← Back to Distinction 15

Dist. 15, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 4

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 15

Textus Latinus
p. 264

QUAESTIO IV.

Utrum missio, active accepta, sit totius Trinitatis.

Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, cuius sit missio ut mittentis. Et quod sit totius Trinitatis, ostenditur sic.

1. Missio idem est quod temporalis donatio; sed temporaliter dare convenit toti Trinitati, quia tota Trinitas dat Spiritum sanctum, ut dicit Augustinus1: ergo etc.

2. Item, Augustinus secundo de Trinitate2: «Mitti a Patre Filius sine Spiritu sancto non potuit», ergo missio Filii convenit Spiritui sancto: ergo eadem ratione missio sui. Si dicas, sicut dicunt quidam, quod illud intelligitur de missione secundum humanam naturam, qua missus est ad praedicandum, secundum illud Isaiae sexagesimo primo3: Ad annuntiandum mansuetis misit me; non autem de missione secundum divinam naturam; contra: missio secundum divinam naturam est missio in mentem, vel in carnem; sed Augustinus intelligit de missione in carnem, unde statim subditur: «Quia Pater intelligitur eum misisse, cum fecit ex femina»: ergo constat, quod loquitur de missione secundum divinam naturam.

3. Item, Magister4 facit tale argumentum: si Pater potest dare vel mittere Spiritum sanctum, et Spiritus sanctus non potest, ergo aliquid potest Pater, quod non potest Spiritus sanctus. Item si Pater dat et mittit Spiritum sanctum, et hoc non facit Spiritus sanctus, aliquid facit Pater, quod non facit Spiritus sanctus: ergo divisa sunt opera Trinitatis.

Contra:

1. Datum dicitur relative ad dantem, sicut dicit Augustinus quinto de Trinitate5: ergo Spiritus sanctus non datur nisi ab his, ad quos relative dicitur; sed non dicitur relative ad se: ergo non dat se, ergo nec mittit se.

2. Item, sicut Pater est prima persona in Trinitate, ante quam non est alia, ita Spiritus sanctus, post quam6 non est alia; sed Pater, quia non habet personam, ex qua sit, nullo modo dicitur missus: ergo cum Spiritus sanctus non habeat personam ex se emanantem, nullo modo dicitur mittere.

3. Item, ubicumque est missio passiva, ibi est subauctoritas respectu alicuius principii in misso, sicut dicitur ab Augustino et Magistro7: ergo ubi est missio activa, ibi notatur auctoritas respectu personae; sed Spiritus sanctus non habet auctoritatem respectu sui nec alterius personae: ergo etc.

4. Item, ubicumque est missio, ibi vere notatur distinctio, sicut in creaturis separatio; sed persona Spiritus sancti non distinguitur a se: ergo a se non mittitur nec Filium mittit, cum non habeat auctoritatem in ipsum: ergo non mittit.

5. Item, omnis actus, secundum quem persona reflectitur super se, est essentialis et essentialiter dictus; si ergo Filius mittit se, vel Spiritus sanctus8 se: ergo mittere vel mitti essentialiter dicitur; sed omnis talis actus dicitur de tribus; ergo Pater mittit se.

CONCLUSIO.

Impropria est locutio, quod sive Pater sive Trinitas mittat se; omnino propria, quod persona producens mittat productam; denique minus propria, sed tamen sustinenda, quod personae procedentes mittant se.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in hac quaestione sapientes opinantur contrarie sapientibus. Nam Magister dicit expresse et nititur probare auctoritate et ratione, quod Spiritus sanctus mittit se et dat se9; nec oportet secundum ipsum, quod inter mittentem et missum cadat personalis distinctio, sed solum quantum ad rationem intelligendi, ut idem10 ipse sit mittens in quantum Deus, et idem ipse sit missus in quantum donum.

p. 265

Aliorum magistrorum et antiquorum fuit positio, quod mittere et mitti de ratione sui nominis important subauctoritatem et auctoritatem11 et distinctionem; et ideo nullo modo potest dici, quod una persona mittat se vel mittatur a se. Unde locutiones istae sunt impropriae et exponendae, quae hoc dicere videntur. Et positionem suam confirmant per Augustinum12, qui dicit, quod Pater nullo modo mittitur nec legitur missus: hoc non est ob aliud, nisi quia hoc quod est missus importat subauctoritatem: ergo per oppositum mittere importat auctoritatem, et una persona non habet auctoritatem super se. Et respondent rationibus Magistri, quod non est simile de hoc quod est dare et de hoc quod est mittere. Quia dare uno modo est ex liberalitate sive amore communicare; et sic est essentiale omnino et nullam connotat distinctionem, et sic conceditur, quod tota Trinitas dat se ipsam, et Pater similiter. Alio modo dare est alicui donum communicare, non tantum ex liberalitate, sed etiam ex auctoritate; et sic dare dicit notionem sive tenetur notionaliter, et hoc modo non valent illae rationes: si Pater dat Spiritum sanctum, et Spiritus sanctus non dat se: ergo aliquid facit Pater, quod non13 Spiritus sanctus; quia dicit notionem, et in hoc sensu aequipollet ei quod est mittere, et similiter donatio passiva ei quod est procedere. — Similiter ad simile, quod inducit Magister de Filio, dicunt, quod non est simile, quia in Filio duplex est natura, scilicet divina et humana; et quantum ad humanam potest mitti et mittitur a tota Trinitate, quia minor est Deo et inferior, et non tantum subauctoritatem habet, sed etiam servitutem, quia est servus Dei, quamvis per unionem sit Deus. Quantum ad divinam autem mittitur a solo Patre, quia a solo Patre producitur. Quia ergo Spiritus sanctus producitur et a Patre et a Filio, et non a se ipso, hinc est, quod non mittitur nisi a Patre et a Filio. Et propter hoc rationes Magistri non valent, quia omnes auctoritates, quae dicunt, Filium mitti a Spiritu sancto vel a se, secundum humanam naturam intelliguntur.

Sed licet haec positio rationabilior videatur et facilior ad sustinendum, tamen — quia non debemus auctoritates Sanctorum trahere ad nostram rationem, sed magis e converso rationem nostram auctoritatibus Sanctorum subiicere, ubi non continent expressam absurditatem; et Sancti dicunt, et Magister dicit, et maxime Augustinus, qui plus super hac materia locutus est, Filium mitti a Spiritu sancto et etiam14 a se, quod non possunt exponere secundum humanam naturam — ideo alia positio tum ob reverentiam Sanctorum, tum ob reverentiam Magistri videtur magis esse tenenda. Illud enim15 verbum Augustini, quod dicit, quod Filius est missus in carnem a Spiritu sancto, secundum humanam naturam nullo modo potest intelligi, ut videtur, quia missio haec fuit ad humanitatis sive carnis assumtionem: ergo secundum rationem intelligendi praecedit humanam naturam ut iam unitam: ergo si Filius hoc modo dicitur missus, oportet quod attribuatur divinae naturae, et ita ratione divinae naturae missus est a Spiritu sancto; multo fortius igitur et16 a se, ac per hoc et Spiritus sanctus a se.

Et propterea ad intelligentiam obiectorum in contrarium notandum est, quod missio de se duo importat, scilicet emanationem et manifestationem, et principaliter17 de ratione suae significationis importat manifestationem. Et hoc patet per Augustinum in quarto de Trinitate, qui dicit, quod mitti est cognosci esse ab alio, et habetur in praesenti distinctione18, quod «tunc Filius mittitur, cum ex tempore cuiusquam mente percipitur». Quia ergo principaliter importat manifestationem et connotat in misso emanationem, ideo manifestatio significatur per hoc quod est mittere per modum actionis, et per hoc quod est mitti per modum passionis, sed emanatio utrobique uniformiter. Unde sensus est: Pater mittit Filium, id est, declarat sive manifestat Filii emanationem, sive Filium emanare. In passiva vero sensus est: Filius sive Spiritus sanctus mittitur, id est, manifestatur ab alio emanare.

Et quoniam ablativus respectu passivi, et nominativus respectu verbi19 activi important rationem principii, et significatio huius verbi mittere et mitti est manifestatio et emanatio; ideo illa est propriissima, quando ablativus vel nominativus importat habitudinem principii respectu utriusque, ut cum dicitur: Pater mittit Filium, et Filius mittitur a Patre, quia Filius emanat a Patre et manifestatur a Patre.

Quia vero principale significatum horum verborum est manifestatio, non emanatio, quando20 nominativus vel ablativus est principium manifestationis, quamvis non emanationis, propria est, sed minus quam praedicta; et in hoc sensu conceduntur

p. 266

istae: Filius mittit se, et Spiritus sanctus mittit se.

Quia vero tam mittere quam mitti important emanationem circa missum, et persona Patris non emanat ab aliquo, similiter nec Trinitas: ideo persona Patris nusquam legitur missa nec ipsa Trinitas.

Ex hoc patet, quod haec est simpliciter et omnino propria: Pater mittit Filium; haec est minus propria, tamen a proprietate non recedit: Filius mittit se; haec autem omnino impropria: Pater mittit se sive ipsa Trinitas21.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium de dato, quod dicitur relative; dicendum, quod verum est, secundum quod dare dicit per quandam auctoritatem communicare; hoc modo non accipit Magister, sed in quantum dare idem est quod liberaliter et voluntarie communicare.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Pater non mittitur, quia non est22 ab alio; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia tam mittere quam mitti important emanationem in misso, ut patet exponenti. Sensus enim est: haec persona mittit illam, id est, manifestat eius emanationem; et: haec mittitur ab illa, id est, eius emanatio manifestatur ab illa. Sed haec emanatio non semper importatur respectu23 omnis personae mittentis, quia ab aliquo potest esse manifestatio emanationis, a quo tamen non est ipsa emanatio; et ideo sic non ponitur productio in mittente, sicut emanatio in misso; et ideo non sequitur, quod si Pater non mittitur, quod Spiritus sanctus non mittat24.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur: ubi est missio passiva, ibi est subauctoritas; dicendum, quod verum est, non ratione, qua passivum, sed ea ratione, qua tam passivum quam activum notat emanationem in misso, sicut patuit in expositione25. Et quia emanatio non semper est respectu mittentis, ideo non oportet, quod semper importetur auctoritas in mittente; sed ratio ista valeret bene, si ita esset, ut principale significatum eius quod est missio esset emanatio sive productio.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod mittere importat distinctionem; dicendum, quod mittere uno modo importat differentiam substantialem, ut cum importat dominium, ut cum dicitur: Deus mittit Angelum; alio modo distinctionem personalem, ut cum importat auctoritatem in mittente et subauctoritatem in misso respectu mittentis, ut cum dicitur: Pater mittit Filium. Tertio modo importat distinctionem solum quantum ad modum intelligendi; sicut cum dicitur: voluntas est instrumentum se ipsum movens — quia idem est movens et motum — sic26, cum dicitur: Spiritus sanctus mittit se, idem est mittens et missum, ratione differens: mittens, inquam, secundum quod Deus, sed missum secundum quod donum, sicut praedictum est27.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo de reflexione actus, dicendum, quod verum est quoad principale significatum, sed non oportet quantum ad connotatum; et ratione principalis significati est reflexio personae mittentis supra se, ut dicatur: mittens est missus.

Scholion

I. Secunda opinio in corp. recensita est Gulielmi Antissiodorensis. Solutio huius quaestionis, ut bene observat S. Doctor (hic ad 3.), dependet a solutione alterius quaestionis (supra q. 1. in Scholio), scilicet quid sit principale significatum missionis divinae, utrum processio, an processionis manifestatio. Haec enim manifestatio est actio tribus personis communis, et si hoc, tunc consequenter mittere secundum principale significatum est aliquid essentiale, non notionale, sicut e contra est mitti. Ex his principiis sequuntur alia corollaria.

II. Notabile est principium Seraphici in corp. expressum, quod tanquam inviolabilem regulam semper observat, scilicet: «Non debemus auctoritates Sanctorum ad nostram trahere rationem, sed magis e converso rationem nostram auctoritatibus Sanctorum subiicere, ubi non continent expressam absurditatem».

III. S. Thomas et in Comment. et in Summa concordat; item Petr. a Tar. «etiam in verbis», ut dicit Dionys. Carth. Ceteri magistri saltem in principali conclusione consentiunt; tamen Aegid. R. rationes S. Thomae impugnat. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 72. m. 1. a. 1. 2. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1. 2; S. I. q. 43. a. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. 9. 11. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1; q. 3. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. 2.

---

English Translation
p. 264

QUESTION IV.

Whether mission, taken actively, belongs to the whole Trinity.

Fourth and last it is asked of whom mission belongs as the one sending. And that it belongs to the whole Trinity is shown thus.

1. Mission is the same as temporal donation; but to give temporally belongs to the whole Trinity, since the whole Trinity gives the Holy Spirit, as Augustine says1: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Augustine, On the Trinity II2: «The Son could not be sent by the Father without the Holy Spirit»; therefore the mission of the Son belongs to the Holy Spirit: therefore by the same reason [also] the mission of himself. If you say, as some do, that this is to be understood of mission according to human nature — by which he was sent to preach, according to Isaiah 613: He sent me to announce to the meek; and not of mission according to divine nature; on the contrary: mission according to divine nature is mission into the mind, or into the flesh; but Augustine understands of mission into the flesh, whence immediately is added: «Because the Father is understood to have sent him when he made [him] from a woman»: therefore it is plain that he is speaking of mission according to divine nature.

3. Likewise, the Master4 makes such an argument: if the Father can give or send the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit cannot, then the Father can do something which the Holy Spirit cannot. Likewise if the Father gives and sends the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit does not do this, then the Father does something which the Holy Spirit does not: therefore the works of the Trinity are divided.

On the contrary:

1. Given is said relatively to the giver, as Augustine says in On the Trinity V5: therefore the Holy Spirit is not given except by those to whom he is said relatively; but he is not said relatively to himself: therefore he does not give himself, therefore he does not send himself.

2. Likewise, just as the Father is the first person in the Trinity, before whom there is no other, so the Holy Spirit, after whom6 there is no other; but the Father, because he has no person from which he is, is in no way said to be sent: therefore since the Holy Spirit has no person emanating from himself, he is in no way said to send.

3. Likewise, wherever there is passive mission, there is subauthority with respect to some principle in the one sent, as is said by Augustine and the Master7: therefore where there is active mission, there authority is noted with respect to a person; but the Holy Spirit has no authority with respect to himself nor to any other person: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, wherever there is mission, there distinction is truly noted, just as separation [is noted] in creatures; but the person of the Holy Spirit is not distinguished from himself: therefore he is not sent by himself, nor does he send the Son, since he has no authority over him: therefore he does not send.

5. Likewise, every act according to which a person is reflected upon himself is essential and essentially predicated; if therefore the Son sends himself, or the Holy Spirit8 himself: therefore to send or to be sent is said essentially; but every such act is said of the three; therefore the Father sends himself.

CONCLUSION.

The expression that the Father, or the Trinity, sends himself is improper; that the producing person sends the produced is wholly proper; and finally that the proceeding persons send themselves is less proper, but still to be sustained.

I respond: It must be said that on this question wise men hold opposing views to wise men. For the Master says expressly, and tries to prove by authority and reason, that the Holy Spirit sends himself and gives himself9; nor is it necessary, according to him, that personal distinction should fall between the one sending and the one sent, but only [a distinction] with respect to the manner of understanding — so that the same one10 is the sender insofar as he is God, and the same one is the one sent insofar as he is gift.

p. 265

The position of other and older masters was that to send and to be sent import, by the very meaning of their name, subauthority and authority11 and distinction; and therefore it can in no way be said that one person sends himself or is sent by himself. Whence those expressions which seem to say this are improper and to be expounded otherwise. And they confirm their position from Augustine12, who says that the Father is in no way sent, nor is read to have been sent: this is for no other reason than that to be sent imports subauthority: therefore conversely to send imports authority, and one person does not have authority over himself. And they reply to the Master's reasonings that to give and to send are not alike. For to give in one mode is to communicate from liberality or love; and so it is wholly essential and connotes no distinction, and so it is granted that the whole Trinity gives itself, and the Father likewise. In another mode, to give is to communicate a gift to someone, not only from liberality, but also from authority; and so to give asserts a notion or is held notionally, and in this mode those reasonings do not hold: if the Father gives the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit does not give himself, then the Father does something which the Holy Spirit does not13; for it asserts a notion, and in this sense it is equivalent to to send, and similarly passive donation is equivalent to to proceed. — Similarly, to the parallel which the Master draws regarding the Son, they say that it is not parallel, because in the Son there is a twofold nature — namely, divine and human — and with respect to the human nature he can be sent and is sent by the whole Trinity, since he is less than God and inferior, and has not only subauthority but also servitude, since he is the servant of God, although by union he is God. With respect to the divine nature, however, he is sent only by the Father, because he is produced only by the Father. Therefore since the Holy Spirit is produced both by the Father and by the Son, and not by himself, hence it is that he is sent only by the Father and the Son. And on this account the Master's reasonings do not hold, for all the authorities which say that the Son is sent by the Holy Spirit or by himself are understood according to human nature.

But although this position seems more reasonable and easier to sustain, nevertheless — because we ought not to drag the authorities of the saints into our reasoning, but rather conversely to subject our reasoning to the authorities of the saints, where they do not contain manifest absurdity; and the saints say, and the Master says, and especially Augustine — who has spoken most on this matter — that the Son is sent by the Holy Spirit and even14 by himself, which they cannot expound according to human nature — therefore the other position, both out of reverence for the saints and out of reverence for the Master, seems rather to be held. For15 that statement of Augustine — who says that the Son is sent into the flesh by the Holy Spirit — cannot in any way, as it seems, be understood according to human nature, because this mission was for the assumption of humanity or of flesh: therefore according to the manner of understanding it precedes human nature as already united: therefore if the Son is said to be sent in this mode, he must be attributed to the divine nature, and so by reason of the divine nature he is sent by the Holy Spirit; much more strongly therefore also16 by himself, and by this also the Holy Spirit by himself.

And accordingly, for the understanding of the objections to the contrary, it must be noted that mission of itself imports two things — namely, emanation and manifestation — and principally17, by the nature of its signification, it imports manifestation. And this is plain through Augustine in On the Trinity IV, who says that to be sent is to be known to be from another, and it is held in the present distinction18 that «then the Son is sent when from time he is perceived in someone's mind». Therefore, since it principally imports manifestation and connotes in the one sent emanation, manifestation is signified through to send by the mode of action, and through to be sent by the mode of passion, but emanation in both uniformly. Whence the sense is: the Father sends the Son — that is, declares or manifests the emanation of the Son, or [manifests] the Son to be emanating. In the passive, the sense is: the Son or the Holy Spirit is sent — that is, is manifested as emanating from another.

And since the ablative with respect to the passive, and the nominative with respect to the active verb19, import the character of principle, and the signification of this verb to send and to be sent is manifestation and emanation, therefore that [expression] is most proper when the ablative or nominative imports the relation of principle with respect to both — as when it is said: the Father sends the Son, and the Son is sent by the Father, since the Son emanates from the Father and is manifested by the Father.

But because the principal signification of these verbs is manifestation, not emanation, when20 the nominative or ablative is the principle of manifestation, although not of emanation, [the expression] is proper, but less so than the foregoing; and in this sense the following are conceded:

p. 266

The Son sends himself, and the Holy Spirit sends himself.

But because both to send and to be sent import emanation regarding the one sent, and the person of the Father does not emanate from anyone, similarly neither does the Trinity: therefore the person of the Father is nowhere read to have been sent, nor is the Trinity itself.

From this it is plain that this is simply and wholly proper: the Father sends the Son; this is less proper, yet does not depart from propriety: the Son sends himself; but this is wholly improper: the Father sends himself, or the Trinity itself21.

1. To what is objected to the contrary about given, that it is said relatively; it must be said that this is true insofar as to give asserts to communicate by a certain authority; the Master does not take it in this mode, but insofar as to give is the same as to communicate liberally and voluntarily.

2. To what is objected — that the Father is not sent because he is not22 from another — it must be said that it is not parallel, since both to send and to be sent import emanation in the one sent, as is plain to one who expounds. For the sense is: this person sends that one — that is, manifests his emanation; and: this one is sent by that one — that is, his emanation is manifested by that one. But this emanation is not always imported with respect23 to every person sending, since manifestation of emanation can be from someone from whom nevertheless the emanation itself is not; and therefore production is not posited in the one sending in the same way as emanation [is posited] in the one sent; and therefore it does not follow that, if the Father is not sent, the Holy Spirit does not send24.

3. To what is objected — where there is passive mission, there is subauthority — it must be said that this is true, not by reason that it is passive, but by that reason by which both passive and active note emanation in the one sent, as appeared in the exposition25. And because emanation is not always with respect to the one sending, therefore it is not necessary that authority always be imported in the one sending; but that reasoning would hold well, if it were the case that the principal signification of mission were emanation or production.

4. To what is objected — that to send imports distinction — it must be said that to send in one mode imports substantial difference, as when it imports lordship, as when it is said: God sends an angel; in another mode personal distinction, as when it imports authority in the one sending and subauthority in the one sent with respect to the one sending, as when it is said: the Father sends the Son. In the third mode it imports distinction only as far as the manner of understanding — just as when it is said: the will is an instrument moving itself — since the same is mover and moved — so26, when it is said: the Holy Spirit sends himself, the same is the one sending and the one sent, differing in account: the one sending, I say, insofar as he is God, but the one sent insofar as he is gift, as has been said before27.

5. To what is objected last about the reflection of the act, it must be said that it is true with respect to the principal signification, but not necessarily with respect to what is connoted; and by reason of the principal signification there is reflection of the person sending upon himself, so that it may be said: the one sending is the one sent.

Scholion

I. The second opinion reviewed in the corpus is that of William of Auxerre. The solution of this question, as the Holy Doctor [Bonaventure] well observes (here, ad 3), depends on the solution of another question (above, q. 1, in the Scholion) — namely, what is the principal signification of divine mission, whether it is procession or the manifestation of procession. For this manifestation is an action common to the three persons; and if so, then consequently to send according to its principal signification is something essential, not notional, while conversely to be sent [is notional]. From these principles other corollaries follow.

II. Notable is the principle expressed by the Seraphic [Doctor] in the corpus, which he always observes as an inviolable rule — namely: «We ought not to drag the authorities of the saints to our reasoning, but rather conversely to subject our reasoning to the authorities of the saints, where they do not contain manifest absurdity».

III. St. Thomas concords both in the Commentary and in the Summa; likewise Peter of Tarentaise «even in his very words», as Dionysius the Carthusian says. The other masters consent at least in the principal conclusion; nevertheless Giles of Rome attacks St. Thomas's reasonings. — Alex. Hal., Summa p. I, q. 72, m. 1, a. 1, 2, 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 1, 2; S. I, q. 43, a. 8. — Bl. Albert, here a. 5, 9, 11. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1; q. 3, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 1, 2. — Giles of Rome, here, second principal q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1, 2.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Libr. XV. de Trin. c. 19. n. 36; vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1.
    Book XV of On the Trinity, c. 19, n. 36; see here the Letter of the Master, c. 1.
  2. Cap. 5. n. 8.
    Chap. 5, n. 8 [of De Trinitate II].
  3. Vers. 1.
    Verse 1 [Isa. 61:1].
  4. Hic, c. 4. — Argumentum hoc Vat. cum cod. cc, sed contra ceteros codd. et ed. 1 nec non lit. Magistri, corrupte exhibet omittendo verba et Spiritus sanctus usque et hoc non facit.
    Here, c. 4 [of the Master's letter]. — This argument the Vatican edition with codex cc, but against the other codices and ed. 1 as well as the Letter of the Master, displays corruptly, omitting the words et Spiritus sanctus down to et hoc non facit.
  5. Cap. 14. n. 15: Quod autem datum est, et ad eum qui dedit refertur etc. Vide infra d. XVIII. lit. Magistri, c. 4.
    Chap. 14, n. 15 [of De Trinitate V]: But what is given is referred also to him who has given it, etc. See below d. 18, Letter of the Master, c. 4.
  6. Subaudi: personam. Ex mss. et ed. 1 substituimus quam loco quem, quod Vat. minus bene habet.
    Understand: person. From the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted quam (referring to personam) for quem, which the Vatican edition reads less well.
  7. Hic, c. 9, ubi et verba Augustini reperies. — Paulo infra post personae in cod. O explicative additur missae.
    Here, c. 9 [of the Master's letter], where you will also find Augustine's words. — A little further on, after personae, codex O adds missae by way of explanation.
  8. Cod. I hic repetit mittit.
    Codex I here repeats mittit.
  9. Vat. cum cod. cc mittat se et det se.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc reads mittat se et det se.
  10. Vat. cum cod. cc minus bene et contra alios codd. ac ed. 1 omittit idem.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc less well, and against the other codices and ed. 1, omits idem.
  11. Ed. 1, transpositis verbis, auctoritatem et subauctoritatem.
    Ed. 1, with the words transposed, reads auctoritatem et subauctoritatem.
  12. Libr. II. de Trin. c. 5. n. 8. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.
    Book II of On the Trinity, c. 5, n. 8. See here the Letter of the Master, c. 2.
  13. In cod. T hic repetitur facit. Mox post mittere adiecimus ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 particulam et.
    In codex T facit is here repeated. Soon after mittere we have added the particle et from the older manuscripts and ed. 1.
  14. In Vat. et cod. cc perperam deest etiam, quod tamen in aliis codd. et ed. 1 habetur. Paulo ante ed. 1 hanc materiam pro hac materia.
    In the Vatican edition and codex cc etiam is wrongly absent, which is nevertheless held by the other codices and ed. 1. A little before, ed. 1 reads hanc materiam for hac materia.
  15. In cod. T pro particula enim a secunda manu positum est tamen.
    In codex T, in place of the particle enim, tamen has been put by a second hand.
  16. Ex multis mss. ut A G I K P Q T V X Y aa ee ff et ed. 1 adiunximus non bene omissum et.
    From many manuscripts (A, G, I, K, P, Q, T, V, X, Y, aa, ee, ff) and ed. 1 we have added et, which had been wrongly omitted.
  17. Cod. Y principalius.
    Codex Y reads principalius.
  18. Cap. 7-9. — Mox fide vetustiorum mss. et ed. 1 substituimus quod pro quia.
    Chaps. 7–9 [of the Master's letter on this distinction]. — Soon after, on the testimony of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted quod for quia.
  19. Vat., antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 obnitentibus, omittit verbi, quod et ed. 1 paulo ante voci passivi praefigit. Paulo infra cod. O ista locutio loco illa.
    The Vatican edition, with the older manuscripts and ed. 1 against it, omits verbi, which ed. 1 also a little before prefixes to the word passivi. A little further on, codex O reads ista locutio in place of illa.
  20. Vat. cum aliquibus codd. perperam quoniam loco quando. Paulo infra post minus ex aliquibus tantum codd. ut G H Z et ed. 1 adiecimus quam ambiguitatis tollendae gratia.
    The Vatican edition with some codices wrongly reads quoniam in place of quando. A little further on, after minus, from a few codices only (G, H, Z) and ed. 1, we have added quam for the sake of removing ambiguity.
  21. Vat. ultimas propositiones corrupte et praeter fidem mss. ita exhibet: patet, quod haec est simpliciter et omnino impropria: Pater mittit se sive ipsa Trinitas: quia receditur a proprietate personarum et Trinitatis. Illa vero est simpliciter et omnino propria: Pater mittit Filium, cum a nullius proprietate recedatur. Ed. 1 in eo a codd. discordat, quod post Filium ita prosequitur: et ista similiter: Pater et Filius mittunt Spiritum sanctum; et haec est minus propria: Filius vel Spiritus sanctus mittit se, vel Spiritus sanctus mittit Filium; haec autem omnino impropria etc.
    The Vatican edition displays the final propositions corruptly and against the testimony of the manuscripts thus: it is plain that this is simply and wholly improper: the Father sends himself, or the Trinity itself: because there is a departure from the property of the persons and of the Trinity. That, however, is simply and wholly proper: the Father sends the Son, since there is no departure from anyone's property. Ed. 1 differs from the codices in this, that after Filium it continues thus: and this likewise: the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit; and this is less proper: the Son or the Holy Spirit sends himself, or the Holy Spirit sends the Son; but this is wholly improper, etc.
  22. Multis mss. ut A G H I K N T V X Y Z aa ee ff et ed. 1 postulantibus, adiunximus est.
    With many manuscripts demanding it (A, G, H, I, K, N, T, V, X, Y, Z, aa, ee, ff) and ed. 1, we have added est.
  23. Vat. contra fere omnes codd. et ed. 1 non ita distincte importat respectum. Paulo infra post manifestatio loco emanationis plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 ponunt missionis, quod tamen contextui minus respondet.
    The Vatican edition, against nearly all the codices and ed. 1, reads non ita distincte importat respectum ("it does not so distinctly import a respect"). A little further on, after manifestatio, in place of emanationis, most codices with editions 1, 2, 3 put missionis, which, however, corresponds less to the context.
  24. Vat. cum ed. 1 et uno alterove codice mittatur, sed male, utpote non correspondens obiectioni.
    The Vatican edition with ed. 1 and one or another codex reads mittatur, but wrongly, since it does not correspond to the objection.
  25. Hic circa finem responsionis.
    Here, near the end of the response.
  26. Praeferimus lectionem nonnullorum mss. ut R T X Y et ed. 1 pro similiter ponendo sic, loco cuius multi codd. ut A C F G H I K L O S U W Z etc. minus apte habent sicut.
    We prefer the reading of certain manuscripts (R, T, X, Y) and ed. 1 in putting sic in place of similiter; where many codices (A, C, F, G, H, I, K, L, O, S, U, W, Z, etc.) less aptly have sicut.
  27. Hic, in corp.
    Here, in the corpus [of the response].
← Dist. 15, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 15, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1→