articuli professione salus erat. Quare ergo intromiserunt se Latini hoc perquirere, quod non fuit necessarium?
Sed ad hoc patet responsio, quia33 opportunum fuit propter periculum in quod ipsi inciderunt.
Similiter, dicunt nos excommunicatos, quia Symbola corrumpimus, in quibus per sanctos Patres sub excommunicationis poena hoc erat prohibitum.
Et ad hoc patet responsio per praedicta, quia non corrumpimus, sed perficimus34; nec sententia lata est contra perficientes, sed contra corrumpentes. Vel potest dici, sicut dicit Anselmus35, quod novum edidimus; et hoc quidem facere potuimus, quia Romana Ecclesia plenitudinem potestatis a Petro, Apostolorum principe, acceperat, in qua36 nulla Patrum sententia nec interdictum potuit nec arctare nec ei praeiudicare nec ligare eam ad aliquid.
Similiter dicunt nos schismaticos, quia a nobis incepit37 divisio; cum enim hoc vellemus asserere, noluimus eos vocare.
Et ad hoc responderi potest pro Latinis, quod eos vocare non fuit opportunum — quia Ecclesia sine eis hoc poterat — et hoc38, quia erat laboriosum propter distantiam, erat infructuosum, quia iam non erat in Graecis sapientia tanta, sicut fuerat, immo ad Latinos transierat, erat nihilominus periculosum, quia quod pro certo habendum erat periculum erat ducere in dubium.
Et sic patet, quod frivolae sunt eorum accusationes. Ad rationes autem, intellectis quae dicta sunt, facile est respondere.
Ad argumenta pro parte Graecorum:
Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod processio est ab uno in alium; dicendum, quod verum est de processione locali, sed non est verum de processione causali, sicut infra melius patebit39; cum procedere in alium sit dupliciter, aut quia in alium tendit sicut40 obiectum; et sic Spiritus sanctus est amor, quo Filius amat Patrem, sicut e converso; si autem sic dicatur procedere in aliquem, ut ab eo recipiatur, omnino stultus est intellectus. Est enim dicere, quod amor, qui est Spiritus sanctus, oriatur a Patre et subsistat in Filio, sicut rivus oritur a fonte et requiescit in lacu profundo41.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de spiratione, quod praecedit verbum; dicendum, quod verum est de exteriori verbo, et non de interiori: et exterius42 non est simile.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de nexu, dicendum, quod nexus non habet rationem medii, sed rationem tertii, quidquid43 aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod locum tenet et medii et tertii; et voluerunt sustinere opinionem Graecorum et Latinorum et distinguunt duplicem modum procedendi, scilicet in alium, et sic procedit a Patre; vel ab alio, et sic procedit a Patre et Filio. Istud44 est exsufflandum hodie, quia non habet intellectum sanum; immo omnino eodem modo procedit ab utroque, et tamen utriusque nexus est, sicut ponitur exemplum de duobus lignis, ex quibus procederet una flamma.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ab altero sufficienter, ergo etc.; dicendum, quod istud verum esset, si essent diversa principia Spiritus sancti; quod non est verum, sicut infra patebit45. Unde sicut non valet hoc argumentum: Pater creat, et Filius similiter; et Pater est sufficiens in creando: ergo Filius superfluit; — quia sunt unum principium in creando — similiter solvendum est in proposito.
Ad 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non reperitur in Scriptura; dicendum, quod si verba non reperiantur, reperitur tamen sensus, sicut in obiiciendo monstratum est. Tamen argumentum non valet: non reperitur in Scriptura, ergo non est verum; quia Scripturae mos est, quaedam tacere propter insinuandam humilitatem: unde Dominus, volens nos erudire ad humilitatem, omne quod suum est Patri attribuit, sicut dicit Ioannis septimo46: Mea doctrina non est mea. Similiter dicit Ioannis decimo quinto47: Qui a Patre procedit, loquens de Spiritu sancto, et tamen ipse subiungit48: omnia, quae Pater habet, mea sunt: et ideo argumentum non valet.
Ad 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Conciliis, dicendum, quod nec in Conciliis illis sunt omnia instituta, quae spectant ad mores, nec etiam omnia dicta, quae ad fidem pertinent; sicut in Symbolo, quod cantatur in missa, nihil dicitur de descensu ad inferos. Sed nunquid49 latuit sanctos Patres processio Spiritus sancti a Filio? et si non latuit, quare non dixerunt? Credo quod non latuit, sicut patet per antiquos Graecos, quorum Magister adducit auctoritatem in littera50; sed tamen non fuit expressum, quia non erat opus. Nullus enim negabat nec negare volebat. Sed haeretici multa, quae erant implicita fidei nostrae, sua importunitate compulerunt explicare; et sic patet illud.
Ad 7. 8. Ad illud quod obiicitur de auctoritate Dionysii et Gregorii, dicendum, quod non est omnimoda similitudo, sed maior dissimilitudo. Attenditur autem similitudo in hoc; scilicet quantum ad plenitudinem fontalitatis in Patre et in divisione51 personarum emanantium ab eo, et in receptione influentiae in creatura: non tamen est omnimoda similitudo quantum ad modum emanandi; et sic patet illud.
Ad 9. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Damasceno, dicendum, quod non est in ista parte ei assentiendum, sicut enim intellexi, ipse fuit in tempore, quando orta est contentio. Unde non est in hoc sustinendus, quia simpliciter fuit Graecus, tamen ipse caute loquitur. Unde non dicit, quod Spiritus non sit a Filio, sed dicit, non dicimus a Filio, quia Graeci non confitebantur, nec tamen negabant; sed modo eorum maledicta progenies addidit ad paternam dementiam et dicit, quod non procedit a Filio nisi temporaliter. Et ideo tanquam haereticos et schismaticos eos damnat Romana Ecclesia.
I. Haec conclusio, quam schismatici Graeci reiiciunt, habetur in Symbolo Concilii XI. Toletani (a. 675) et definita est ut articulus fidei decretis plurium Conciliorum, scil. Barensis (1098), Lugdunensis II. et Florentini in decreto unionis. Ceterum etiam formula apud Graecos usitata, scil. Patrem per Filium spirare Spiritum sanctum, a Concilio Florentino (Decret. unionis) approbata et in hoc sensu explicata est: «ut per hoc significetur, Filium quoque esse secundum Graecos quidem causam, secundum Latinos vero principium substantiae Spiritus sancti, sicut et Patrem. Et quoniam omnia, quae Patris sunt, ipse Pater unigenito Filio suo gignendo dedit, praeter esse Patrem, hoc ipsum, quod Spiritus sanctus procedit ex Filio, ipse Filius a Patre aeternaliter habet, a quo aeternaliter etiam genitus est».
II. S. Doctor (in corp. ante med.) dicit, quod «Latini manifesta revelatione edocti sint»; hoc tamen non est intelligendum de aliqua nova revelatione, quae aliquid addat ad depositum fidei, sed uti patet ex contextu, de charismate veritatis, quo recte expositum est depositum fidei, in quo saltem implicite hoc dogma iam erat revelatum.
III. Respectu ad solut. ad 3. dicit Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 1. in fine): «Distinctionem quoque Alexandri, in principio responsionis ad quaestionem hanc positam, dicit Bonaventura nunc exsufflandam, affirmantis, Spiritum sanctum eodem modo procedere a Patre et Filio, quemadmodum a duobus lignis una progreditur flamma». Errat autem doctissimus et sanctissimus vir. S. Bonav. enim non exsufflat illam distinctionem in se, sed tantum usum eius, quem nonnulli fecerunt putantes, aliter procedere Spiritum sanctum a Patre, aliter a Filio. Seraphicum Doctorem plene consentire suo magistro, probat locus sequens Alexandri (S. p. I. q. 43. m. 4.), quem eo libentius hic describimus, quia in edd. gravi errore laborat. Desunt enim in eis verba italicis litteris a nobis distincta: quia ex eo sequeretur, quod procederet a Filio, et immediate post edd. habent inconveniens loco conveniens. Hac lectione sensus omnino perturbatur. Correximus hunc errorem ex cod. ms. biblioth. nation. Florentiae, in fol., membr., saec. XIV., sig. I. III. 9, fol. 75. recto; est ibi q. 15. m. 12. a. 5.
«Dicendum, quod procedere dicitur dupliciter: uno modo dicitur procedere in motu locali, qui motus est ab aliquo in aliquid. Alio modo dicitur procedere in exitu causati a causa vel motus a movente. Secundum primum modum procedere requirit duplicem terminum: a quo et in quem. Secundum modum secundum non requirit nisi unum, scilicet a quo. Unde et secundum hos duos modos potest transsumi ad processionem Spiritus sancti verbum procedendi. Graeci vero verbum procedendi transtulerunt a motu locali; unde processionem Spiritus sancti aeternam intellexerunt ab aliquo in aliquem; et ideo secundum hunc modum non concesserunt, quod procederet Spiritus sanctus a Filio, quia ex eo sequeretur, quod procederet a Filio in Patrem, quod non est conveniens, cum in ipso Patre sit ratio primi principii, et nihil habeat Pater a Filio. Si autem diceretur, quod procederet a Filio in Patrem, videretur Pater aliquid habere a Filio. Sed concesserunt, quod procedat in Filium, in quo ostenditur, quod est amor Patris ad Filium, et etiam insinuatur, quod Filius habet esse a Patre. Latini vero transsumunt verbum procedendi ab exitu sive processu causati a causa. Unde dicunt, quod procedere est ab aliquo exire, quamvis non in aliquem, secundum quod dicitur a mente et notitia procedere amor, quamvis non intelligatur, in aliquid. Et secundum hunc modum dicunt Latini, quod Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre et Filio, quia exit ab utroque, velut amor a notitia et mente.»
IV. S. Ioannes Damascenus, cuius doctrinam S. Bonav. (hic ad ultim.) asserit non esse in hac re sustinendam, etiam a S. Thom. (S. I. q. 36. a. 2. ad 3.) erroris accusatur; additur autem, quod a nonnullis excusetur. Sed iam Scot. (hic q. 1.) illum S. Doctorem melius explicat eiusque orthodoxiam in hac re vindicat, quod nunc a theologis communiter est receptum.
V. Argumentum 4. in fundam., quod, negata processione Spiritus sancti a Filio, etiam distinctio utriusque debeat negari, a plerisque theologis approbatur, ut ab Alex. Hal., B. Albert., S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., Durand. et fere communiter a sequentibus theologis extra scholam Scoti. Tamen contrarium docent Henr. Gand. (Quodl. 5. q. 9.), Scot. (hic q. unic., et Report., hic q. 2.), Dionys. Carth. (hic. q. 2.); sed Richard. a Med. (hic q. 2.) haeret anceps. Celebris est de hac re controversia inter scholam Scotisticam et Thomisticam aliosque theologos. De argumentis Scotistarum videsis Claud. Frassenium (Scotus academicus, tom. 3. tract. 3. disp. 3. a. 3. q. 2.), Ioan. de Rada (l. controv. 15.), et Franc. Macedo (Collationes doctrinae S. Thom. et Scot., coll. 6. diff. 4.).
VI. Quoad conclusionem: cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 43. m. 4, et q. 46. m. 5. — Scot., hic q. unic.; et Report. hic q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. 1. q. 36. a. 2; S. c. Gent. IV c. 24. 25; Opusc. 6. contra Errores Graecorum. — B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. p. I. tr. 7. q. 31. m. 1. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 1. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 1. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 54. q. 6. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — Biel, hic q. 1. 2.
---
Sole Article.
### Question I. Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
That He proceeds from the Father alone, the Greeks try to prove by reason and by authority.
1. By reason thus: the emanation of the Holy Spirit is procession; but procession is motion from one to another: therefore if there is properly a procession in the divine being, the Holy Spirit by an eternal procession proceeds from one to another. If then He proceeds from the Son, either He proceeds into the Father, or into another person; not into the Father, because the Father receives nothing from the Son, nor into another person, since there is no fourth to be granted: therefore He does not proceed from the Son.
2. Likewise, by another reason thus: because the Holy Spirit proceeds by way of spiration, just as the Word proceeds by way of locution; but in creatures we see that the going-out of locution does not precede spiration, nor is the going-forth of spirit from a word: therefore neither in the divine being does the Holy Spirit [proceed] from the Son.
3. Likewise, the Holy Spirit, as all say, proceeds by way of bond (nexus), but a bond holds the formal character of a middle; but if He were to proceed from the Father and the Son, He would hold the formal character of a third and an extreme, not of a middle: therefore He does not proceed from the Father and the Son, but rather from the Father into the Son.
4. Likewise, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father either sufficiently, or not. If not sufficiently and fully, then the Father is imperfect in spirating; if sufficiently, then it is superfluous to be done by two what can be done by one sufficiently1: therefore if He proceeds from the Son, since He proceeds fully from the Father, in that supreme Trinity there is superfluity, which is absurd.
5. Likewise, this same the Greeks try to show by authority; but they cannot do so by an introduction from sacred Scripture2, so they argue by privation in the Gospels, and especially in the Gospel of John and the Epistles, where our faith is integrally handed down, but in none of them is it said that the Holy Spirit proceeds except from the Father alone; John 153: the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father: therefore either the Gospels insufficiently teach the faith, or the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
6. Likewise, in the four Councils celebrated among the Greeks, where the faith is sufficiently explained by the Fathers, it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and nothing is said of the Son: therefore if God sufficiently revealed the faith to them: therefore etc.
7. Likewise, they try to fortify4 this error by Doctors who are celebrated not only among them but also among us. And first by Gregory Nazianzen5, who is called the Theologian: «The Son and the Holy Spirit, the twin ray of the Father, have sent down to us their brightness»: therefore they go forth from the Father, as two rays.
8. And Dionysius too says in the book On the Divine Names6: «From the immaterial and indivisible good there have arisen heart-springing lights», — he is speaking of the Father — therefore they go forth as lights; but such things are so disposed that one is not from the other: therefore etc.
9. Likewise, Damascene7 more expressly: «We say that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and we name Him Spirit of the Father; but we do not say the Holy Spirit is from the Son, and yet we name Him Spirit of the Son».
10. Likewise, if the Latins knew this when the Greeks did not, it was either by authority of Scripture, or by preaching, or by reason, or by revelation. Not by authority of Scripture, because the Greeks have the same Scripture in every respect; likewise not by preaching, because the same teacher of the Greeks is teacher of the Latins, who handed down the faith to them perfectly, namely the Apostle Paul; if by reason, then reason does not suffice to affirm anything in matters of faith. Hence Dionysius and Damascene say that nothing is to be said or thought concerning that supreme Trinity beyond what the sacred utterances have taught us, and Jerome8: «Let nothing be believed by me, unless I confirm it through the New and Old Testament». If by revelation, the question arises to whom it was revealed, and since God wills all men to be saved, why did He not reveal this to the Greeks? And again, how is it established that this was from God?
On the contrary9. Foundations.
1. The argument is made by demonstrative reason thus: the Holy Spirit, according to all the faithful, proceeds as a gift, as is proved from many places of Scripture; and again, all, both Greeks and Latins, say that the Holy Spirit is given to us by the Son: therefore all concede that He proceeds from both, since He is not given except by Him from whom He proceeds.
2. Likewise, the Holy Spirit, according to all, and as was shown above10, proceeds as love; but loving belongs not only to the Father, but also to the Son, whence the Son loves through all things, just as the Father does: therefore if from the loving Father love proceeds, by the same reasoning [it proceeds] from the Son.
3. Likewise, the Holy Spirit, according to all, proceeds as a bond11; but the more perfect bond is one which proceeds from both extremes, than one which [proceeds] from the other [alone]: therefore if the Holy Spirit is the most perfect bond, He proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son.
4. Likewise, this same is shown by reason leading to impossibility thus: every distinction of persons in the divine being is taken according to relation and origin: therefore if the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, nor conversely, there is no origin there: therefore there is no mutual relation there, therefore no distinction.
5. Likewise, there is greater kinship between two when one proceeds from the other, and both from a third, than if one had nothing from the other; this is self-evident: therefore if the Holy Spirit is not from the Son, nor conversely, there is no12 perfect union: therefore neither supreme nor perfect beatitude.
6. Likewise, expression is more perfect when the begetter communicates to the begotten not only substance but also the act which does not conflict with the nature of the begotten; but the act of spirating does not conflict with the Son, because no inconvenience follows from this, if He spirates: therefore if the Father does not communicate this act to Him, the Son is not the perfect image.
7. Likewise, this same is shown by authorities, and first by the authority of the Apostle to the Galatians 413: God sent the Spirit of his Son etc.; therefore since the Father does not send the Spirit except as the Spirit of the Son, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son is the same; but He is the Spirit of Him from whom He proceeds: therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. If you say that this does not follow, because He is not called of the Son because He proceeds from the Son, but because He is in the Son: then by the same reasoning, since the Son is in the Holy Spirit, the Son can be called Son of the Holy Spirit14.
8. Likewise, John 1515: «Whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth». From this it is argued thus: no one sends another unless he has authority over him; but no one has authority over another unless he gives him something; but no person gives to another16 unless [the latter] proceeds from him: therefore from the first [premise], the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. If you say that He is sent from the Son in time and proceeds in time; on the contrary: the Son does not have authority because He sends, but rather He sends because He has authority: therefore He has authority before He sends temporally: therefore before He sends temporally, it is necessary that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son: therefore etc.
9. Likewise, John 1617: He shall glorify Me, because He shall receive of mine. From this it is argued thus: whoever is everything that He has, is everything that He receives; but the Holy Spirit, since He is supremely simple God, is everything that He has, therefore everything that He receives: therefore if He receives something from someone, He receives being; but from whom He receives being, from Him He proceeds: therefore if He receives something from the Son, He proceeds from the Son. If you say that that receiving is temporal; then it is objected from this that whatever receives something temporally from someone is changed, etc.
Conclusion. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
I respond: It must be said that, as has been shown by authorities and reasons, the truth of faith is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
For the understanding of the controversy of the Latins and the Greeks and its origin18, it must be noted that, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, two things are to be considered, namely the known article and the profession of that same known [article]. With respect to the first, difference arose19; with respect to the second, controversy.
The cognition of this article has its foundation from Scripture, its progress or increment from reason, but its consummation20 from revelation. In the authority of Scripture Greeks and Latins agree, which says that the Holy Spirit is the Son's and is sent by the Son; but in reason and revelation they differ.
In reason, indeed, of understanding. For when Scripture says21 that the Holy Spirit proceeds, the Greeks have used one mode and one likeness of procession to understand it, the Latins another. For since procession is said in creatures of local motion from one to another, and is also said of the causal motion of one from22 another, the Greeks understood procession in the first mode, from one into another; the Latins in the second mode. And in this the Latins understood better than the Greeks, because they compared the eternal procession to a more spiritual procession; and so they compared it to a more like23 [analog], and thus better.
Likewise, Scripture says that the Holy Spirit proceeds by spiration. And since spiration is twofold, namely of an exterior breath and of interior love, the Greeks compared the Spirit to the spiration of an exterior breath; but the Latins to the spiration of interior love: and so the Latins did better, because they fitted Him to a more spiritual and more like likeness.
Likewise, since Scripture says24 that the Holy Spirit proceeds as a bond and communion, and bond can be twofold, either as a middle joining one25 to the other, or as an extreme in which they are joined; the Greeks compared in the first mode, the Latins in the second, and so [the Latins] in a more spiritual mode26 and more like, because that bond has more the likeness of a person.
Therefore because they had a difference in reason, and the Latins compared more spiritually and more fittingly; therefore they were elevated in their reasoning, and through this disposed to the understanding of Scripture, and so they were taught about the procession of the Holy Spirit by manifest revelation. The Greeks, however, because they applied differing and less proper likenesses, were depressed in their reasoning; and not being able to understand that the Spirit proceeds from the Word, nor proceeds from eternity into another, they constricted Scripture to be understood of the temporal procession, and so they closed the way of revelation to themselves. This therefore is the reason for the diversity in the cognition of this article.
The controversy, however, comes from the profession of this article. The profession of this27 article comes from the Latin Church from a threefold cause, namely from the truth of faith, from the necessity of danger, and from the authority of the Church. Faith dictated this, and the necessity of danger was imminent, lest perhaps someone deny28 this, into which danger the Greeks fell; and the Church's authority was at hand: and therefore without delay it ought to be expressed.
The negation of this article comes from a threefold cause, namely from ignorance, from pride, and29 from obstinacy. From ignorance, because they understood neither Scripture, nor had they suitable reasoning, nor open revelation. From pride, because, since they regarded themselves as learned and were not summoned30, they refused to profess what was not discovered by them. From obstinacy, lest they be convinced and seem to be moved unreasonably, they invented reasons for themselves against the truth: and so they dared to defend their opinion and to oppose the authority of the Roman Church; and so they became heretics, because they deny31 the truth of faith, and schismatics, because they withdrew from the unity of the Church.
But because it is the way of heretics and schismatics, when they cannot fortify themselves by reasons, to accuse the opposing party; therefore they accuse us, and reproach us as meddlesome and as excommunicated and schismatics. Meddlesome32, because there was salvation without the profession of this article. Why then did the Latins involve themselves in inquiring into this, which was not necessary?
But to this the response is plain, because33 it was opportune on account of the danger into which they themselves fell.
Likewise, they call us excommunicated, because we corrupt the Symbols, in which by the holy Fathers under penalty of excommunication this was forbidden.
And to this the response is plain through what has been said: that we do not corrupt, but perfect34; nor was the sentence laid down against those who perfect, but against those who corrupt. Or it can be said, as Anselm says35, that we have issued a new [Symbol]; and this indeed we could do, because the Roman Church received the plenitude of power from Peter, the prince of the Apostles, in which36 no sentence of the Fathers nor any interdict was able either to constrain nor to prejudice it nor to bind it to anything.
Likewise they call us schismatics, because the division began37 from us; for when we wished to assert this, we did not summon them.
And to this it can be replied for the Latins, that to summon them was not opportune — because the Church without them could do this — and this38, because it was laborious on account of the distance, was unfruitful, because there was not now in the Greeks such great wisdom as there once was, but rather it had passed over to the Latins, was nevertheless dangerous, because it was a danger to bring into doubt what was to be held for certain.
And so it is plain that their accusations are frivolous. To the [Greek] arguments, however, once what has been said is understood, it is easy to reply.
To the arguments for the Greek side:
To 1. To that, then, which is objected, that procession is from one to another; it must be said that this is true of local procession, but is not true of causal procession, as will appear better below39; since to proceed into another is in two ways, either because He tends to another as40 to an object; and so the Holy Spirit is the love by which the Son loves the Father, just as conversely; but if procession into someone is taken as being received by him, the meaning is wholly foolish. For it would be to say that love, which is the Holy Spirit, arises from the Father and abides in the Son, just as a stream arises from a fount and rests in a deep pool41.
To 2. To what is objected concerning spiration, that it precedes the word; it must be said that this is true of the exterior word, and not of the interior: and the exterior42 is not similar.
To 3. To what is objected concerning the bond, it must be said that the bond does not have the formal character of a middle, but of a third — whatever43 some have wished to say, that it holds the place both of a middle and of a third; and they wished to sustain the opinion of the Greeks and of the Latins and they distinguish a twofold mode of proceeding, namely into another, and so He proceeds from the Father; or from another, and so He proceeds from the Father and the Son. That [view]44 is to be hissed off today, because it does not have a sound understanding; rather, He proceeds in altogether the same mode from both, and yet is the bond of both, just as the example is given of two pieces of wood from which one flame proceeds.
To 4. To what is objected, that from the one [He proceeds] sufficiently, therefore etc.; it must be said that this would be true if there were diverse principles of the Holy Spirit; which is not true, as will appear below45. Hence just as this argument does not hold: the Father creates, and the Son likewise; and the Father is sufficient in creating: therefore the Son is superfluous; — because they are one principle in creating — likewise it must be solved in the case at hand.
To 5. To what is objected, that it is not found in Scripture; it must be said that, although the words may not be found, yet the sense is found, as has been shown in the objecting [arguments]. Yet the argument does not hold: it is not found in Scripture, therefore it is not true; because it is the way of Scripture to keep some things silent in order to inculcate humility: hence the Lord, wishing to instruct us in humility, attributes to the Father everything that is His own, as He says in John 746: My doctrine is not mine. Likewise He says in John 1547: Who proceeds from the Father, speaking of the Holy Spirit, and yet He Himself adds48: all things that the Father has are mine: and so the argument does not hold.
To 6. To what is objected concerning the Councils, it must be said that neither in those Councils are all the things instituted that pertain to morals, nor again all the things said that pertain to faith; just as in the Symbol which is sung at Mass, nothing is said of the descent into hell. But did49 the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son lie hidden from the holy Fathers? and if it did not lie hidden, why did they not say so? I believe that it did not lie hidden, as is plain from the ancient Greeks, whose authority the Master adduces in the text50; but nevertheless it was not expressed, because there was no need. For no one was denying or wished to deny it. But heretics, by their importunity, compelled the explication of many things which were implicit in our faith; and so that [point] is plain.
To 7. 8. To what is objected concerning the authority of Dionysius and Gregory, it must be said that the likeness is not in every respect, but greater is the dissimilarity. The likeness is held in this respect, namely as to the plenitude of fontality in the Father and the division51 of the persons emanating from Him, and the reception of influence in the creature: yet the likeness is not in every respect as to the mode of emanating; and so that [point] is plain.
To 9. To what is objected concerning Damascene, it must be said that he is not to be assented to in this part, for, as I have understood, he was at the time when the contention arose. Hence he is not to be sustained in this, because he was simply a Greek; yet he speaks cautiously. Hence he does not say that the Spirit is not from the Son, but says, we do not say from the Son, because the Greeks did not confess [it], and yet did not deny [it]; but in our time their accursed offspring has added to the paternal madness and says that He does not proceed from the Son except temporally. And so the Roman Church condemns them as heretics and schismatics.
I. This conclusion, which the schismatic Greeks reject, is contained in the Symbol of the Eleventh Council of Toledo (a. 675) and was defined as an article of faith by the decrees of several Councils, namely Bari (1098), Lyons II, and Florence in the Decree of Union. Moreover the formula in use among the Greeks, namely that the Father spirates the Holy Spirit through the Son, was approved by the Council of Florence (Decree of Union) and explained in this sense: «that by this it is signified that the Son too is, according to the Greeks, cause, but according to the Latins principle of the substance of the Holy Spirit, just as the Father is. And since all things which are the Father's, the Father Himself in begetting gave to His only-begotten Son, except being the Father, this very thing, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son Himself has eternally from the Father, by whom He is also eternally begotten».
II. The Holy Doctor (in the body of the article, before the middle) says that «the Latins were taught by manifest revelation»; this however is not to be understood of any new revelation which would add anything to the deposit of faith, but, as is plain from the context, of the charism of truth, by which the deposit of faith was rightly expounded — in which deposit, at least implicitly, this dogma had already been revealed.
III. With respect to the reply to 3, Dionysius the Carthusian (here, q. 1, at the end) says: «Bonaventure also says that Alexander's distinction, at the beginning of his response to this question, is now to be hissed off — Alexander affirming that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the same mode in which one flame goes forth from two pieces of wood». But that most learned and most holy man errs. For St. Bonaventure does not hiss off that distinction in itself, but only the use of it which some made, supposing that the Holy Spirit proceeds in one way from the Father and in another from the Son. That the Seraphic Doctor fully agrees with his master, the following passage of Alexander proves (S. p. I. q. 43. m. 4.), which we transcribe here all the more willingly because in the editions it labors under a grave error. For there are missing in them the words distinguished by us in italics: because from this it would follow that He proceeds from the Son, and immediately after the editions have inconveniens in place of conveniens. By this reading the sense is wholly disturbed. We have corrected this error from a manuscript codex of the National Library of Florence, in folio, parchment, of the 14th century, sig. I. III. 9, fol. 75 recto; there it is q. 15. m. 12. a. 5.
«It must be said that to proceed is said in two ways: in one way, to proceed is said in local motion, which motion is from something to something. In another way, to proceed is said of the going-out of a thing caused from a cause, or of a moved from a mover. According to the first mode, to proceed requires a twofold terminus: from which and into which. According to the second mode, it requires only one, namely from which. Hence according to these two modes the term to proceed can be transferred to the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Greeks transferred the term to proceed from local motion; hence they understood the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit as from someone into someone; and therefore according to this mode they did not concede that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, because from this it would follow that He proceeds from the Son into the Father, which is not fitting, since in the Father Himself is the formal character of the first principle, and the Father has nothing from the Son. But if it were said that He proceeds from the Son into the Father, the Father would seem to have something from the Son. But they conceded that He proceeds into the Son, in which it is shown that He is the love of the Father for the Son, and also it is intimated that the Son has being from the Father. The Latins, however, transfer the term to proceed from the going-out or process of a caused from a cause. Hence they say that to proceed is to go out from something, although not into something — according to the way in which love is said to proceed from the mind and from cognition, although it is not understood [as proceeding] into something. And according to this mode the Latins say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because He goes out from both, as love from cognition and mind.»
IV. St. John Damascene, whose doctrine St. Bonaventure (here at the end) asserts is not to be sustained in this matter, is also accused of error by St. Thomas (S. I. q. 36. a. 2. ad 3.); it is added, however, that he is excused by some. But Scotus already (here q. 1.) explains that holy Doctor better and vindicates his orthodoxy in this matter — which is now commonly received among theologians.
V. The fourth argument among the fundamenta, that, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son being denied, the distinction of the two must also be denied, is approved by most theologians, as by Alexander of Hales, Bl. Albert, St. Thomas, Peter of Tarantasia, Durandus, and almost commonly by the theologians following [them] outside the school of Scotus. The contrary, however, is taught by Henry of Ghent (Quodl. 5. q. 9.), Scotus (here q. unica, and Reportata, here q. 2), Dionysius the Carthusian (here q. 2.); but Richard of Mediavilla (here q. 2.) hesitates undecided. There is a celebrated controversy on this matter between the Scotist school and the Thomist school and other theologians. On the arguments of the Scotists see Claude Frassen (Scotus academicus, vol. 3, tract. 3, disp. 3, a. 3, q. 2.), John of Rada (l. controv. 15.), and Francis Macedo (Collationes doctrinae S. Thom. et Scot., coll. 6. diff. 4.).
VI. As to the conclusion: cf. Alexander of Hales, S. p. I. q. 43. m. 4, and q. 46. m. 5. — Scotus, here q. unica; and Reportata here q. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 36. a. 2; S.c.G. IV cc. 24. 25; Opusc. 6, Contra Errores Graecorum. — Bl. Albert, here a. 6; S. p. I. tr. 7. q. 31. m. 1. 2. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 1. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 1. 2. — Giles of Rome, here 1. princ. q. 1. — Henry of Ghent, S. a. 54. q. 6. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1. — Biel, here q. 1. 2.
---
- Aristot. verba vide supra d. 10. n. 1. q. 1. ad 4. Cod. W in textu agendo agit loco agitur.For Aristotle's words see above d. 10, art. 1, q. 1, ad 4. Codex W in the text reads agendo agit in place of agitur.
- Postulantibus mss. et sex primis edd., substituimus introductionem loco inductionem. Mox verba per privationem in Evangeliis idem valent ac haec: ex silentio Evangeliorum.With the manuscripts and the first six editions calling for it, we have substituted introductionem in place of inductionem. Just after, the words per privationem in Evangeliis mean the same as these: from the silence of the Gospels.
- Ioan. 15, vers. 26.John 15:26.
- Vat. contra vetustiores codd. et ed. 1 tutari loco munire.The Vatican [edition], against the older codices and ed. 1, reads tutari (to defend) in place of munire (to fortify).
- Oratio 45 ad Evagrium Monach. de Divinitate (ed. Venet. 1753): Salvator quoque noster et Spiritus sanctus geminus ille Patris radius, simul et ad nos usque veritatis lucem ministrant et Patri uniti sunt.Oration 45 to Evagrius the Monk, On Divinity (Venice ed., 1753): «Our Saviour also and the Holy Spirit, that twin ray of the Father, both minister to us the light of truth and are united to the Father.»
- S. Doctor respicere videtur haec Dionysii (c. 2.) verba, quae et a S. Thom. (hic a. 1.) et a Richard. (hic q. 1.) allegantur: «Rursum a Scripturis sacris accepimus, Patrem quidem esse originem in divinis, Iesum vero et Spiritum sanctum, quasi Dei prolem, vel, si dictu fas sit, quasi germina divina, floresve ac lumina supersubstantialia existere». Sed textus noster in versionibus Scoti et Corderii verbotenus non legitur.The Holy Doctor seems to have in mind these words of Dionysius (De div. nom. c. 2), which are also alleged by St. Thomas (here a. 1.) and by Richard [of Mediavilla] (here q. 1.): «Again from the sacred Scriptures we have received that the Father is origin in the divine being, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, as it were the offspring of God, or, if it is permissible to say so, as it were divine germs, flowers and supersubstantial lights, exist». But our text is not read verbatim in the versions of Scotus or Corderius.
- S. Ioan. Damasc., libr. I de Fide orthod. c. 8.St. John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, bk. I, c. 8.
- Haec verba a Scholasticis communiter attribuuntur S. Hieronymo, in quo tantum sententia similis in Epist. 41 ad Marcellam legitur. Sunt autem S. Cyrilli Hierosol. Cath. IV de Decem Dogmat. n. 17 (Patrolog. Graec. tom. 33. col. 478) dicentis: «Ne mihi quidem ista proferenti ultro credas, nisi de divinis Scripturis eorum quae tibi annuntio demonstrationem acceperis».These words are commonly attributed by the scholastics to St. Jerome, in whom only a similar thought is read in Epist. 41 to Marcella. They are, however, of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis IV, On the Ten Dogmas, n. 17 (PG 33, col. 478), where he says: «Do not even believe me when I freely declare these things, unless you receive a demonstration of what I announce to you from the divine Scriptures».
- Aliqui codd. ut TVX In contrarium.Some codices, as TVX, read In contrarium.
- Dist. 10, a. 1, q. 2. — Paulo post cod. W amor loco amare.D. 10, a. 1, q. 2. — Just after, codex W reads amor in place of amare.
- Dist. 10, a. 2, q. 2.D. 10, a. 2, q. 2.
- Vat. cum cod. cc minus distincte et contra alios codd. et ed. 1 nec pro non. Paulo ante ed. 1 hoc est per se notum pro haec est per se nota.The Vatican [edition] with codex cc, less distinctly and against the other codices and ed. 1, reads nec in place of non. Just before, ed. 1 reads hoc est per se notum in place of haec est per se nota.
- Aliqui codd. ut G X Z vel habet actum quem, vel ut K T habet actum et. — Galat. 4, vers. 6.Some codices as G X Z read vel habet actum quem, others as K T habet actum et. — Galatians 4:6.
- Vat. cum aliquibus mss. omittit semel Filius, sed contra alios codd. ut A F G H K M T V etc. cum ed. 1.The Vatican with some manuscripts omits Filius once, but against the other codices, as A F G H K M T V etc., with ed. 1.
- Ioan. 15, vers. 26, in quo textu contra Vulgatam et antiquiores codd. omittit Vat. a Patre, sicuti et paulo post bis habet supra loco super.John 15:26 — in which text, against the Vulgate and the older codices, the Vatican omits a Patre, just as also a little after it twice has supra in place of super.
- E vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus male omissum alii.From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied alii, which had been wrongly omitted.
- Ioan. 16, vers. 14. — Mox, consentientibus antiquis mss. et ed. 1, posuimus hoc pro quo.John 16:14. — Just after, with the agreement of the ancient manuscripts and ed. 1, we have put hoc in place of quo.
- Aliqui codd. ut H P Q Y originis.Some codices, as H P Q Y, read originis.
- Reliquimus cum Vat. ac ed. 1 et aliquibus mss. orta, licet maior pars codd. cum edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 habeant tota, quod minus contextui correspondet.We have retained with the Vatican and ed. 1 and some manuscripts the reading orta (arose), although the greater part of the codices with editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 have tota (whole), which corresponds less well to the context.
- Sequimur plures codd. ut F H I K P Q T etc. et ed. 1, loco conservationem ponendo consummationem, quod et gradationi membrorum divisionis et subnexis magis correspondet. Cod. X confirmationem. Paulo infra post conveniunt codd. inter se dissentiunt; maior pars eorum ut A C F G I L O R S V W X Z etc. pro quae habet quia; plures deinde ut C I L O R dicunt loco dicit.We follow several codices, as F H I K P Q T etc. and ed. 1, in placing consummationem (consummation) in place of conservationem (preservation), which corresponds better both to the gradation of the members of the division and to what follows. Codex X reads confirmationem. A little below, after conveniunt, the codices disagree among themselves; the greater part, as A C F G I L O R S V W X Z etc., have quia in place of quae; several then, as C I L O R, read dicunt in place of dicit.
- Nonnulli codd. ut A S T V X aa minus congrue Nam Scriptura dicit. Paulo infra multi codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt verba et alia.Some codices, as A S T V X aa, read less aptly Nam Scriptura dicit. A little below, many codices with ed. 1 omit the words et alia.
- Codd. aa bb ab.Codices aa bb read ab.
- Cod. K secundum veritatem, cod. V secundum rationes pro simili.Codex K reads secundum veritatem, codex V secundum rationes in place of simili.
- Sacra Scriptura canonica hoc non dicit expressis verbis, sed implicite et ex Ss. Patrum interpretatione. Cfr. d. 10, a. 2, q. 3 et 2, et hic ad 5. — Mox fide multorum mss. ut A F G H K S T W X Y Z etc. et ed. 1 substituimus Et cum loco Sed cum, et paulo infra comparaverunt pro comparant. Propter repetitionem verborum flatus exterioris et amoris interioris aliqui codd. hic sive omittendo sive permutando erraverunt.Canonical Sacred Scripture does not say this in express words, but implicitly and from the interpretation of the Fathers. Cf. d. 10, a. 2, qq. 2–3, and here ad 5. — Just after, on the testimony of many manuscripts (A F G H K S T W X Y Z etc.) and ed. 1, we substitute Et cum in place of Sed cum, and a little below comparaverunt in place of comparant. On account of the repetition of the words flatus exterioris and amoris interioris, some codices have erred here either by omitting or by transposing.
- Ex pluribus mss. ut H M N P Q aa (T ee ff in margine) adiecimus unum, pro quo ed. 1 habet alterum.From several manuscripts, as H M N P Q aa (T ee ff in the margin), we have added unum, for which ed. 1 has alterum.
- Multi codd. omittunt modo, quod Vat. transponit post similiori.Many codices omit modo, which the Vatican [edition] transposes after similiori.
- Fide mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus huius. Mox aliqui codd. ut I Z cum ed. 1 Latina pro Latinorum, et paulo infra multi codd. ut A F G H T etc. cum ed. 1 post necessitate addunt nobiscum particulam et.On the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied huius. Just after, some codices, as I Z, with ed. 1 read Latina in place of Latinorum, and a little below many codices (A F G H T etc.) with ed. 1 add with us after necessitate the particle et.
- Vat. contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 aliqui hoc negarent.The Vatican, against the older codices and ed. 1, reads aliqui hoc negarent.
- Ed. 1 addit ex.Ed. 1 adds ex.
- Ed. 1 defuerunt loco non fuerunt. Paulo infra post pertinacia codd. P Q adiiciunt quia.Ed. 1 reads defuerunt in place of non fuerunt. A little below, after pertinacia, codices P Q add quia.
- Vat. cum cod. cc negant, sed contra alios codd. et ed. 1.The Vatican with codex cc reads negant, but against the other codices and ed. 1.
- Cod. V Tanquam curiosos.Codex V reads Tanquam curiosos.
- Praeter fidem mss. et sex primarum edd., in Vat. omittitur quia, sicuti et paulo infra contra antiquiores codd. et edd. 1, 4, 5 praepositio in.Against the testimony of the manuscripts and the first six editions, quia is omitted in the Vatican, just as also a little below, against the older codices and editions 1, 4, 5, the preposition in is omitted.
- Aliqui codd. ut K X Z corrupimus, sed perfecimus; aliqui ut G H I S cum ed. 4 corrumpimus, sed perfecimus; alii exhibent cum Vat. lectionem nostram.Some codices, as K X Z, read corrupimus, sed perfecimus; others, as G H I S with ed. 4, read corrumpimus, sed perfecimus; others present with the Vatican our reading.
- S. Anselm., libr. de Process. Spir. S. c. 22: Respondemus, nos illud non corrupisse, sed aliud novum edidisse. — Mox ex pluribus codd. ut X V aa cum ed. 1 et hoc quidem loco quod quidem posuimus, quod confirmatur ex incongrua lectione aliorum codd. et quod quidem.St. Anselm, On the Procession of the Holy Spirit, c. 22: «We answer that we have not corrupted that [Symbol], but have issued another, new [Symbol].» — Just after, from several codices, as X V aa, with ed. 1 we have put et hoc quidem in place of quod quidem, which is confirmed by the incongruous reading of the other codices, et quod quidem.
- Vat. contra multos codd. ut A F G I L O T W etc. et ed. 1 quam, ac praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 post interdictum addit ponere. Ed. 1 interdicere pro interdictum.The Vatican, against many codices (A F G I L O T W etc.) and ed. 1, reads quam, and against the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1 adds after interdictum the word ponere. Ed. 1 reads interdicere in place of interdictum.
- Praeferimus lectionem nonnullorum mss. ut H I W etc. incepit loco incipit.We prefer the reading of some manuscripts, as H I W etc., incepit (began) in place of incipit (begins).
- Auctoritate plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus ab ed. Vat. omissum hoc, sub quo intelligas: non fuit opportunum. Mox post infructuosum consensu mss. et ed. 1 expunximus verba propter insipientiam.On the authority of very many manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied hoc, omitted by the Vatican edition, under which understand: it was not opportune. Just after, following infructuosum, by the consensus of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have expunged the words propter insipientiam.
- Dist. 14, a. 1, q. 1.D. 14, a. 1, q. 1.
- Unus alterve cod. ut H (a secunda manu) cum ed. 1 in obiectum; post quod cod. X addit aut quia in alium tendit ita, quod ab eo recipiatur; si quia in alium tendit sicut obiectum.A codex or two, as H (by a second hand) with ed. 1, reads in obiectum; after which codex X adds: aut quia in alium tendit ita, quod ab eo recipiatur; si quia in alium tendit sicut obiectum.
- Quomodo ista similitudo intelligenda sit, apte explicat S. Anselmus, de Process. Spir. sancti, c. 17: Constat quia una eademque aqua est, quae et fons et rivus et lacus dicitur, non tres aquae, quamvis tres sint, fons, rivus et lacus. Discernamus itaque inter fontem, rivum et lacum, et videamus quid singula. Haec, cum tria sint, in una intelligantur aqua. In fonte quidem aqua de abysso ascendens ebullit; in rivo de fonte descendens fluit; in lacu colligitur et manet. Per fontem ergo intelligitur aqua de abysso ebulliens; per rivum, quia de fonte fluit; per lacum, quia simul ibi coadunatur. Videmus autem quia rivus non est de hoc, unde aqua fons dicitur, sed de hoc, quod est, id est de aqua; nec lacus est de hoc, unde aqua dicitur fons aut rivus, sed de ipsa aqua, quae una et eadem est in fonte et rivo. Non ergo de hoc, unde differunt fons et rivus, sed de hoc, in quo unum sunt, lacus existit. Si ergo non magis fons est hoc, unde lacus est quam rivus, nequit intelligi lacus magis esse de fonte quam de rivo. Sic itaque, cum dicitur Deus Pater aut Filius aut Spiritus sanctus, una in tribus intelligitur essentia et unus Deus... sed in Patre intelligitur gignens, in Filio genitus, et in Spiritu sancto singulari quodam et ineffabili modo procedens.How that simile is to be understood, St. Anselm aptly explains, On the Procession of the Holy Spirit, c. 17: «It is established that it is one and the same water which is called both fount, stream, and pool, not three waters, though there be three: fount, stream, and pool. Let us therefore distinguish between fount, stream, and pool, and see what each is. These, though they be three, are understood in one water. In the fount the water rising from the abyss bubbles up; in the stream, descending from the fount, it flows; in the pool it is gathered and remains. By the fount, then, is understood water bubbling up from the abyss; by the stream, that it flows from the fount; by the pool, that there it is gathered together. We see, however, that the stream is not from that whence water is called fount, but from this, which it is, that is, from water; nor is the pool from that whence water is called fount or stream, but from the very water, which is one and the same in the fount and the stream. Not, therefore, from that in which fount and stream differ, but from that in which they are one, does the pool exist. If, then, the fount is not more than the stream that from which the pool is, the pool cannot be understood to be more from the fount than from the stream. Thus also, when God is called Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, in three is understood one essence and one God... but in the Father is understood the begetter, in the Son the begotten, and in the Holy Spirit, in a certain singular and ineffable mode, the proceeding.»
- Fide mss. et ed. 1 pro ideo substituimus exterius, scil. verbum; deinde supple: processioni divinae; cod. R non enim est simile de interiori et externis (exteriori); cod. Z post exterius addit et interius.On the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, in place of ideo we have substituted exterius (sc. verbum); then supply: to the divine procession; codex R reads non enim est simile de interiori et externis (exteriori); codex Z after exterius adds et interius.
- Plurimis mss. et ed. 1 refragantibus, Vat. quamquam.Against the testimony of very many manuscripts and ed. 1, the Vatican reads quamquam.
- Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 Sed istud.The Vatican, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, reads Sed istud.
- Quaest. seq.The following question.
- Ioan. 7, vers. 16.John 7:16.
- Ioan. 15, vers. 26.John 15:26.
- Ibid. c. 16, vers. 15, in quo textu Vulgata loco quae habet quaecumque.Ibid. c. 16, vers. 15, in which text the Vulgate has quaecumque in place of quae.
- Lectio plurium codd. ut H I L O ee ff et ed. 1, in qua nunquid loco nunquam ponitur, a nobis electa est, quia subnexis magis correspondet.The reading of several codices, as H I L O ee ff and ed. 1, in which nunquid (did?) is placed in place of nunquam (never), has been chosen by us, because it corresponds better to what follows.
- Cap. 2. — Paulo ante Vat. corrupte et praeter fidem antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 post sicut omittit patet.[Lombard, Sent. I, dist. 11,] cap. 2. — Just before, the Vatican corruptly and against the testimony of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, after sicut omits patet.
- Cod. Y in distinctione, quae lectio explicat, quo sensu vocabulum divisione sumendum sit.Codex Y reads in distinctione, which reading explains in what sense the word divisione is to be taken.