← Back to Distinction 15

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

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

Textus Latinus
p. 259

ARTICULUS UNICUS.

De missione in divinis.

QUAESTIO I.

Utrum in divinis sit missio.

Circa primum, quod missio sit in divinis, ostenditur:

1. Primo per scripturam veteris Testamenti, Sapientiae nono1: Mitte illam de caelis, et loquitur de Sapientia, quae est Dei Filius.

2. Item, per scripturam novi Testamenti, ad Galatas quarto2: At ubi venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum. Et post3: Quoniam estis filii Dei, misit Deus Spiritum Filii sui in corda vestra.

3. Item, hoc ostenditur per testimonium Veritatis, Ioannis decimo sexto4: Cum autem abiero, mittam vobis Spiritum veritatis.

4. Item, ratione videtur5 istud idem: quia mittere non est aliud quam ex se aliquem producere in alium, sicut Sol radium mittit in aera; sed Spiritus sanctus a Patre et Filio procedit in creaturam: ergo ab eis mittitur.

5. Item, quandocumque datur aliquid alicui ut absenti, convenienter dicitur mitti; sed tota Trinitas est absens peccatoribus quantum ad gratiam inhabitantem: ergo quandocumque datur Spiritus sanctus quantum ad gratiam inhabitantem, non incongrue dicitur mitti; si ergo dari est in divinis hoc modo, ut dictum est6, ergo et missio.

Contra:

1. Ubicumque est missio, ibi est separatio; unde Hieronymus super Ezechielem7: «Quod coniunctum est et in uno corpore copulatum mitti non potest, sed quod extra est»; unde non mittitur manus, sed iaculum. Sed in divinis est omnimoda indivisio et nulla separatio: ergo etc.

2. Item, ubicumque est missio, ibi8 est missi ad mittentem subiectio; quod patet: dominus enim mittit servum, et non servus dominum. Sed in divinis est omnimoda aequalitas et nulla subiectio: ergo ibi non est missio.

3. Item, ubicumque est missio, ibi est mutatio, quia non dicitur aliquid mitti, ubi est; sed in divinis nulla omnino cadit mutatio: ergo etc.

4. Item, missio, passive dicta, in quantum talis est opus ministerii; sed in nobilissima natura in quantum talis non cadit ministerium: ergo etc.

CONCLUSIO.

Missio est in divinis; tamen a triplici respectu missionis ad principium, ad terminum, ad missum removenda est omnis imperfectio, qualis inest missioni in creaturis.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod missio est in divinis, sicut ostendunt praedictae auctoritates et rationes; et transfertur a creaturis ad Deum.

p. 260

Secundum autem quod missio in his inferioribus consideratur, habet respectum ad tria, scilicet ad principium et ad terminum et ad missum.

Ad principium sive ad mittentem sub triplici habitudine comparari contingit: ut ad dantem esse, et sic mittitur radius a sole; ut ad dantem virtutem, et sic mittitur iaculum a proiectore; ut ad dantem iurisdictionem sive auctoritatem, et sic mittitur nuntius a praetore9. Secundum omnem hanc comparationem est in divinis missio; quia Spiritus mittitur a Patre et Filio tanquam habens esse et virtutem et auctoritatem in operando ab eis; et ideo missio secundum hunc respectum est completissime10 in divinis. Non enim est ponere, quod una persona recipiat auctoritatem, nisi a quo recipit virtutem, nec virtutem, nisi a quo recipit esse.

Similiter ad terminum sub triplici habitudine comparatur. Mittitur enim aliquid alicubi11, ubi videlicet quietatur, ut lapis mittitur deorsum; mittitur etiam alicui, ut a quo habeatur, sicut aliquis mittit alicui donum; mittitur etiam ut ad aliquid, quod scilicet operetur. Secundum hanc triplicem comparationem est missio in divinis. Mittitur enim Filius vel Spiritus sanctus ut alicubi ad inhabitandum, ut alicui ad possidendum ut donum, ut ad aliquid, scilicet ad effectum conferendum12. Et ideo missio per comparationem ad terminum reperitur completissime in divinis, multo magis quam in creaturis.

Si autem loquimur de missione in comparatione ad missum, sic in his inferioribus ponit triplicem conditionem imperfectionis, scilicet separationem, subiectionem et mutationem; quae quidem non sunt in divinis. Est tamen aliquid perfectionis ibi istis correspondens; et ratio huius patet sic.

In istis inferioribus separatur missus a mittente propter distantiam termini a mittente13; ut patet, cum mitto aliquem Romam; quia Roma distat a me, si ille debet esse Romae, oportet quod separetur a me. In divinis vero, quia Deus mittens est ubique, nulla est distantia, et ideo nulla est separatio14; loco tamen huius est missi a mittente egressio, sive emanatio.

1. Et sic patet responsio ad illud quod obiicitur de conditione separationis.

Similiter in his inferioribus est in misso subiectio propter differentiam mittentis ad missum. Quia enim missus recipit a mittente vel esse, vel virtutem, vel operationem, et est separatus ab eo in substantia — quia substantia omnino eadem non participatur a pluribus — necesse est, quod aliam virtutem recipiat ab eo et aliam iurisdictionem illa inferiorem. Sed in divinis non est substantialis differentia, et ideo omnia sunt aequalis nobilitatis in mittente et misso. Sed tamen loco huius est subauctoritatis emanatio15.

2. Et sic patet secunda obiectio.

Similiter in his inferioribus est in misso mutatio propter distantiam missi a termino. Quia16 enim non est in termino, ad quem mittitur, ideo oportet quod mutet locum, et ita quod sit in eo mutatio. Quia vero in divinis missus nulli loco abest, non oportet, quod personaliter accedat; et ideo non est ibi mutatio. Sed tamen loco eius est alicuius effectus de novo productio.

3. Et sic patet tertia obiectio. Quamvis enim in divinis non sit separatio, subiectio et mutatio, tamen loco horum est emanatio17, subauctoritatis origo et novi effectus productio.

4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod pertinet ad ministerium; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, ubi missio dicit subiectionem; sed hoc non est in divina natura, sed in creaturis.

p. 261
Scholion

I. Quomodo differant temporalis processio, missio, datio Spiritus sancti non eodem modo ab antiquis Scholasticis determinatur. Audiamus Richard. a Med. (I. Sent. d. 14. a. 1. q. 3.): «Quidam volunt, quod non differunt realiter, sed secundum rationem tantum. Nam processio temporalis principalius importat respectum ad terminum ad quem, missio ad principium a quo, donatio vero ad effectum. Alii autem maiorem differentiam conantur assignare inter haec tria. Dicunt enim, quod processio temporalis de principali significato non significat nisi processionem aeternam cum quodam respectu secundum rationem vel secundum dici ad creaturam, et actu connotat novum effectum in creatura et novam realem relationem in creatura ad Spiritum sanctum. Donatio vero de suo principali significato non dicit aliquam emanationem, quia tota Trinitas dat se ipsam, loquendo de emanatione secundum rem, qua emanat ipsamet persona, sed dicit emanationem doni appropriati personae, in quo dono etiam ipsamet persona vere datur recipienti illud donum. Missio vero dicit respectum personae emanantis per emanationem alicuius rei visibilis vel invisibilis appropriatae illi personae. Et ita de principali significato missionis non est emanatio personae, sed est de cointellectu significati missionis, sicut nasus non est de principali significato simitatis, quamvis simitas nasi nasum includat de cointellectu». Ipse Richard. a Med. praefert secundam opinionem, infra d. 18. p. I. a. 3. q. 1.

His verbis iam manifestatur, aliquos putasse, missionem principaliter significare processionem unius personae ab alia, sed connotare manifestationem eiusdem. Ita Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 71. m. 2. et 4., et nonnulli moderni, ut Suarez. Sed S. Bonav. infra (q. 4. in corp. et clarius ibi ad 3.) dicit: «Missio de se duo importat, scil. emanationem et manifestationem, et principaliter de ratione suae significationis importat manifestationem». Eandem sententiam profitentur S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 2; d. 16. q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 43. a. 2. praesertim ad 3.), Scot. (I. Sent. d. 16. q. unic.), B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., locis infra citatis.

II. In responsione S. Bonav. docet, triplicem in missione includi respectum, et haec tria membra iterum tripliciter comparat. Secundum hos multiplices respectus resolvit, quae sint a divinis missionibus removenda, quaeve in iis ponenda.

III. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 71. m. 1. — Scot., de hac et seqq. hic et in Report. q. unic. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 43. a. 1. — B. Albert., I. Sent. d. 14. a. 3. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et seqq. hic q. unic.

---

English Translation
p. 259

THE SOLE ARTICLE.

On mission in the divine [persons].

QUESTION I.

Whether mission is in the divine [persons].

Concerning the first [question] — that mission is in the divine [persons] — it is shown:

1. First, by the Scripture of the Old Testament, Wisdom 91: Send her forth from the heavens; and it is speaking of Wisdom, who is the Son of God.

2. Likewise, by the Scripture of the New Testament, to the Galatians 42: But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son. And after3: Because you are sons of God, God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts.

3. Likewise, this is shown by the testimony of Truth himself, John 164: And when I have gone away, I will send you the Spirit of truth.

4. Likewise, by reason this same thing seems [to follow]5: for to send is nothing other than to bring someone forth from oneself into another, just as the Sun sends a ray into the air; but the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son into the creature: therefore he is sent by them.

5. Likewise, whenever something is given to someone as to one who is absent, it is fittingly said to be sent; but the whole Trinity is absent from sinners with respect to indwelling grace: therefore whenever the Holy Spirit is given with respect to indwelling grace, he is not unfittingly said to be sent; if therefore to be given exists in the divine [persons] in this mode, as has been said6, then so does mission.

On the contrary:

1. Wherever there is mission, there is separation; whence Jerome on Ezekiel7: «What is conjoined and coupled in one body cannot be sent, but only what is outside»; whence the hand is not sent, but the spear. But in the divine [persons] there is total indivision and no separation: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, wherever there is mission, there8 is subjection of the one sent to the one sending; which is plain: for the lord sends the servant, and not the servant the lord. But in the divine [persons] there is total equality and no subjection: therefore there is no mission there.

3. Likewise, wherever there is mission, there is change, for nothing is said to be sent where it [already] is; but in the divine [persons] no change at all takes place: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, mission, passively spoken of, insofar as such, is a work of ministry; but in the noblest nature, insofar as such, ministry has no place: therefore etc.

CONCLUSION.

Mission is in the divine [persons]; nevertheless, from the threefold respect of mission to the principle, to the term, and to the one sent, every imperfection of the kind that belongs to mission in creatures must be removed.

I respond: It must be said that mission is in the divine [persons], as the foregoing authorities and reasons show; and it is transferred from creatures to God.

p. 260

Now according to how mission is considered in these lower things, it has a respect to three [things] — namely, to the principle, to the term, and to the one sent.

To the principle, or the one sending, it can be compared under a threefold relation: as to the giver of being, and thus the ray is sent by the sun; as to the giver of power, and thus the spear is sent by the thrower; as to the giver of jurisdiction or authority, and thus the messenger is sent by the magistrate9. According to all this comparison, mission is in the divine [persons]; for the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son as having from them being and power and authority in operating; and therefore mission according to this respect is most fully10 in the divine [persons]. For one cannot hold that one Person receives authority except from the one from whom he receives power, nor power, except from the one from whom he receives being.

Similarly, with respect to the term it is compared under a threefold relation. For something is sent somewhere11 — that is, where it comes to rest, as a stone is sent downward; it is also sent to someone, that he may have it, as one sends a gift to someone; it is also sent to something — namely, that it may be brought about. According to this threefold comparison, mission is in the divine [persons]. For the Son or the Holy Spirit is sent as somewhere, to indwell; as to someone, to be possessed as a gift; as to something — namely, to confer an effect12. And therefore mission, by comparison to the term, is found most fully in the divine [persons], much more than in creatures.

But if we speak of mission in comparison to the one sent, then in these lower things it posits a threefold condition of imperfection — namely, separation, subjection, and change; and these indeed are not in the divine [persons]. There is, however, something of perfection there corresponding to these; and the reason for this is plain as follows.

In these lower things the one sent is separated from the one sending on account of the distance of the term from the one sending13; as is plain when I send someone to Rome: because Rome is distant from me, if he is to be at Rome, he must be separated from me. But in the divine [persons], because God who sends is everywhere, there is no distance, and therefore no separation14; in place of this, however, there is the going-forth, or emanation, of the one sent from the one sending.

1. And so the response is plain to the [first] objection concerning the condition of separation.

Similarly, in these lower things there is in the one sent subjection on account of the difference of the one sending to the one sent. For because the one sent receives from the one sending either being, or power, or operation, and is separated from him in substance — for one and the same substance is not participated in by many — it is necessary that he receive from him a different power and a different jurisdiction inferior to that one's. But in the divine [persons] there is no substantial difference, and therefore all things are of equal nobility in the one sending and the one sent. Yet still, in place of this, there is the emanation of derived authority [subauctoritas]15.

2. And so the second objection is plain.

Similarly, in these lower things there is in the one sent change on account of the distance of the one sent from the term. For because16 he is not at the term to which he is sent, he must change place, and so there must be change in him. But because in the divine [persons] the one sent is absent from no place, it is not necessary that he draw near personally; and therefore there is no change there. Yet still, in place of this, there is the new production of some effect.

3. And so the third objection is plain. For although in the divine [persons] there is no separation, subjection, and change, nevertheless in place of these there is emanation17, origin of derived authority [subauctoritas], and production of a new effect.

4. To what is objected last — that [mission] pertains to ministry — it must be said that this is true where mission implies subjection; but this is not the case in the divine nature, but in creatures.

p. 261
Scholion

I. How temporal procession, mission, and donation of the Holy Spirit differ is not determined in the same way by the older Scholastics. Let us hear Richard of Mediavilla (I Sent. d. 14, a. 1, q. 3): «Some hold that they do not differ really, but only according to reason. For temporal procession more principally imports a respect to the term to which, mission to the principle from which, and donation to the effect. Others, however, try to assign a greater difference among these three. For they say that temporal procession, in its principal signification, signifies nothing other than eternal procession together with a certain respect according to reason, or according to a relation of speech, to the creature; and it actually connotes a new effect in the creature, and a new real relation in the creature to the Holy Spirit. Donation, in its principal signification, does not assert any emanation [of person], because the whole Trinity gives itself, speaking of the emanation in reality by which the very person emanates; rather it asserts the emanation of the gift appropriated to a person, in which gift even the very person is truly given to the recipient of that gift. Mission, however, asserts the respect of the person emanating through the emanation of some visible or invisible thing appropriated to that person. And so the emanation of the person is not part of the principal signification of mission, but is part of the co-understood [signification] of mission — just as the nose is not part of the principal signification of snubness, although the snubness of a nose includes the nose by way of co-understanding.» Richard of Mediavilla himself prefers the second opinion, below at d. 18, p. I, a. 3, q. 1.

By these words it is now made clear that some held mission to signify principally the procession of one person from another, but to connote the manifestation of the same. So Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 71, m. 2 and 4, and certain moderns, such as Suárez. But St. Bonaventure below (q. 4 in the corpus and more clearly there in reply 3) says: «Mission of itself imports two things — namely, emanation and manifestation — and principally, by the very nature of its signification, it imports manifestation.» The same view is professed by St. Thomas (here, q. 1, a. 2; d. 16, q. 1, a. 1; S. I, q. 43, a. 2, especially ad 3), Scotus (I Sent. d. 16, q. unica), Bl. Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, in the places cited below.

II. In the response, St. Bonaventure teaches that a threefold respect is included in mission, and these three members he in turn compares threefoldly. According to these multiple respects, he resolves what must be removed from the divine missions and what must be posited in them.

III. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 71, m. 1. — Scotus, on this and the following, here and in the Reportata, q. unica. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; S. I, q. 43, a. 1. — Bl. Albert, I Sent. d. 14, a. 3–4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1, 2, 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here, first principal q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the following, here q. unica.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 10. — Sap. 9, 10. Vulgata: Mitte illam de caelis sanctis tuis.
    Verse 10. — Wisd. 9:10. Vulgate: Send her forth from your holy heavens.
  2. Vers. 4, in quo textu fide mss. et Vulgatae substituimus At ubi loco Cum.
    Verse 4 [Gal. 4:4], in which text on the testimony of the manuscripts and the Vulgate we have substituted At ubi ("but when") for Cum ("when").
  3. Ibid. vers. 6.
    Same chapter, verse 6 [Gal. 4:6].
  4. Vers. 7, ubi Vulgata: Si autem abiero, mittam eum (Paraclitum) ad vos; c. 15, 26: Quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, Spiritum veritatis. Paulo post unus alterve codex ut S post hoc addit ipsum.
    Verse 7 [John 16:7], where the Vulgate reads: But if I go away, I will send him (the Paraclete) to you; c. 15:26: Whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth. A little later one or another codex, such as S, adds ipsum after hoc.
  5. Cod. S ostenditur. Dein ed. 1 illud pro istud. Paulo infra codices et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 secuti posuimus aera pro aerem.
    Codex S reads ostenditur ["it is shown"]. Then ed. 1 reads illud in place of istud. A little further on, following the codices and editions 1, 2, 3, 6, we have set aera for aerem.
  6. Dist. 14. a. 1 q. 1, et a. 2 q. 1.
    Distinction 14, art. 1, q. 1, and art. 2, q. 1.
  7. Cap. 16. vers. 54, in quibus verbis originalia post extra exhibent corpus.
    Chap. 16, verse 54 [of Jerome's Commentary on Ezekiel], in which words the original [editions] display corpus after extra.
  8. Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus ibi.
    From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied ibi ["there"].
  9. Multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 perperam praeceptore.
    Many codices, with editions 1, 2, 3, 6, wrongly read praeceptore ["by the preceptor"] [in place of praetore, "by the magistrate"].
  10. Cod. M addit etiam.
    Codex M adds etiam ["also"].
  11. Vat. in huius et sequentis propositionis membris semper exhibet alicui; codd. inter se sunt divisi, alii enim ter alicui ponunt, alii ut F H T etc. cum ed. 1 exhibent lectionem nostram, quae et contextui magis correspondet.
    The Vatican edition in the limbs of this and the following proposition always displays alicui ["to someone"]; the codices are divided among themselves, for some put alicui three times, while others, such as F, H, T, etc., together with ed. 1, display our reading, which also corresponds better to the context.
  12. Consentientibus antiquis mss. cum ed. 1, substituimus conferendum pro operandum. Mox aliqui codd. ut A N secundum loco per.
    With the agreement of the older manuscripts together with ed. 1, we have substituted conferendum ["to be conferred"] for operandum ["to be brought about"]. Soon after, some codices such as A, N read secundum in place of per.
  13. Vat. cum cod. cc ad mittentem, sed minus bene et contra alios codd. cum ed. 1. — Paulo infra post quod cod. I addit distet et.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc reads ad mittentem ["to the one sending"], but less well and against the other codices together with ed. 1. — A little further on, after quod, codex I adds distet et ["he is distant and"].
  14. Cod. K, interpunctione mutata, separatio loci; tamen huiusmodi missio est a mittente etc.
    Codex K, with the punctuation altered, reads separatio loci; tamen huiusmodi missio est a mittente ("a separation of place; nevertheless mission of this sort is from the one sending") etc.
  15. Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 origo. De subauctoritate vide infra q. 4. in corp., et supra d. 12. q. 2, dein d. 20. a. 1. q. 2. ad 4. — Paulo ante cod. W pro omnia ponit omnino, quod refertur ad virtutem et iurisdictionem.
    The Vatican edition, without the authority of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, reads origo ["origin"]. On subauctoritas see below q. 4 in the corpus, and above d. 12 q. 2, then d. 20 a. 1 q. 2 ad 4. — A little before, codex W reads omnino in place of omnia, which would be referred to virtutem and iurisdictionem.
  16. Ex mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 substituimus quia loco cum, et paulo infra ex antiquioribus codd. cum ed. 1 supplevimus perperam omissum ita.
    From the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3 we have substituted quia ["because"] for cum ["when"], and a little further down, from the older codices together with ed. 1, we have supplied ita ["thus"], which had been wrongly omitted.
  17. Cod. 1 tamen loco harum est personae emanatio.
    Codex 1 reads tamen loco harum est personae emanatio ("yet in place of these is the emanation of the person").
← Dist. 15, Part 2, Divisio TextusDist. 15, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2→