Dist. 16, Divisio Textus
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 16
COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVI.
De missione Spiritus sancti specialiter, et quidem de visibili.
Nunc de Spiritu sancto videndum est, praeter illam ineffabilem etc.
DIVISIO TEXTUS.
Haec est secunda pars illius partis, in qua agit de missione quantum ad modum. In hac parte agit de missione Spiritus sancti specialiter1. Et quoniam missio Spiritus sancti duobus modis est, scilicet visibilis et invisibilis, sicut missio Filii: ideo haec pars habet duas partes. In prima agit Magi-
ster de missione Spiritus sancti visibili. In secunda agit de missione2 invisibili, et hoc infra distinctione decima septima: «Iam nunc accedamus ad assignandam missionem Spiritus sancti».
Prima iterum pars habet duas. In prima Magister explicat Spiritus sancti visibilem missionem. In secunda ad maiorem explanationem movet et determinat dubitationem quandam, ibi: «Sed prius quaerendum est, cum Filius dicatur minor Patre» etc.
Prima iterum3 pars habet duas. In prima Magister assignat duplicem modum missionis Spiritus sancti secundum duplicem modum missionis Filii. Secundo vero prosequitur de altera, scilicet missione visibili, ibi: «Et primo agamus de illo modo missionis, qui fit visibiliter» etc., ubi dicit, quod missio visibilis est apparitio facta in exteriori signo, per quod monstratur missio interior.
«Sed prius quaerendum est, cum Filius dicatur minor Patre» etc. Haec est secunda pars distinctionis4, in qua Magister movet dubitationem, et habet haec dubitatio ortum ex comparatione missionis Filii et Spiritus sancti. Cum enim Spiritus sanctus mittatur visibiliter, sicut et Filius, quaestio est, quare non dicitur minor Patre, ut Filius. Haec autem pars, in qua hanc quaestionem prosequitur5, habet tres partes. In prima opponit et determinat, quod Spiritus sanctus non debet dici ex missione minor, sicut Filius, quia Spiritus sanctus non est unitus. Secundo6, occasione huius adiungit quoddam verum huic annexum, scilicet quod Filius ratione missionis dicitur minor se ipso, ibi: «Notandum autem, quod Filius, secundum quod homo factus est». Tertio docet sane intelligere quoddam verbum dubium, quod est praesenti considerationi coniunctum, quod dicit Hilarius, scilicet quod Pater secundum divinitatem est maior Filio, et7 Filius secundum divinitatem non est minor, ibi: «Hilarius autem dicere videtur, quod Pater sit» etc.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad evidentiam huius partis quaeruntur tria de missione visibili:
Primo quaeritur8, quid sit.
Secundo, ad quid sit utilis.
Tertio quaeritur, quibus modis facta sit.
---
COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVI.
On the mission of the Holy Spirit specifically, and indeed on its visible [mode].
Now we must consider, concerning the Holy Spirit, beyond that ineffable etc.
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
This is the second part of that part in which [the Master] treats of mission with respect to mode. In this part he treats of the mission of the Holy Spirit specifically1. And since the mission of the Holy Spirit is in two ways — namely visible and invisible, just as the mission of the Son [is] — therefore this part has two [sub]parts. In the first the Master
treats of the visible mission of the Holy Spirit. In the second he treats of the invisible mission2, and this below in distinction seventeen: «Now then let us approach the assigning of the mission of the Holy Spirit».
The first [part] in turn has two. In the first the Master explains the visible mission of the Holy Spirit. In the second, for the sake of fuller explanation, he raises and settles a certain doubt, at: «But first it must be asked, since the Son is said to be lesser than the Father» etc.
The first3 [part] in turn has two. In the first the Master assigns a twofold mode of mission of the Holy Spirit corresponding to the twofold mode of mission of the Son. In the second he pursues the other, namely the visible mission, at: «And first let us treat of that mode of mission which is made visibly» etc., where he says that the visible mission is an appearance made in an external sign, by which the interior mission is shown forth.
«But first it must be asked, since the Son is said to be lesser than the Father» etc. This is the second part of the distinction4, in which the Master raises a doubt — and this doubt has its origin in the comparison of the mission of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For since the Holy Spirit is sent visibly just as the Son [is], the question is why he is not called lesser than the Father, as the Son is. And this part, in which he pursues this question5, has three parts. In the first he objects and determines that the Holy Spirit ought not to be called lesser on account of [his] mission, as the Son [is], because the Holy Spirit is not united. Secondly6, on this occasion he adjoins a certain truth annexed to it, namely that the Son by reason of his mission is called lesser than himself, at: «It must be noted, however, that the Son, according as he was made man». Thirdly he teaches how to understand soundly a certain doubtful word which is joined to the present consideration — what Hilary says, namely that the Father according to divinity is greater than the Son, and7 [yet] the Son according to divinity is not lesser, at: «Hilary, however, seems to say that the Father is» etc.
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
For the elucidation of this part three [questions] are asked concerning the visible mission:
First it is asked8, what it is.
Second, to what it is useful.
Third it is asked, in what ways it has been made.
---
- Vat. contra auctoritatem omnium codd. et ed. 1 primam propositionem ita exhibet: Supra egit Magister de temporali processione Spiritus sancti, qua procedit vel mittitur a se ipso, hic agit de eadem processione in modum dicendi. Ex omnibus etc., sed falso, ut patet ex divisione textus 15. p. I. et II.The Vatican edition, against the authority of all the codices and ed. 1, sets out the opening proposition thus: «Above the Master treated of the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit, by which he proceeds or is sent from himself; here he treats of the same procession with respect to its manner. From all etc.» — but falsely, as is plain from the division of the text of dist. 15, parts I and II.
- In Vat. contra mss. deest missione.In the Vatican edition, against the manuscripts, missione is missing.
- Ex mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus iterum.From the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied iterum ("again").
- Vat., omissis verbis Magistri, ita propositionem exhibet: Similiter secunda pars, in qua, et paulo infra ponit quae habet hanc dubitationem, obnitentibus mss. et edd. 1.The Vatican edition, with the Master's words omitted, sets out the proposition thus: Similiter secunda pars, in qua, and a little below puts quae habet hanc dubitationem — against the manuscripts and ed. 1.
- In Vat. desunt verba Haec autem pars, in qua quaestionem prosequitur, quae tamen exstant in mss. et ed. 1.In the Vatican edition the words Haec autem pars, in qua quaestionem prosequitur ("And this part, in which he pursues the question") are missing — though they stand in the manuscripts and ed. 1.
- Codd. cum ed. 1 Et pro Secundo, sed minus distincte.The codices with ed. 1 [read] Et for Secundo, but less distinctly.
- Fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus et.On the credit of the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have added et.
- Ex vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1 restituimus quaeritur. Paulo post in principio quaestionis restituimus ex codd. et ed. 1 verba: Circa primum proceditur sic, quae desunt in Vat.From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have restored quaeritur ("it is asked"). A little after, at the beginning of the question, we have restored from the codices and ed. 1 the words: Circa primum proceditur sic ("Concerning the first one proceeds thus"), which are missing in the Vatican edition.