St. Thomas Aquinas

The Summa Theologica

(Benziger Bros. edition, 1947)
Translated by
Fathers of the English Dominican Province

Index [<<� | >>]
First Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 43 [ << | >> ]


Deinde considerandum de missione divinarum personarum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. We next consider the mission of the divine persons, concerning which there are eight points of inquiry:
Primo, utrum alicui divinae personae conveniat mitti. (1) Whether it is suitable for a divine person to be sent?
Secundo, utrum missio sit aeterna, vel temporalis tantum. (2) Whether mission is eternal, or only temporal?
Tertio, secundum quid divina persona invisibiliter mittatur. (3) In what sense a divine person is invisibly sent?
Quarto, utrum cuilibet personae conveniat mitti. (4) Whether it is fitting that each person be sent?
Quinto, utrum invisibiliter mittatur tam filius, quam spiritus sanctus. (5) Whether both the Son and the Holy Ghost are invisibly sent?
Sexto, ad quos fiat missio invisibilis. (6) To whom the invisible mission is directed?
Septimo, de missione visibili. (7) Of the visible mission
Octavo, utrum aliqua persona mittat seipsam, visibiliter aut invisibiliter. (8) Whether any person sends Himself visibly or invisibly?

Index [<<� | >>]
First Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 43 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1  [ << | >> ]

Whether a divine person can be properly sent?

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod personae divinae non conveniat mitti. Missus enim minor est mittente. Sed una persona divina non est minor alia. Ergo una persona non mittitur ab alia. Objection 1: It would seem that a divine person cannot be properly sent. For one who is sent is less than the sender. But one divine person is not less than another. Therefore one person is not sent by another.
Praeterea, omne quod mittitur, separatur a mittente, unde Hieronymus dicit, super Ezechiel., quod coniunctum est, et in corpore uno copulatum, mitti non potest. Sed in divinis personis nihil est separabile, ut Hilarius dicit. Ergo una persona non mittitur ab alia. Objection 2: Further, what is sent is separated from the sender; hence Jerome says, commenting on Ezech. 16:53: "What is joined and tied in one body cannot be sent." But in the divine persons there is nothing that is separable, as Hilary says (De Trin. vii). Therefore one person is not sent by another.
Praeterea, quicumque mittitur, ab aliquo loco discedit, et ad aliquem locum de novo vadit. Hoc autem divinae personae non convenit, cum ubique sit. Ergo divinae personae non convenit mitti. Objection 3: Further, whoever is sent, departs from one place and comes anew into another. But this does not apply to a divine person, Who is everywhere. Therefore it is not suitable for a divine person to be sent.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. VIII, non sum ego solus, sed ego et qui misit me, pater. On the contrary, It is said (Jn. 8:16): "I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent Me."
Respondeo dicendum quod in ratione missionis duo importantur, quorum unum est habitudo missi ad eum a quo mittitur; aliud est habitudo missi ad terminum ad quem mittitur. Per hoc autem quod aliquis mittitur, ostenditur processio quaedam missi a mittente; vel secundum imperium, sicut dominus mittit servum; vel secundum consilium, ut si consiliarius mittere dicatur regem ad bellandum; vel secundum originem, ut si dicatur quod flos emittitur ab arbore. Ostenditur etiam habitudo ad terminum ad quem mittitur, ut aliquo modo ibi esse incipiat; vel quia prius ibi omnino non erat quo mittitur; vel quia incipit ibi aliquo modo esse, quo prius non erat. Missio igitur divinae personae convenire potest, secundum quod importat ex una parte processionem originis a mittente; et secundum quod importat ex alia parte novum modum existendi in aliquo. Sicut filius dicitur esse missus a patre in mundum, secundum quod incoepit esse in mundo visibiliter per carnem assumptam, et tamen ante in mundo erat, ut dicitur Ioan. I. I answer that, the notion of mission includes two things: the habitude of the one sent to the sender; and that of the one sent to the end whereto he is sent. Anyone being sent implies a certain kind of procession of the one sent from the sender: either according to command, as the master sends the servant; or according to counsel, as an adviser may be said to send the king to battle; or according to origin, as a tree sends forth its flowers. The habitude to the term to which he is sent is also shown, so that in some way he begins to be present there: either because in no way was he present before in the place whereto he is sent, or because he begins to be there in some way in which he was not there hitherto. Thus the mission of a divine person is a fitting thing, as meaning in one way the procession of origin from the sender, and as meaning a new way of existing in another; thus the Son is said to be sent by the Father into the world, inasmuch as He began to exist visibly in the world by taking our nature; whereas "He was" previously "in the world" (Jn. 1:1).
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod missio importat minorationem in eo qui mittitur, secundum quod importat processionem a principio mittente aut secundum imperium, aut secundum consilium, quia imperans est maior, et consilians est sapientior. Sed in divinis non importat nisi processionem originis; quae est secundum aequalitatem, ut supra dictum est. Reply to Objection 1: Mission implies inferiority in the one sent, when it means procession from the sender as principle, by command or counsel; forasmuch as the one commanding is the greater, and the counsellor is the wiser. In God, however, it means only procession of origin, which is according to equality, as explained above (Question [42], Articles [4],6).
Ad secundum dicendum quod illud quod sic mittitur ut incipiat esse ubi prius nullo modo erat, sua missione localiter movetur, unde oportet quod loco separetur a mittente. Sed hoc non accidit in missione divinae personae, quia persona divina missa, sicut non incipit esse ubi prius non fuerat, ita nec desinit esse ubi fuerat. Unde talis missio est sine separatione; sed habet solam distinctionem originis. Reply to Objection 2: What is so sent as to begin to exist where previously it did not exist, is locally moved by being sent; hence it is necessarily separated locally from the sender. This, however, has no place in the mission of a divine person; for the divine person sent neither begins to exist where he did not previously exist, nor ceases to exist where He was. Hence such a mission takes place without a separation, having only distinction of origin.
Ad tertium dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de missione quae fit secundum motum localem; quae non habet locum in divinis. Reply to Objection 3: This objection rests on the idea of mission according to local motion, which is not in God.

Index [<<� | >>]
First Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 43 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2  [ << | >> ]

Whether mission is eternal, or only temporal?

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod missio possit esse aeterna. Dicit enim Gregorius, eo mittitur filius, quo generatur. Sed generatio filii est aeterna. Ergo et missio. Objection 1: It would seem that mission can be eternal. For Gregory says (Hom. xxvi, in Ev.), "The Son is sent as He is begotten." But the Son's generation is eternal. Therefore mission is eternal.
Praeterea, cuicumque convenit aliquid temporaliter, illud mutatur. Sed persona divina non mutatur. Ergo missio divinae personae non est temporalis, sed aeterna. Objection 2: Further, a thing is changed if it becomes something temporally. But a divine person is not changed. Therefore the mission of a divine person is not temporal, but eternal.
Praeterea, missio processionem importat. Sed processio divinarum personarum est aeterna. Ergo et missio. Objection 3: Further, mission implies procession. But the procession of the divine persons is eternal. Therefore mission is also eternal.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Galat. IV, cum venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus filium suum. On the contrary, It is said (Gal. 4:4): "When the fullness of the time was come, God sent His Son."
Respondeo dicendum quod in his quae important originem divinarum personarum, est quaedam differentia attendenda. Quaedam enim in sui significatione important solam habitudinem ad principium, ut processio et exitus. Quaedam vero, cum habitudine ad principium, determinant processionis terminum. Quorum quaedam determinant terminum aeternum, sicut generatio et spiratio, nam generatio est processio divinae personae in naturam divinam; et spiratio, passive accepta, importat processionem amoris subsistentis. Quaedam vero, cum habitudine ad principium, important terminum temporalem, sicut missio et datio, mittitur enim aliquid ad hoc ut sit in aliquo, et datur ad hoc quod habeatur; personam autem divinam haberi ab aliqua creatura, vel esse novo modo existendi in ea, est quoddam temporale. I answer that, A certain difference is to be observed in all the words that express the origin of the divine persons. For some express only relation to the principle, as "procession" and "going forth." Others express the term of procession together with the relation to the principle. Of these some express the eternal term, as "generation" and "spiration"; for generation is the procession of the divine person into the divine nature, and passive spiration is the procession of the subsisting love. Others express the temporal term with the relation to the principle, as "mission" and "giving." For a thing is sent that it may be in something else, and is given that it may be possessed; but that a divine person be possessed by any creature, or exist in it in a new mode, is temporal.
Unde missio et datio in divinis dicuntur temporaliter tantum. Generatio autem et spiratio solum ab aeterno. Processio autem et exitus dicuntur in divinis et aeternaliter et temporaliter, nam filius ab aeterno processit ut sit Deus; temporaliter autem ut etiam sit homo, secundum missionem visibilem; vel etiam ut sit in homine, secundum invisibilem missionem. Hence "mission" and "giving" have only a temporal significance in God; but "generation" and "spiration" are exclusively eternal; whereas "procession" and "giving," in God, have both an eternal and a temporal signification: for the Son may proceed eternally as God; but temporally, by becoming man, according to His visible mission, or likewise by dwelling in man according to His invisible mission.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Gregorius loquitur de generatione temporali filii, non a patre, sed a matre. Vel, quia ex hoc ipso filius habet quod possit mitti, quod est ab aeterno genitus. Reply to Objection 1: Gregory speaks of the temporal generation of the Son, not from the Father, but from His mother; or it may be taken to mean that He could be sent because eternally begotten.
Ad secundum dicendum quod divinam personam esse novo modo in aliquo, vel ab aliquo haberi temporaliter, non est propter mutationem divinae personae, sed propter mutationem creaturae, sicut et Deus temporaliter dicitur dominus, propter mutationem creaturae. Reply to Objection 2: That a divine person may newly exist in anyone, or be possessed by anyone in time, does not come from change of the divine person, but from change in the creature; as God Himself is called Lord temporally by change of the creature.
Ad tertium dicendum quod missio non solum importat processionem a principio, sed determinat processionis terminum temporalem. Unde missio solum est temporalis. Vel, missio includit processionem aeternam, et aliquid addit, scilicet temporalem effectum, habitudo enim divinae personae ad suum principium non est nisi ab aeterno. Unde gemina dicitur processio, aeterna scilicet et temporalis, non propter hoc quod habitudo ad principium geminetur, sed geminatio est ex parte termini temporalis et aeterni. Reply to Objection 3: Mission signifies not only procession from the principle, but also determines the temporal term of the procession. Hence mission is only temporal. Or we may say that it includes the eternal procession, with the addition of a temporal effect. For the relation of a divine person to His principle must be eternal. Hence the procession may be called a twin procession, eternal and temporal, not that there is a double relation to the principle, but a double term, temporal and eternal.

Index [<<� | >>]
First Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 43 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3  [ << | >> ]

Whether the invisible mission of the divine person is only according to the gift of sanctifying grace?

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod missio invisibilis divinae personae non sit solum secundum donum gratiae gratum facientis. Divinam enim personam mitti, est ipsam donari. Si igitur divina persona mittitur solum secundum dona gratiae gratum facientis, non donabitur ipsa persona divina, sed solum dona eius. Quod est error dicentium spiritum sanctum non dari, sed eius dona. Objection 1: It would seem that the invisible mission of the divine person is not only according to the gift of sanctifying grace. For the sending of a divine person means that He is given. Hence if the divine person is sent only according to the gift of sanctifying grace, the divine person Himself will not be given, but only His gifts; and this is the error of those who say that the Holy Ghost is not given, but that His gifts are given.
Praeterea, haec praepositio secundum denotat habitudinem alicuius causae. Sed persona divina est causa quod habeatur donum gratiae gratum facientis, et non e converso; secundum illud Rom. V, caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum, qui datus est nobis. Ergo inconvenienter dicitur quod persona divina secundum dona gratiae gratum facientis mittatur. Objection 2: Further, this preposition, "according to," denotes the habitude of some cause. But the divine person is the cause why the gift of sanctifying grace is possessed, and not conversely, according to Rm. 5:5, "the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, Who is given to us." Therefore it is improperly said that the divine person is sent according to the gift of sanctifying grace.
Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, IV de Trin., quod filius, cum ex tempore mente percipitur, mitti dicitur. Sed filius cognoscitur non solum per gratiam gratum facientem, sed etiam per gratiam gratis datam, sicut per fidem et per scientiam. Non ergo persona divina mittitur secundum solam gratiam gratum facientem. Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20) that "the Son, when temporally perceived by the mind, is sent." But the Son is known not only by sanctifying grace, but also by gratuitous grace, as by faith and knowledge. Therefore the divine person is not sent only according to the gift of sanctifying grace.
Praeterea, Rabanus dicit quod spiritus sanctus datus est apostolis ad operationem miraculorum. Hoc autem non est donum gratiae gratum facientis, sed gratiae gratis datae. Ergo persona divina non solum datur secundum gratiam gratum facientem. Objection 4: Further, Rabanus says that the Holy Ghost was given to the apostles for the working of miracles. This, however, is not a gift of sanctifying grace, but a gratuitous grace. Therefore the divine person is not given only according to the gift of sanctifying grace.
Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XV de Trin., quod spiritus sanctus procedit temporaliter ad sanctificandam creaturam. Missio autem est temporalis processio. Cum igitur sanctificatio creaturae non sit nisi per gratiam gratum facientem, sequitur quod missio divinae personae non sit nisi per gratiam gratum facientem. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 4) that "the Holy Ghost proceeds temporally for the creature's sanctification." But mission is a temporal procession. Since then the creature's sanctification is by sanctifying grace, it follows that the mission of the divine person is only by sanctifying grace.
Respondeo dicendum quod divinae personae convenit mitti, secundum quod novo modo existit in aliquo; dari autem, secundum quod habetur ab aliquo. Neutrum autem horum est nisi secundum gratiam gratum facientem. I answer that, The divine person is fittingly sent in the sense that He exists newly in any one; and He is given as possessed by anyone; and neither of these is otherwise than by sanctifying grace.
Est enim unus communis modus quo Deus est in omnibus rebus per essentiam, potentiam et praesentiam, sicut causa in effectibus participantibus bonitatem ipsius. Super istum modum autem communem, est unus specialis, qui convenit creaturae rationali, in qua Deus dicitur esse sicut cognitum in cognoscente et amatum in amante. Et quia, cognoscendo et amando, creatura rationalis sua operatione attingit ad ipsum Deum, secundum istum specialem modum Deus non solum dicitur esse in creatura rationali, sed etiam habitare in ea sicut in templo suo. Sic igitur nullus alius effectus potest esse ratio quod divina persona sit novo modo in rationali creatura, nisi gratia gratum faciens. Unde secundum solam gratiam gratum facientem, mittitur et procedit temporaliter persona divina. For God is in all things by His essence, power and presence, according to His one common mode, as the cause existing in the effects which participate in His goodness. Above and beyond this common mode, however, there is one special mode belonging to the rational nature wherein God is said to be present as the object known is in the knower, and the beloved in the lover. And since the rational creature by its operation of knowledge and love attains to God Himself, according to this special mode God is said not only to exist in the rational creature but also to dwell therein as in His own temple. So no other effect can be put down as the reason why the divine person is in the rational creature in a new mode, except sanctifying grace. Hence, the divine person is sent, and proceeds temporally only according to sanctifying grace.
Similiter illud solum habere dicimur, quo libere possumus uti vel frui. Habere autem potestatem fruendi divina persona, est solum secundum gratiam gratum facientem. Sed tamen in ipso dono gratiae gratum facientis, spiritus sanctus habetur, et inhabitat hominem. Unde ipsemet spiritus sanctus datur et mittitur. Again, we are said to possess only what we can freely use or enjoy: and to have the power of enjoying the divine person can only be according to sanctifying grace. And yet the Holy Ghost is possessed by man, and dwells within him, in the very gift itself of sanctifying grace. Hence the Holy Ghost Himself is given and sent.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod per donum gratiae gratum facientis perficitur creatura rationalis, ad hoc quod libere non solum ipso dono creato utatur, sed ut ipsa divina persona fruatur. Et ideo missio invisibilis fit secundum donum gratiae gratum facientis, et tamen ipsa persona divina datur. Reply to Objection 1: By the gift of sanctifying grace the rational creature is perfected so that it can freely use not only the created gift itself, but enjoy also the divine person Himself; and so the invisible mission takes place according to the gift of sanctifying grace; and yet the divine person Himself is given.
Ad secundum dicendum quod gratia gratum faciens disponit animam ad habendam divinam personam, et significatur hoc, cum dicitur quod spiritus sanctus datur secundum donum gratiae. Sed tamen ipsum donum gratiae est a spiritu sancto, et hoc significatur, cum dicitur quod caritas Dei diffunditur in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum. Reply to Objection 2: Sanctifying grace disposes the soul to possess the divine person; and this is signified when it is said that the Holy Ghost is given according to the gift of grace. Nevertheless the gift itself of grace is from the Holy Ghost; which is meant by the words, "the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost."
Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet per aliquos effectus filius cognosci possit a nobis, non tamen per aliquos effectus nos inhabitat, vel etiam habetur a nobis. Reply to Objection 3: Although the Son can be known by us according to other effects, yet neither does He dwell in us, nor is He possessed by us according to those effects.
Ad quartum dicendum quod operatio miraculorum est manifestativa gratiae gratum facientis, sicut et donum prophetiae, et quaelibet gratia gratis data. Unde I Cor. XII, gratia gratis data nominatur manifestatio spiritus. Sic igitur apostolis dicitur datus spiritus sanctus ad operationem miraculorum, quia data est eis gratia gratum faciens cum signo manifestante. Si autem daretur solum signum gratiae gratum facientis sine gratia, non diceretur dari simpliciter spiritus sanctus; nisi forte cum aliqua determinatione, secundum quod dicitur quod alicui datur spiritus propheticus vel miraculorum, inquantum a spiritu sancto habet virtutem prophetandi vel miracula faciendi. Reply to Objection 4: The working of miracles manifests sanctifying grace as also does the gift of prophecy and any other gratuitous graces. Hence gratuitous grace is called the "manifestation of the Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:7). So the Holy Ghost is said to be given to the apostles for the working of miracles, because sanctifying grace was given to them with the outward sign. Were the sign only of sanctifying grace given to them without the grace itself, it would not be simply said that the Holy Ghost was given, except with some qualifying term; just as we read of certain ones receiving the gift of the spirit of prophecy, or of miracles, as having from the Holy Ghost the power of prophesying or of working miracles.

Index [<<� | >>]
First Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 43 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4  [ << | >> ]

Whether the Father can be fittingly sent?

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod etiam patri conveniat mitti. Mitti enim divinam personam est ipsam dari. Sed pater dat seipsum, cum haberi non possit, nisi se ipso donante. Ergo potest dici quod pater mittat seipsum.. Objection 1: It would seem that it is fitting also that the Father should be sent. For being sent means that the divine person is given. But the Father gives Himself since He can only be possessed by His giving Himself. Therefore it can be said that the Father sends Himself.
Praeterea, persona divina mittitur secundum inhabitationem gratiae. Sed per gratiam tota Trinitas inhabitat in nobis, secundum illud Ioan. XIV, ad eum veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus. Ergo quaelibet divinarum personarum mittitur. Objection 2: Further, the divine person is sent according to the indwelling of grace. But by grace the whole Trinity dwells in us according to Jn. 14:23: "We will come to him and make Our abode with him." Therefore each one of the divine persons is sent.
Praeterea, quidquid convenit alicui personae, convenit omnibus, praeter notiones et personas. Sed missio non significat aliquam personam, neque etiam notionem, cum sint tantum quinque notiones, ut supra dictum est. Ergo cuilibet personae divinae convenit mitti. Objection 3: Further, whatever belongs to one person, belongs to them all, except the notions and persons. But mission does not signify any person; nor even a notion, since there are only five notions, as stated above (Question [32], Article [3]). Therefore every divine person can be sent.
Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in II libro de Trin., quod solus pater nunquam legitur missus On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. ii, 3), "The Father alone is never described as being sent."
Respondeo dicendum quod missio in sui ratione importat processionem ab alio; et in divinis, secundum originem, ut supra dictum est. Unde, cum pater non sit ab alio, nullo modo convenit sibi mitti; sed solum filio et spiritui sancto, quibus convenit esse ab alio. I answer that, The very idea of mission means procession from another, and in God it means procession according to origin, as above expounded. Hence, as the Father is not from another, in no way is it fitting for Him to be sent; but this can only belong to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, to Whom it belongs to be from another.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod si dare importet liberalem communicationem alicuius, sic pater dat seipsum, inquantum se liberaliter communicat creaturae ad fruendum. Si vero importet auctoritatem dantis respectu eius quod datur, sic non convenit dari in divinis nisi personae quae est ab alio; sicut nec mitti. Reply to Objection 1: In the sense of "giving" as a free bestowal of something, the Father gives Himself, as freely bestowing Himself to be enjoyed by the creature. But as implying the authority of the giver as regards what is given, "to be given" only applies in God to the Person Who is from another; and the same as regards "being sent."
Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet effectus gratiae sit etiam a patre, qui inhabitat per gratiam, sicut et filius et spiritus sanctus; quia tamen non est ab alio, non dicitur mitti. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus, IV de Trin., quod pater, cum in tempore a quoquam cognoscitur, non dicitur missus, non enim habet de quo sit, aut ex quo procedat. Reply to Objection 2: Although the effect of grace is also from the Father, Who dwells in us by grace, just as the Son and the Holy Ghost, still He is not described as being sent, for He is not from another. Thus Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20) that "The Father, when known by anyone in time, is not said to be sent; for there is no one whence He is, or from whom He proceeds."
Ad tertium dicendum quod missio, inquantum importat processionem a mittente, includit in sui significatione notionem, non quidem in speciali, sed in generali, prout esse ab alio est commune duabus notionibus. Reply to Objection 3: Mission, meaning procession from the sender, includes the signification of a notion, not of a special notion, but in general; thus "to be from another" is common to two of the notions.

Index [<<� | >>]
First Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 43 [ << | >> ]
Article: 5  [ << | >> ]

Whether it is fitting for the Son to be sent invisibly?

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod filio non conveniat invisibiliter mitti. Missio enim invisibilis divinae personae attenditur secundum dona gratiae. Sed omnia dona gratiae pertinent ad spiritum sanctum, secundum illud I Cor. XII, omnia operatur unus atque idem spiritus. Ergo invisibiliter non mittitur nisi spiritus sanctus. Objection 1: It would seem that it is not fitting for the Son to be sent invisibly. For invisible mission of the divine person is according to the gift of grace. But all gifts of grace belong to the Holy Ghost, according to 1 Cor. 12:11: "One and the same Spirit worketh all things." Therefore only the Holy Ghost is sent invisibly.
Praeterea, missio divinae personae fit secundum gratiam gratum facientem. Sed dona quae pertinent ad perfectionem intellectus, non sunt dona gratiae gratum facientis, cum sine caritate possint haberi, secundum illud I ad Cor. XIII, si habuero prophetiam, et noverim mysteria omnia, et omnem scientiam, et si habuero omnem fidem, ita ut montes transferam, caritatem autem non habeam, nihil sum. Cum ergo filius procedat ut verbum intellectus, videtur quod non conveniat sibi invisibiliter mitti. Objection 2: Further, the mission of the divine person is according to sanctifying grace. But the gifts belonging to the perfection of the intellect are not gifts of sanctifying grace, since they can be held without the gift of charity, according to 1 Cor. 13:2: "If I should have prophecy, and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith so that I could move mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." Therefore, since the Son proceeds as the word of the intellect, it seems unfitting for Him to be sent invisibly.
Praeterea, missio divinae personae est quaedam processio, ut dictum est. Sed alia est processio filii, alia spiritus sancti. Ergo et alia missio, si uterque mittitur. Et sic altera earum superflueret, cum una sit sufficiens ad sanctificandam creaturam. Objection 3: Further, the mission of the divine person is a procession, as expounded above (Articles [1],4). But the procession of the Son and of the Holy Ghost differ from each other. Therefore they are distinct missions if both are sent; and then one of them would be superfluous, since one would suffice for the creature's sanctification.
Sed contra est quod Sap. IX dicitur de divina sapientia, mitte illam de caelis sanctis tuis, et a sede magnitudinis tuae. On the contrary, It is said of divine Wisdom (Wis. 9:10): "Send her from heaven to Thy Saints, and from the seat of Thy greatness."
Respondeo dicendum quod per gratiam gratum facientem tota Trinitas inhabitat mentem, secundum illud Ioan. XIV, ad eum veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus. Mitti autem personam divinam ad aliquem per invisibilem gratiam, significat novum modum inhabitandi illius personae, et originem eius ab alia. Unde, cum tam filio quam spiritui sancto conveniat et inhabitare per gratiam et ab alio esse, utrique convenit invisibiliter mitti. Patri autem licet conveniat inhabitare per gratiam, non tamen sibi convenit ab alio esse; et per consequens nec mitti. I answer that, The whole Trinity dwells in the mind by sanctifying grace, according to Jn. 14:23: "We will come to him, and will make Our abode with him." But that a divine person be sent to anyone by invisible grace signifies both that this person dwells in a new way within him and that He has His origin from another. Hence, since both to the Son and to the Holy Ghost it belongs to dwell in the soul by grace, and to be from another, it therefore belongs to both of them to be invisibly sent. As to the Father, though He dwells in us by grace, still it does not belong to Him to be from another, and consequently He is not sent.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet omnia dona, inquantum dona sunt, attribuantur spiritui sancto, quia habet rationem primi doni, secundum quod est amor, ut supra dictum est; aliqua tamen dona, secundum proprias rationes, attribuuntur per quandam appropriationem filio, scilicet illa quae pertinent ad intellectum et secundum illa dona attenditur missio filii. Unde Augustinus dicit, IV de Trin., quod tunc invisibiliter filius cuiquam mittitur, cum a quoquam cognoscitur atque percipitur. Reply to Objection 1: Although all the gifts, considered as such, are attributed to the Holy Ghost, forasmuch as He is by His nature the first Gift, since He is Love, as stated above (Question [38], Article [1]), some gifts nevertheless, by reason of their own particular nature, are appropriated in a certain way to the Son, those, namely, which belong to the intellect, and in respect of which we speak of the mission of the Son. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20) that "The Son is sent to anyone invisibly, whenever He is known and perceived by anyone."
Ad secundum dicendum quod anima per gratiam conformatur Deo. Unde ad hoc quod aliqua persona divina mittatur ad aliquem per gratiam, oportet quod fiat assimilatio illius ad divinam personam quae mittitur per aliquod gratiae donum. Et quia spiritus sanctus est amor, per donum caritatis anima spiritui sancto assimilatur, unde secundum donum caritatis attenditur missio spiritus sancti. Filius autem est verbum, non qualecumque, sed spirans amorem, unde Augustinus dicit, in IX libro de Trin., verbum quod insinuare intendimus, cum amore notitia est. Non igitur secundum quamlibet perfectionem intellectus mittitur filius, sed secundum talem instructionem intellectus, qua prorumpat in affectum amoris, ut dicitur Ioan. VI, omnis qui audivit a patre, et didicit, venit ad me; et in Psalm., in meditatione mea exardescet ignis. Et ideo signanter dicit Augustinus quod filius mittitur, cum a quoquam cognoscitur atque percipitur, perceptio enim experimentalem quandam notitiam significat. Et haec proprie dicitur sapientia, quasi sapida scientia, secundum illud Eccli. VI, sapientia doctrinae secundum nomen eius est. Reply to Objection 2: The soul is made like to God by grace. Hence for a divine person to be sent to anyone by grace, there must needs be a likening of the soul to the divine person Who is sent, by some gift of grace. Because the Holy Ghost is Love, the soul is assimilated to the Holy Ghost by the gift of charity: hence the mission of the Holy Ghost is according to the mode of charity. Whereas the Son is the Word, not any sort of word, but one Who breathes forth Love. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. ix 10): "The Word we speak of is knowledge with love." Thus the Son is sent not in accordance with every and any kind of intellectual perfection, but according to the intellectual illumination, which breaks forth into the affection of love, as is said (Jn. 6:45): "Everyone that hath heard from the Father and hath learned, cometh to Me," and (Ps. 38:4): "In my meditation a fire shall flame forth." Thus Augustine plainly says (De Trin. iv, 20): "The Son is sent, whenever He is known and perceived by anyone." Now perception implies a certain experimental knowledge; and this is properly called wisdom [sapientia], as it were a sweet knowledge [sapida scientia], according to Ecclus. 6:23: "The wisdom of doctrine is according to her name."
Ad tertium dicendum quod, cum missio importet originem personae missae et inhabitationem per gratiam, ut supra dictum est, si loquamur de missione quantum ad originem, sic missio filii distinguitur a missione spiritus sancti, sicut et generatio a processione. Si autem quantum ad effectum gratiae, sic communicant duae missiones in radice gratiae, sed distinguuntur in effectibus gratiae, qui sunt illuminatio intellectus, et inflammatio affectus. Et sic manifestum est quod una non potest esse sine alia, quia neutra est sine gratia gratum faciente, nec una persona separatur ab alia. Reply to Objection 3: Since mission implies the origin of the person Who is sent, and His indwelling by grace, as above explained (Article [1]), if we speak of mission according to origin, in this sense the Son's mission is distinguished from the mission of the Holy Ghost, as generation is distinguished from procession. If we consider mission as regards the effect of grace, in this sense the two missions are united in the root which is grace, but are distinguished in the effects of grace, which consist in the illumination of the intellect and the kindling of the affection. Thus it is manifest that one mission cannot be without the other, because neither takes place without sanctifying grace, nor is one person separated from the other.

Index [<<� | >>]
First Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 43 [ << | >> ]
Article: 6  [ << | >> ]

Whether the invisible mission is to all who participate grace?

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod missio invisibilis non fiat ad omnes qui sunt participes gratiae. Patres enim veteris testamenti gratiae participes fuerunt. Sed ad illos non videtur fuisse facta missio invisibilis, dicitur enim Ioan. VII, nondum erat spiritus datus, quia nondum erat Iesus glorificatus. Ergo missio invisibilis non fit ad omnes qui sunt participes gratiae. Objection 1: It would seem that the invisible mission is not to all who participate grace. For the Fathers of the Old Testament had their share of grace. Yet to them was made no invisible mission; for it is said (Jn. 7:39): "The Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." Therefore the invisible mission is not to all partakers in grace.
Praeterea, profectus in virtute non est nisi per gratiam. Sed missio invisibilis non videtur attendi secundum profectum virtutis, quia profectus virtutis videtur esse continuus, cum caritas semper aut proficiat aut deficiat; et sic missio esset continua. Ergo missio invisibilis non fit ad omnes participes gratiae. Objection 2: Further, progress in virtue is only by grace. But the invisible mission is not according to progress in virtue; because progress in virtue is continuous, since charity ever increases or decreases; and thus the mission would be continuous. Therefore the invisible mission is not to all who share in grace.
Praeterea, Christus et beati plenissime habent gratiam. Sed ad eos non videtur fieri missio, quia missio fit ad aliquid distans; Christus autem, secundum quod homo, et omnes beati perfecte sunt uniti Deo. Non ergo ad omnes participes gratiae fit missio invisibilis. Objection 3: Further, Christ and the blessed have fullness of grace. But mission is not to them, for mission implies distance, whereas Christ, as man, and all the blessed are perfectly united to God. Therefore the invisible mission is not to all sharers in grace.
Praeterea, sacramenta novae legis continent gratiam. Nec tamen ad ea dicitur fieri missio invisibilis. Non ergo ad omnia quae habent gratiam, fit missio invisibilis. Objection 4: Further, the Sacraments of the New Law contain grace, and it is not said that the invisible mission is sent to them. Therefore the invisible mission is not to all that have grace.
Sed contra est quod, secundum Augustinum, missio invisibilis fit ad sanctificandam creaturam. Omnis autem creatura habens gratiam sanctificatur. Ergo ad omnem creaturam huiusmodi fit missio invisibilis. On the contrary, According to Augustine (De Trin. iii, 4; xv, 27), the invisible mission is for the creature's sanctification. Now every creature that has grace is sanctified. Therefore the invisible mission is to every such creature.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, missio de sui ratione importat quod ille qui mittitur vel incipiat esse ubi prius non fuit, sicut accidit in rebus creatis; vel incipiat esse ubi prius fuit, sed quodam modo novo, secundum quod missio attribuitur divinis personis. Sic ergo in eo ad quem fit missio, oportet duo considerare, scilicet inhabitationem gratiae, et innovationem quandam per gratiam. Ad omnes ergo fit missio invisibilis, in quibus haec duo inveniuntur. I answer that, As above stated (Articles [3],4,5), mission in its very meaning implies that he who is sent either begins to exist where he was not before, as occurs to creatures; or begins to exist where he was before, but in a new way, in which sense mission is ascribed to the divine persons. Thus, mission as regards the one to whom it is sent implies two things, the indwelling of grace, and a certain renewal by grace. Thus the invisible mission is sent to all in whom are to be found these two conditions.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod missio invisibilis est facta ad patres veteris testamenti. Unde dicit Augustinus, IV de Trin., quod secundum quod filius mittitur invisibiliter, fit in hominibus aut cum hominibus; hoc autem antea factum est in patribus et prophetis. Quod ergo dicitur, nondum erat datus spiritus, intelligitur de illa datione cum signo visibili, quae facta est in die Pentecostes. Reply to Objection 1: The invisible mission was directed to the Old Testament Fathers, as appears from what Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20), that the invisible mission of the Son "is in man and with men. This was done in former times with the Fathers and the Prophets." Thus the words, "the Spirit was not yet given," are to be applied to that giving accompanied with a visible sign which took place on the day of Pentecost.
Ad secundum dicendum quod etiam secundum profectum virtutis, aut augmentum gratiae, fit missio invisibilis. Unde Augustinus dicit, IV de Trin., quod tunc cuiquam mittitur filius, cum a quoquam cognoscitur atque percipitur, quantum cognosci et percipi potest pro captu vel proficientis in Deum, vel perfectae in Deo animae rationalis. Sed tamen secundum illud augmentum gratiae praecipue missio invisibilis attenditur, quando aliquis proficit in aliquem novum actum, vel novum statum gratiae, ut puta cum aliquis proficit in gratiam miraculorum aut prophetiae, vel in hoc quod ex fervore caritatis exponit se martyrio, aut abrenuntiat his quae possidet, aut quodcumque opus arduum aggreditur. Reply to Objection 2: The invisible mission takes place also as regards progress in virtue or increase of grace. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20), that "the Son is sent to each one when He is known and perceived by anyone, so far as He can be known and perceived according to the capacity of the soul, whether journeying towards God, or united perfectly to Him." Such invisible mission, however, chiefly occurs as regards anyone's proficiency in the performance of a new act, or in the acquisition of a new state of grace; as, for example, the proficiency in reference to the gift of miracles or of prophecy, or in the fervor of charity leading a man to expose himself to the danger of martyrdom, or to renounce his possessions, or to undertake any arduous work.
Ad tertium dicendum quod ad beatos est facta missio invisibilis in ipso principio beatitudinis. Postmodum autem ad eos fit missio invisibilis, non secundum intensionem gratiae, sed secundum quod aliqua mysteria eis revelantur de novo, quod est usque ad diem iudicii. Quod quidem augmentum attenditur secundum extensionem gratiae ad plura se extendentis. Ad Christum autem fuit facta invisibilis missio in principio suae conceptionis, non autem postea, cum a principio suae conceptionis fuerit plenus omni sapientia et gratia. Reply to Objection 3: The invisible mission is directed to the blessed at the very beginning of their beatitude. The invisible mission is made to them subsequently, not by "intensity" of grace, but by the further revelation of mysteries; which goes on till the day of judgment. Such an increase is by the "extension" of grace, because it extends to a greater number of objects. To Christ the invisible mission was sent at the first moment of His conception; but not afterwards, since from the beginning of His conception He was filled with all wisdom and grace.
Ad quartum dicendum quod gratia est in sacramentis novae legis instrumentaliter, sicut forma artificiati est in instrumentis artis, secundum quendam decursum ab agente in patiens. Missio autem non dicitur fieri nisi respectu termini. Unde missio divinae personae non fit ad sacramenta, sed ad eos qui per sacramenta gratiam suscipiunt. Reply to Objection 4: Grace resides instrumentally in the sacraments of the New Law, as the form of a thing designed resides in the instruments of the art designing, according to a process flowing from the agent to the passive object. But mission is only spoken of as directed to its term. Hence the mission of the divine person is not sent to the sacraments, but to those who receive grace through the sacraments.

Index [<<� | >>]
First Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 43 [ << | >> ]
Article: 7  [ << | >> ]

Whether it is fitting for the Holy Ghost to be sent visibly?

Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod spiritui sancto non conveniat visibiliter mitti. Filius enim, secundum quod visibiliter missus est in mundum, dicitur esse minor patre. Sed nunquam legitur spiritus sanctus minor patre. Ergo spiritui sancto non convenit visibiliter mitti. Objection 1: It would seem that the Holy Ghost is not fittingly sent in a visible manner. For the Son as visibly sent to the world is said to be less than the Father. But the Holy Ghost is never said to be less than the Father. Therefore the Holy Ghost is not fittingly sent in a visible manner.
Praeterea, missio visibilis attenditur secundum aliquam creaturam visibilem assumptam, sicut missio filii secundum carnem. Sed spiritus sanctus non assumpsit aliquam creaturam visibilem. Unde non potest dici quod in aliquibus creaturis visibilibus sit alio modo quam in aliis, nisi forte sicut in signo; sicut est etiam in sacramentis, et in omnibus figuris legalibus. Non ergo spiritus sanctus visibiliter mittitur, vel oportet dicere quod secundum omnia huiusmodi, eius missio visibilis attenditur. Objection 2: Further, the visible mission takes place by way of union to a visible creature, as the Son's mission according to the flesh. But the Holy Ghost did not assume any visible creature; and hence it cannot be said that He exists otherwise in some creatures than in others, unless perhaps as in a sign, as He is also present in the sacraments, and in all the figures of the law. Thus the Holy Ghost is either not sent visibly at all, or His visible mission takes place in all these things.
Praeterea, quaelibet creatura visibilis est effectus demonstrans totam Trinitatem. Non ergo per illas creaturas visibiles magis mittitur spiritus sanctus quam alia persona. Objection 3: Further, every visible creature is an effect showing forth the whole Trinity. Therefore the Holy Ghost is not sent by reason of those visible creatures more than any other person.
Praeterea, filius visibiliter est missus secundum dignissimam visibilium creaturarum, scilicet secundum naturam humanam. Si igitur spiritus sanctus visibiliter mittitur, debuit mitti secundum aliquas creaturas rationales. Objection 4: Further, the Son was visibly sent by reason of the noblest kind of creature—namely, the human nature. Therefore if the Holy Ghost is sent visibly, He ought to be sent by reason of rational creatures.
Praeterea, quae visibiliter fiunt divinitus, dispensantur per ministerium Angelorum, ut Augustinus dicit, III de Trin. Si ergo aliquae species visibiles apparuerunt, hoc factum fuit per Angelos. Et sic ipsi Angeli mittuntur, et non spiritus sanctus. Objection 5: Further, whatever is done visibly by God is dispensed by the ministry of the angels; as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 4,5,9). So visible appearances, if there have been any, came by means of the angels. Thus the angels are sent, and not the Holy Ghost.
Praeterea, si spiritus sanctus visibiliter mittatur, hoc non est nisi ad manifestandum invisibilem missionem, quia invisibilia per visibilia manifestantur. Ergo ad quem missio invisibilis facta non fuit, nec missio visibilis fieri debuit, et ad omnes ad quos fit missio invisibilis, sive in novo sive in veteri testamento, missio visibilis fieri debet, quod patet esse falsum. Non ergo spiritus sanctus visibiliter mittitur. Objection 6: Further, the Holy Ghost being sent in a visible manner is only for the purpose of manifesting the invisible mission; as invisible things are made known by the visible. So those to whom the invisible mission was not sent, ought not to receive the visible mission; and to all who received the invisible mission, whether in the New or in the Old Testament, the visible mission ought likewise to be sent; and this is clearly false. Therefore the Holy Ghost is not sent visibly.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. III, quod spiritus sanctus descendit super dominum baptizatum in specie columbae. On the contrary, It is said (Mt. 3:16) that, when our Lord was baptized, the Holy Ghost descended upon Him in the shape of a dove.
Respondeo dicendum quod Deus providet omnibus secundum uniuscuiusque modum. Est autem modus connaturalis hominis, ut per visibilia ad invisibilia manuducatur, ut ex supra dictis patet, et ideo invisibilia Dei oportuit homini per visibilia manifestari. Sicut igitur seipsum Deus, et processiones aeternas personarum, per creaturas visibiles, secundum aliqua indicia, hominibus quodammodo demonstravit; ita conveniens fuit ut etiam invisibiles missiones divinarum personarum secundum aliquas visibiles creaturas manifestarentur. I answer that, God provides for all things according to the nature of each thing. Now the nature of man requires that he be led to the invisible by visible things, as explained above (Question [12], Article [12]). Wherefore the invisible things of God must be made manifest to man by the things that are visible. As God, therefore, in a certain way has demonstrated Himself and His eternal processions to men by visible creatures, according to certain signs; so was it fitting that the invisible missions also of the divine persons should be made manifest by some visible creatures.
Aliter tamen filius et spiritus sanctus. Nam spiritui sancto, inquantum procedit ut amor, competit esse sanctificationis donum, filio autem, inquantum est spiritus sancti principium, competit esse sanctificationis huius auctorem. Et ideo filius visibiliter missus est tanquam sanctificationis auctor, sed spiritus sanctus tanquam sanctificationis indicium. This mode of manifestation applies in different ways to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. For it belongs to the Holy Ghost, Who proceeds as Love, to be the gift of sanctification; to the Son as the principle of the Holy Ghost, it belongs to the author of this sanctification. Thus the Son has been sent visibly as the author of sanctification; the Holy Ghost as the sign of sanctification.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod filius creaturam visibilem in qua apparuit, in unitatem personae assumpsit, sic ut quod de illa creatura dicitur, de filio Dei dici possit. Et sic, ratione naturae assumptae, filius dicitur minor patre. Sed spiritus sanctus non assumpsit creaturam visibilem in qua apparuit, in unitatem personae, ut quod illi convenit, de illo praedicetur. Unde non potest dici minor patre propter visibilem creaturam. Reply to Objection 1: The Son assumed the visible creature, wherein He appeared, into the unity of His person, so that whatever can be said of that creature can be said of the Son of God; and so, by reason of the nature assumed, the Son is called less than the Father. But the Holy Ghost did not assume the visible creature, in which He appeared, into the unity of His person; so that what is said of it cannot be predicated of Him. Hence He cannot be called less than the Father by reason of any visible creature.
Ad secundum dicendum quod missio visibilis spiritus sancti non attenditur secundum visionem imaginariam, quae est visio prophetica. Quia, ut Augustinus dicit, II de Trin., visio prophetica non est exhibita corporeis oculis per formas corporeas, sed in spiritu per spirituales corporum imagines, columbam vero illam et ignem oculis viderunt quicumque viderunt. Neque iterum sic se habuit spiritus sanctus ad huiusmodi species, sicut filius ad petram (quia dicitur, petra erat Christus). Illa enim petra iam erat in creatura, et per actionis modum nuncupata est nomine Christi, quem significabat, sed illa columba et ignis ad haec tantum significanda repente extiterunt. Sed videntur esse similia flammae illi quae in rubo apparuit Moysi, et illi columnae quam populus in eremo sequebatur, et fulgoribus ac tonitruis quae fiebant cum lex daretur in monte, ad hoc enim rerum illarum corporalis extitit species, ut aliquid significaret, atque praeteriret. Sic igitur patet quod missio visibilis neque attenditur secundum visiones propheticas, quae fuerunt imaginariae, et non corporales, neque secundum signa sacramentalia veteris et novi testamenti, in quibus quaedam res praeexistentes assumuntur ad aliquid significandum. Sed spiritus sanctus visibiliter dicitur esse missus, inquantum fuit monstratus in quibusdam creaturis, sicut in signis, ad hoc specialiter factis. Reply to Objection 2: The visible mission of the Holy Ghost does not apply to the imaginary vision which is that of prophecy; because as Augustine says (De Trin. ii, 6): "The prophetic vision is not displayed to corporeal eyes by corporeal shapes, but is shown in the spirit by the spiritual images of bodies. But whoever saw the dove and the fire, saw them by their eyes. Nor, again, has the Holy Ghost the same relation to these images that the Son has to the rock, because it is said, "The rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:4). For that rock was already created, and after the manner of an action was named Christ, Whom it typified; whereas the dove and the fire suddenly appeared to signify only what was happening. They seem, however, to be like to the flame of the burning bush seen by Moses and to the column which the people followed in the desert, and to the lightning and thunder issuing forth when the law was given on the mountain. For the purpose of the bodily appearances of those things was that they might signify, and then pass away." Thus the visible mission is neither displayed by prophetic vision, which belongs to the imagination, and not to the body, nor by the sacramental signs of the Old and New Testament, wherein certain pre-existing things are employed to signify something. But the Holy Ghost is said to be sent visibly, inasmuch as He showed Himself in certain creatures as in signs especially made for that purpose.
Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet illas creaturas visibiles tota Trinitas operata sit, tamen factae sunt ad demonstrandum specialiter hanc vel illam personam. Sicut enim diversis nominibus significantur pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, ita etiam diversis rebus significari potuerunt; quamvis inter eos nulla sit separatio aut diversitas. Reply to Objection 3: Although the whole Trinity makes those creatures, still they are made in order to show forth in some special way this or that person. For as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are signified by diverse names, so also can They each one be signified by different things; although neither separation nor diversity exists amongst Them.
Ad quartum dicendum quod personam filii declarari oportuit ut sanctificationis auctorem, ut dictum est, et ideo oportuit quod missio visibilis filii fieret secundum naturam rationalem, cuius est agere, et cui potest competere sanctificare. Indicium autem sanctificationis esse potuit quaecumque alia creatura. Neque oportuit quod creatura visibilis ad hoc formata, esset assumpta a spiritu sancto in unitatem personae, cum non assumeretur ad aliquid agendum, sed ad indicandum tantum. Et propter hoc etiam non oportuit quod duraret, nisi quandiu perageret officium suum. Reply to Objection 4: It was necessary for the Son to be declared as the author of sanctification, as explained above. Thus the visible mission of the Son was necessarily made according to the rational nature to which it belongs to act, and which is capable of sanctification; whereas any other creature could be the sign of sanctification. Nor was such a visible creature, formed for such a purpose, necessarily assumed by the Holy Ghost into the unity of His person, since it was not assumed or used for the purpose of action, but only for the purpose of a sign; and so likewise it was not required to last beyond what its use required.
Ad quintum dicendum quod illae creaturae visibiles formatae sunt ministerio Angelorum, non tamen ad significandum personam Angeli, sed ad significandam personam spiritus sancti. Quia igitur spiritus sanctus erat in illis creaturis visibilibus sicut signatum in signo, propter hoc secundum eas spiritus sanctus visibiliter mitti dicitur, et non Angelus. Reply to Objection 5: Those visible creatures were formed by the ministry of the angels, not to signify the person of an angel, but to signify the Person of the Holy Ghost. Thus, as the Holy Ghost resided in those visible creatures as the one signified in the sign, on that account the Holy Ghost is said to be sent visibly, and not as an angel.
Ad sextum dicendum quod non est de necessitate invisibilis missionis, ut semper manifestetur per aliquod signum visibile exterius, sed, sicut dicitur I Cor. XII, manifestatio spiritus datur alicui ad utilitatem, scilicet Ecclesiae. Quae quidem utilitas est, ut per huiusmodi visibilia signa fides confirmetur et propagetur. Reply to Objection 6: It is not necessary that the invisible mission should always be made manifest by some visible external sign; but, as is said (1 Cor. 12:7)—"the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit"—that is, of the Church. This utility consists in the confirmation and propagation of the faith by such visible signs. This has been done chiefly by Christ and by the apostles, according to Heb. 2:3, "which having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard."
Quod quidem principaliter factum est per Christum et per apostolos, secundum illud Hebr. II, cum initium accepisset enarrari per dominum, ab eis qui audierunt in nos confirmata est. Et ideo specialiter debuit fieri missio visibilis spiritus sancti ad Christum et ad apostolos, et ad aliquos primitivos sanctos, in quibus quodammodo Ecclesia fundabatur, ita tamen quod visibilis missio facta ad Christum, demonstraret missionem invisibilem non tunc, sed in principio suae conceptionis, ad eum factam. Facta autem est missio visibilis ad Christum, in Baptismo quidem sub specie columbae, quod est animal fecundum, ad ostendendum in Christo auctoritatem donandi gratiam per spiritualem regenerationem, unde vox patris intonuit, hic est filius meus dilectus, ut ad similitudinem unigeniti alii regenerarentur. In transfiguratione vero, sub specie nubis lucidae, ad ostendendam exuberantiam doctrinae, unde dictum est, ipsum audite. Ad apostolos autem, sub specie flatus, ad ostendendam potestatem ministerii in dispensatione sacramentorum, unde dictum est eis, quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis. Sed sub linguis igneis, ad ostendendum officium doctrinae, unde dicitur quod coeperunt loqui variis linguis. Ad patres autem veteris testamenti, missio visibilis spiritus sancti fieri non debuit quia prius debuit perfici missio visibilis filii quam spiritus sancti, cum spiritus sanctus manifestet filium, sicut filius patrem. Fuerunt tamen factae visibiles apparitiones divinarum personarum patribus veteris testamenti. Quae quidem missiones visibiles dici non possunt, quia non fuerunt factae, secundum Augustinum, ad designandum inhabitationem divinae personae per gratiam, sed ad aliquid aliud manifestandum. Thus in a special sense, a mission of the Holy Ghost was directed to Christ, to the apostles, and to some of the early saints on whom the Church was in a way founded; in such a manner, however, that the visible mission made to Christ should show forth the invisible mission made to Him, not at that particular time, but at the first moment of His conception. The visible mission was directed to Christ at the time of His baptism by the figure of a dove, a fruitful animal, to show forth in Christ the authority of the giver of grace by spiritual regeneration; hence the Father's voice spoke, "This is My beloved Son" (Mt. 3:17), that others might be regenerated to the likeness of the only Begotten. The Transfiguration showed it forth in the appearance of a bright cloud, to show the exuberance of doctrine; and hence it was said, "Hear ye Him" (Mt. 17:5). To the apostles the mission was directed in the form of breathing to show forth the power of their ministry in the dispensation of the sacraments; and hence it was said, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven" (Jn. 20:23): and again under the sign of fiery tongues to show forth the office of teaching; whence it is said that, "they began to speak with divers tongues" (Acts 2:4). The visible mission of the Holy Ghost was fittingly not sent to the fathers of the Old Testament, because the visible mission of the Son was to be accomplished before that of the Holy Ghost; since the Holy Ghost manifests the Son, as the Son manifests the Father. Visible apparitions of the divine persons were, however, given to the Fathers of the Old Testament which, indeed, cannot be called visible missions; because, according to Augustine (De Trin. ii, 17), they were not sent to designate the indwelling of the divine person by grace, but for the manifestation of something else.

Index [<<� | >>]
First Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 43 [ << | >> ]
Article: 8  [ << | >> ]

Whether a divine person is sent only by the person whence He proceeds eternally?

Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nulla persona divina mittatur nisi ab ea a qua procedit aeternaliter. Quia, sicut dicit Augustinus, IV de Trin., pater a nullo mittitur, quia a nullo est. Si ergo aliqua persona divina mittitur ab alia, oportet quod sit ab illa. Objection 1: It would seem that a divine person is sent only by the one whence He proceeds eternally. For as Augustine says (De Trin. iv), "The Father is sent by no one because He is from no one." Therefore if a divine person is sent by another, He must be from that other.
Praeterea, mittens habet auctoritatem respectu missi. Sed respectu divinae personae non potest haberi auctoritas nisi secundum originem. Ergo oportet quod divina persona quae mittitur, sit a persona mittente. Objection 2: Further, the sender has authority over the one sent. But there can be no authority as regards a divine person except from origin. Therefore the divine person sent must proceed from the one sending.
Praeterea, si persona divina potest mitti ab eo a quo non est, nihil prohibebit dicere quod spiritus sanctus detur ab homine, quamvis non sit ab eo. Quod est contra Augustinum, XV de Trin. Ergo divina persona non mittitur nisi ab ea a qua est. Objection 3: Further, if a divine person can be sent by one whence He does not proceed, then the Holy Ghost may be given by a man, although He proceeds not from him; which is contrary to what Augustine says (De Trin. xv). Therefore the divine person is sent only by the one whence He proceeds.
Sed contra est quod filius mittitur a spiritu sancto, secundum illud Isaiae XLVIII, et nunc misit me dominus Deus, et spiritus eius. Filius autem non est a spiritu sancto. Ergo persona divina mittitur ab ea a qua non est. On the contrary, The Son is sent by the Holy Ghost, according to Is. 48:16, "Now the Lord God hath sent Me and His Spirit." But the Son is not from the Holy Ghost. Therefore a divine person is sent by one from Whom He does not proceed.
Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc inveniuntur aliqui diversimode locuti esse. Secundum quosdam enim, persona divina non mittitur nisi ab eo a quo est aeternaliter. Et secundum hoc, cum dicitur filius Dei missus a spiritu sancto, referendum est hoc ad humanam naturam, secundum quam missus est ad praedicandum a spiritu sancto. Augustinus autem dicit, II de Trin., quod filius mittitur et a se et a spiritu sancto; et spiritus sanctus etiam mittitur et a se et a filio, ut sic mitti in divinis non conveniat cuilibet personae, sed solum personae ab alio existenti; mittere autem conveniat cuilibet personae. I answer that, There are different opinions on this point. Some say that the divine person is sent only by the one whence He proceeds eternally; and so, when it is said that the Son of God is sent by the Holy Ghost, this is to be explained as regards His human nature, by reason of which He was sent to preach by the Holy Ghost. Augustine, however, says (De Trin. ii, 5) that the Son is sent by Himself, and by the Holy Ghost; and the Holy Ghost is sent by Himself, and by the Son; so that to be sent in God does not apply to each person, but only to the person proceeding from another, whereas to send belongs to each person.
Utrumque autem habet aliquo modo veritatem. Quia cum dicitur aliqua persona mitti, designatur et ipsa persona ab alio existens, et effectus visibilis aut invisibilis, secundum quem missio divinae personae attenditur. Si igitur mittens designetur ut principium personae quae mittitur, sic non quaelibet persona mittit, sed solum illa cui convenit esse principium illius personae. Et sic filius mittitur tantum a patre, spiritus sanctus autem a patre et filio. Si vero persona mittens intelligatur esse principium effectus secundum quem attenditur missio, sic tota Trinitas mittit personam missam. Non autem propter hoc homo dat spiritum sanctum, quia nec effectum gratiae potest causare. There is some truth in both of these opinions; because when a person is described as being sent, the person Himself existing from another is designated, with the visible or invisible effect, applicable to the mission of the divine person. Thus if the sender be designated as the principle of the person sent, in this sense not each person sends, but that person only Who is the principle of that person who is sent; and thus the Son is sent only by the Father; and the Holy Ghost by the Father and the Son. If, however, the person sending is understood as the principle of the effect implied in the mission, in that sense the whole Trinity sends the person sent. This reason does not prove that a man can send the Holy Ghost, forasmuch as man cannot cause the effect of grace.
Et per hoc patet solutio ad obiecta. The answers to the objections appear from the above.

This document converted to HTML on Fri Jan 02 19:10:07 1998.