I. Opinion of Peter Lombard

5. [Exposition of the Opinion] - On this question it seems to be the opinion of the Master that being sent does not agree with the three persons but only with the two persons that proceed.

For according to Augustine no person is sent save him that has another from whom he is, and in this way ‘to be sent’ asserts a respect to the creature yet with connotation of the respect of eternal procession.

6. But ‘to send’ is common to the three, according to the Master.

His proof is from the authority of Augustine On the Trinity II ch.5 n.8, where Augustine says about the Son that “the Son cannot be sent by the Father without the Holy Spirit,” and his proof is: “because the Father is understood to have sent him by the fact that he made him from a woman, which the Father did not do without the Holy Spirit;” therefore the Holy Spirit sends the Son, - and it is agreed that the Son himself sends himself, as is got from the same Augustine and in the same On the Trinity II ch.8; therefore ‘to send’ belongs to each person.

7. And this point the Master proves by reason, because otherwise one person of the Trinity would do what another does not do, although ‘to send’ is to cause an effect outwardly.

8. [Rejection of the opinion] - An argument can be made against this opinion:

If ‘to be sent’ involves in some way a double respect, eternal and temporal, since it only states a respect either to him for whom he is sent or to him who sends, it is plain that the first is common to the three, because it is a respect of reason outwardly; but the second is either a real respect or a respect of reason; if it is a respect of reason, then it can be in the Father with respect to himself, just as the Father can give and be given, for ‘to be sent’ by way of a mere respect of reason is not repugnant to the Father; if ‘to be sent’ states a real respect to the sender, namely procession from the sender, then ‘to send’ is not an essential feature, because then the Holy Spirit would not send the Son because he does not produce the Son.

9. Besides, ‘to send’ and ‘to be sent’ seem to mean the same thing, although in diverse ways according to their grammatical forms; if then one of them connotes some respect inwardly, the other too will connote it, - if therefore ‘to be sent’ connotes ‘to be produced’, then ‘to send’ connotes ‘to produce’, and so neither is purely essential; or if one of them does not connote a respect inwardly, neither does the other but only a respect outwardly, - and in this way both will be common to the three.

10. And this is what can thus briefly be argued: if ‘to be sent’ includes ‘to be produced’, then ‘to send’ includes ‘to produce’; therefore the Holy Spirit does not send the Son because he does not produce him. - Besides, ‘to send’ and ‘to be sent’ seem to state opposite relations; therefore if ‘to send’ does not include ‘to produce’, then neither does its correlative include the correlative.