← Back to Distinction 14

Dist. 14, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 14

Textus Latinus
p. 247

Quaestio II. Utrum processio Spiritus sancti aeterna et temporalis numerentur ut duae processiones.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum processio temporalis ponat in numerum cum aeterna. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per hoc, quod dicit Magister1: «quod gemina est processio Spiritus sancti, aeterna et temporalis».

2. Item, ratione videtur similiter, quia plus distat2 temporale ab aeterno quam aeternum ab aeterno; illud constat; sed processio aeterna facit numerum cum aeterna, quia processio Filii et processio Spiritus sancti sunt duae: ergo etc.

3. Item, quaecumque habent ordinem, habent numerum et distinctionem; sed processio aeterna et temporalis habent ordinem, quia aeterna3 ante temporalem: ergo habent distinctionem; ergo faciunt numerum: ergo processio temporalis et aeterna sunt duae.

Contra:

1. Numerata processione, numeratur procedens, quia unum et idem non procedit bis; ergo si sunt duae processiones, sunt duo procedentes: ergo Spiritus sancti sunt duo4; sed hoc est falsum, quia unus est Spiritus sanctus procedens: ergo et primum.

2. Item, processio temporalis et aeterna si differunt, aut hoc est ex hoc, quod sunt diversae emanationes, aut quia diversus modus emanandi. Non quia diversae emanationes, quia tunc essent diversi emanantes; nec quia diversus modus, quia Pater et Filius semper uno modo spirant: ergo Spiritus sanctus semper5 uno modo procedit: ergo etc.

3. Item, homo pictus et homo verus non sunt duo homines; non enim numerantur nisi univoca, et quod dicitur de duobus secundum unam naturam6; sed temporale et aeternum minus communicant quam homo pictus et homo verus: ergo processio temporalis et aeterna non est dicenda gemina.

4. Item, processio temporalis non addit super aeternam nisi respectum vel effectum in creatura7; sed respectus vel effectus, causae additus, ipsam non numerat: unde sol lucens et sol illustrans sive illuminans non sunt duo, similiter Deus ens et Deus creans: ergo nec processio aeterna et temporalis erit duplex8.

Conclusio. Secundum modum dicendi analogum non inconvenienter processio Spiritus sancti aeterna et temporalis dicitur duplex processio.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod processio dicitur geminari aut ratione procedentium, ut puta, cum procedunt duo filii; aut ratione modi procedendi9, ut amor et verbum dupliciter procedunt; vel ratione modi dicendi, ut dicatur processio gemina, id est dupliciter dicta.

Sed attendendum, quod modus dicendi est triplex, scilicet aequivocus, univocus et analogus10. Cum est modus dicendi aequivocus, ibi est geminatio circa dici et non circa esse. Unde homo pictus et homo verus dupliciter dicitur homo, sed non est duplex homo vel duo homines. Cum est modus dicendi univocus, est geminatio circa esse et non

p. 248

circa dici11. Unde homo verus in Socrate et Platone numeratur, quia sunt duo homines, sed non multipliciter dicitur. Ubi est modus dicendi analogus, quia partem tenet de natura univoci, partem de natura aequivoci, ibi est numeratio et12 in essendo et in dicendo.

Secundum hunc igitur modum dicendum, quod processio, secundum quod dicta est de processione temporali et aeterna, non est dicta13 univoce nec aequivoce, sed analogice, quia unus modus clauditur in alio. Procedere enim ab hoc in hoc ut in obiectum est aeternum, sed procedere ab hoc in hoc ut in habitaculum est temporale. Quoniam igitur analogum est sic dictum et sic14, ideo est ibi dupliciter dici, et una processio dicitur dupliciter, et ita per consequens duplex esse, ut non inconvenienter dicatur processio Spiritus sancti esse duplex.

Ad argumenta:

Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod, multiplicata processione, multiplicatur procedens; dicendum, quod verum est, si accipiatur de multiplicatione secundum unum modum dicendi. Unde si gemina esset processio, secundum quod processio dicitur exitus ab aliquo, utique duo essent procedentes; nunc autem15 non sic: sed est gemina, quia uno modo est ab aliquo in aliquem ut in obiectum, alio modo ab aliquo in aliquem ut in habitaculum.

Ad 2 et 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur secundo: aut est duplex processio, quia duplex emanatio vel duplex modus16; dicendum, quod non sufficienter dividit; debet enim tertium membrum addere, scilicet, aut quia duplex modus dicendi, non aequivocus. Et per hoc patet sequens de homine picto et vero, quia ibi non est analogia, sed aequivocatio pura.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod respectus additus non numerat etc.; dicendum, quod respectus additus subiecto non numerat subiectum; unde non dicitur Spiritus sanctus duplex17, quia spiratur et inspiratur. Sed quando respectus additur significationi termini, tunc necesse est, illum aliter et aliter dici; et si sit respectus non distrahens — ita quod non faciat omnino diversam significationem — sed ad illam ordinatus, facit analogiam in termino18 et numerum secundum dici et etiam numerum secundum esse. Unde si hoc nomen illuminatio significaret actum lucendi absolutum et actum lucendi comparatum, sol dupliciter diceretur illuminare, et esset illuminatio solis gemina; sed tamen magis proprie ibi esset geminatio in dicendo quam in essendo. Unde Magister19 magis proprie loqueretur, si diceret: processio Spiritus sancti dicitur dupliciter, quam cum dicit, quod est gemina, quia non cadit ibi proprie geminatio.

Scholion

I. Ponere in numerum cum alio idem est ac distingui ut res a re. Notandum autem, quod haec utriusque processionis distinctio sane est intelligenda. Nam temporalis processio includit aeternam et addit super eam in Spiritu sancto novam habitudinem (secundum rationem intelligendi) ad creaturam, connotando aliquem realem effectum in ipsa, per quem est nova relatio realis in creatura ad Spiritum sanctum. Inde sequitur, quod termini istarum processionum essentialiter differunt, quia aeterna processio non respicit nisi terminum aeternum, temporalis vero importat respectum ad terminum temporalem. Sed in essentia istarum processionum non alia est differentia nisi secundum rationem intelligendi, ut bene explicat Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — De triplici modo dicendi, univoco, aequivoco et analogo cfr. supra d. 1. a. 3. q. 1. et Scholion. — Ad intelligentiam conclusionis multum iuvat solut. ad 1; cfr. etiam infra d. 15. p. II, et d. 16.

II. Omnes antiqui Scholastici in conclusione concordant, excepto Aegid. R., qui negat, dici posse processionem esse geminam vel duplicem. S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2; S. I. q. 43. a. 2. ad 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. 9; S. p. I. tr. 7. q. 32. m. 2. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. post med.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether the eternal and the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit are numbered as two processions.

Secondly it is asked, whether the temporal procession is to be numbered together with the eternal. And that it is so, seems [the case]:

1. Through the fact that the Master says1: "that the procession of the Holy Spirit is twofold, eternal and temporal."

2. Likewise, by reason it seems similar, since the temporal differs more2 from the eternal than the eternal from the eternal; that [latter] is established; but the eternal procession makes a number with the eternal, since the procession of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit are two: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, whatever things have an order, have number and distinction; but the eternal and temporal procession have an order, since the eternal3 [is] before the temporal: therefore they have a distinction; therefore they make a number: therefore the temporal and eternal procession are two.

On the contrary:

1. With the procession numbered, the proceeder is numbered, since one and the same does not proceed twice; therefore if there are two processions, there are two proceeders: therefore there are two Holy Spirits4; but this is false, since one is the Holy Spirit who proceeds: therefore [the first is also false].

2. Likewise, if temporal and eternal procession differ, either it is from this — that they are diverse emanations — or because [there is] a diverse mode of emanating. Not because [they are] diverse emanations, since then there would be diverse emanators; nor because [there is] a diverse mode, since the Father and the Son always spirate in one mode: therefore the Holy Spirit always5 proceeds in one mode: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, a painted man and a real man are not two men; for things are not numbered except [as] univocals, and what is said of two according to one nature6; but the temporal and the eternal share less than a painted man and a real man: therefore the temporal and eternal procession should not be called twofold.

4. Likewise, the temporal procession adds nothing over the eternal except a relation or an effect in the creature7; but a relation or effect, added to a cause, does not number it: whence "the shining sun" and "the illustrating or illuminating sun" are not two, similarly "God who is" and "God who creates": therefore neither will the eternal and temporal procession be twofold8.

Conclusion. According to the analogous mode of speaking it is not unfitting that the eternal and temporal procession of the Holy Spirit be called a twofold procession.

I respond: It must be said that, for the understanding of what has been stated, it must be noted that procession is said to be doubled either by reason of the proceeders — for instance, when two sons proceed; or by reason of the mode of proceeding9, as love and word proceed in two ways; or by reason of the mode of being-said, so that procession be called twofold, that is, said in two ways.

But it must be observed that the mode of being-said is threefold, namely equivocal, univocal, and analogous10. When the mode of being-said is equivocal, there [is] a doubling with respect to being-said and not with respect to being. Whence "a painted man" and "a real man" is called man in two ways, but is not a twofold man or two men. When the mode of being-said is univocal, there is a doubling with respect to being and not

with respect to being-said11. Whence "real man" is numbered in Socrates and in Plato, since they are two men, but is not said in multiple ways. Where the mode of being-said is analogous, since it holds part of the nature of the univocal, part of the nature of the equivocal, there is a numbering both12 in being and in being-said.

According to this mode therefore it must be said that procession, insofar as it has been said13 of the temporal and eternal procession, is not said univocally nor equivocally, but analogously, since the one mode is enclosed in the other. For to proceed from this into this as into an object is eternal, but to proceed from this into this as into a habitation is temporal. Therefore since the analogous is said in this way and in that14, there is therefore a being-said-in-two-ways here, and one procession is said in two ways, and so consequently a twofold being [as well], so that it is not unfitting that the procession of the Holy Spirit be called twofold.

Replies to the arguments:

To 1. To that which is objected on the contrary, that, with the procession multiplied, the proceeder is multiplied; it must be said that this is true, if it is taken about multiplication according to one mode of being-said. Whence if the procession were twofold, insofar as procession is called an "exit from something," there would indeed be two proceeders; now however15 [it is] not so: but it is twofold, since in one way it is from someone into someone as into an object, in another way from someone into someone as into a habitation.

To 2 and 3. To that which is objected secondly: either there is a twofold procession because [there is] a twofold emanation or a twofold mode16; it must be said that he does not divide sufficiently; for he ought to add a third member, namely, or because [there is] a twofold mode of being-said, [yet] not equivocal. And through this what follows about the painted man and the real [man] is clear, since there [is] not analogy, but pure equivocation.

To 4. To that which is objected lastly, that an added relation does not number etc.; it must be said that a relation added to a subject does not number the subject; whence the Holy Spirit is not called twofold17 because He is spirated and breathed-in. But when a relation is added to the signification of a term, then it is necessary that the [term] be said in one way and in another; and if it be a relation that is not distracting — such that it does not produce an altogether diverse signification — but ordered to it [the original signification], it makes an analogy in the term18 and a number according to being-said and also a number according to being. Whence if this name illumination signified the absolute act of shining and the act of shining as compared, the sun would be called to illuminate in two ways, and the illumination of the sun would be twofold; but yet more properly there would be a doubling there in being-said than in being. Whence the Master19 would speak more properly, if he said: "the procession of the Holy Spirit is said in two ways," than when he says that it is twofold, since "doubling" does not properly fall there.

Scholion

I. To put into number with another is the same as to be distinguished as a thing from a thing. It must be noted, however, that this distinction of either procession is to be understood soundly. For the temporal procession includes the eternal and adds over it, in the Holy Spirit, a new relation (according to the manner of understanding) toward the creature, by connoting some real effect in it, through which there is a new real relation in the creature toward the Holy Spirit. From this it follows that the termini of these processions essentially differ, since the eternal procession does not regard anything except an eternal terminus, but the temporal imports a relation to a temporal terminus. But in the essence of these processions there is no other difference except according to the manner of understanding, as Richard of Mediavilla well explains, here a. 1. q. 2. — On the threefold mode of being-said — univocal, equivocal, and analogous — cf. above d. 1. a. 3. q. 1. and the Scholion. — For the understanding of the conclusion, the solution to [obj.] 1 is very helpful; cf. also below d. 15. p. II, and d. 16.

II. All the older Scholastics agree in the conclusion, except Aegidius Romanus, who denies that procession can be called twofold or double. S. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 2; Summa I. q. 43. a. 2. ad 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 7, 9; Summa p. I. tr. 7. q. 32. m. 2. a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here lect. 1. princ. q. 2. — Durand[us], here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1. after the middle.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Hic, c. 1.
    Here [in the Sentences], c. 1.
  2. Cod. M differt.
    Codex M [reads] differt.
  3. In cod. V additur est.
    In codex V est is added.
  4. Ed. 1 ergo duo Spiritus.
    Ed. 1 [reads] ergo duo Spiritus.
  5. Ex mss. et ed. 1 restituimus male omissum semper. Paulo ante ed. Veneta cum Lugdunensi post modus adiungit [dicendi — OCR cuts off][?].
    From the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have restored semper, wrongly omitted. Shortly before, the Venice edition together with the Lyons [edition] adds, after modus, [dicendi — the OCR truncates the word][?].
  6. Vide Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 133. (c. ult.) et V. Metaph. text. 11. et 20. (IV. c. 6. et 15.).
    See Aristotle, Physics IV, text 133 (last chapter), and Metaphysics V, texts 11 and 20 (= IV, c. 6 and 15).
  7. Plurimi cum ed. 1 creaturam, quod refertur ad [respectum vel effectum].
    Most [codices] with ed. 1 [read] creaturam, which is referred to [respectum vel effectum].
  8. Consentientibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1, substituimus duplex loco dupliciter.
    With the older manuscripts and ed. 1 in agreement, we have substituted duplex for dupliciter.
  9. In Vat. et cod. cc perperam deest procedendi, quod tamen habetur in aliis codd. et ed. 1.
    In the Vatican [edition] and codex cc procedendi is wrongly missing, which however is held in the other codices and in ed. 1.
  10. Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. in princ. — Mox post modus fide vetustiorum mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus incongrue omissum dicendi. Dein ed. 1 Ut loco Unde.
    Cf. Aristotle, Categories, at the beginning. — Soon after, after modus, on the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have added dicendi, which had been incongruously omitted. Then ed. 1 [reads] Ut in place of Unde.
  11. Lectio Vat. dicere pro dici castigatur ope mss. et ed. 1. Paulo ante cod. W sed non loco et non.
    The Vatican [edition's] reading of dicere in place of dici is corrected with the help of the manuscripts and ed. 1. Shortly before, codex W [reads] sed non in place of et non.
  12. Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 omittit et. Codd. LO geminatio loco numeratio.
    The Vatican [edition], against the manuscripts and ed. 1, omits et. Codices LO [read] geminatio in place of numeratio.
  13. Vat. cum cod. cc praeter fidem antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 male omittit dicta.
    The Vatican [edition], with codex cc, contrary to the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, wrongly omits dicta.
  14. Ita cum ed. 1 omnes codd., licet aliqui ut K O V X falso prima vice pro sic legant sicut, sed Vat. omnino perturbate sicut dictum est pro sic dictum et sic — i. e. procedere uno modo dictum et altero modo. Mox codd. et edd. non conveniunt inter se ponendo duplex loco dupliciter et vice versa.
    Thus, together with ed. 1, all the codices [read], although some — like K O V X — falsely on the first occurrence read sicut in place of sic; but the Vatican [edition], altogether confusedly, [reads] sicut dictum est in place of sic dictum et sic — that is, to proceed, said in one way and in the other way. Soon after, the codices and editions do not agree among themselves in placing duplex for dupliciter and vice versa.
  15. In Vat. et cod. cc minus apte omittitur autem, quod in aliis codd. et ed. 1 habetur. Mox in plurimis codd. et sex primis edd. post sed desideratur verbum est.
    In the Vatican [edition] and codex cc, autem is less aptly omitted, which is held in the other codices and in ed. 1. Soon after, in most codices and the first six editions, after sed the verb est is missing.
  16. Praecedens propositio clarius exhiberetur sic: obiicitur secundo: est duplex processio, quia aut duplex emanatio aut duplex modus; consentientibus tamen cum Vat. editionibus et codicibus (excepto cod. H, qui post vel repetit quia) nihil mutavimus.
    The preceding proposition would be more clearly displayed thus: "it is objected secondly: there is a twofold procession, since either a twofold emanation or a twofold mode"; with the editions and codices nevertheless agreeing with the Vatican [edition] (except codex H, which after vel repeats quia), we have changed nothing.
  17. Vat. contra plures codd. ut F TX Y dupliciter. Paulo infra in margine cod. T a posteriore manu post termini glossando ponitur ut videlicet quia terminus in una sui significatione est absolutus, in alia respectivus.
    The Vatican [edition], against several codices such as F TX Y, [reads] dupliciter. A little below, in the margin of codex T, by a later hand, [a gloss] is placed after termini by way of explanation, namely [reading] that "the term in one of its significations is absolute, in another relative."
  18. Multi codd. ut ABCDEFGIPQRSTU etc. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 loco in termino ponunt in tertio, de quo cfr. supra d. 1. a. 3. q. 1. ad 1, et infra d. 35. q. 1. in corp. Paulo ante ed. 1 illum pro illam.
    Many codices, such as ABCDEFGIPQRSTU etc., with editions 1, 2, 3, place in tertio in place of in termino; on which cf. above d. 1. a. 3. q. 1. ad 1, and below d. 35. q. 1. in the body. Shortly before, ed. 1 [reads] illum for illam.
  19. Cfr. lit. Magistri, hic c. 1. in initio.
    Cf. the Master's text, here c. 1, at the beginning.
← Dist. 14, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 14, Art. 2, Q. 1→