Dist. 15, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 15
QUAESTIO II.
Utrum missio in divinis sit tantum ex tempore, an etiam ab aeterno.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum missio in divinis sit ex tempore tantum, an etiam ab aeterno. Et quod ab aeterno, ostenditur auctoritate et ratione.
1. Auctoritate sic: Gregorius1: «Eo ipso mittitur Filius, quo generatur»; sed generatur ab aeterno: ergo mittitur ab aeterno: ergo missio in divinis est ab aeterno.
2. Item, Beda in homilia2: «Spiritus sancti missio est eius processio»: sed procedit ab aeterno: ergo mittitur ab aeterno.
3. Item, ratione sic: missio, sive active sive passive dicta, est Deus; sed omnis actio, quae active et passive est Deus, est ab aeterno: ergo etc.
4. Item, omnis actio, quae habet Deum ut terminum et ut principium, est ab aeterno, ut patet, cum dicitur: Deus intelligit Deum3, Deus generat Deum: sed missio est huiusmodi, quia Deus mittit Deum: ergo missio est aeterna. Si dicas, quod missio requirit duplicem terminum, scilicet eum qui mittitur, et eum ad quem mittitur, et ille ad quem fit missio, est temporalis; contra: Deus potest esse qui mittit, Deus, qui mittitur: ergo pari ratione Deus, ad quem mittitur; et videtur, quod istae comparationes principii et termini maxime Deo conveniant. Deus enim est alpha et omega, principium et finis4: ergo magis proprie dicitur Deus, ad quem mittitur, quam Deus, qui mittitur.
5. Item, quidquid est Deus, est aeternum; missio est Deus: ergo est aeterna; sed praemissae sunt verae: ergo et conclusio.
Contra:
1. Ioannis decimo sexto5: Si non abiero, Paraclitus non veniet ad vos; cum autem abiero, mittam vobis eum. Ergo Spiritus sanctus potest mitti et promitti; sed quod est aeternum non potest promitti: ergo etc.
2. Item, Augustinus quarto de Trinitate6: «Mittitur Filius vel Spiritus sanctus, cum ex tempore cuiusquam mente percipitur».
3. Item, omnis missio est ad7 aliquid posterius mittente; sed ubi cadit posterius necessario intervenit ratio principii et temporis: ergo etc. Prima propositio per se est vera, quia mittens per prius habet ipsum quod8 mittit, quam habet ille, ad quem mittit.
4. Item, omnis missio vel est ratione mutationis, vel ratione operationis; sed in divinis non est mutatio: ergo ad hoc, quod missio sit, necesse est quod interveniat operatio; et si operatio, et effectus; et si effectus, et9 tempus: ergo omnis missio est ex tempore.
CONCLUSIO.
Missio propter comparationem ad terminum creatum dicenda est temporalis.
Respondeo: Dicendum ad praedicta, quod missio in divinis nullo modo dicitur nisi ex tempore. Et ratio huius est, quia dicit comparationem non tantum ad principium nec tantum ad missum, sed
etiam ad terminum. Terminus10 ille de necessitate creatus est, quia missio in Deo, cum non dicat mutationem, dicit aliquam circa terminum operationem, et ita aliquem effectum; et quia omne quod recipit effectum, est creatum et temporale: ideo missio de necessitate est temporalis.
1. Ad illud ergo quod dicit Gregorius: «Eo ipso mittitur Filius, quo generatur»; dicendum, quod ipse loquitur, praesupposita manifestatione in creatura11. Pater enim manifestatur in creatura, sed non mittitur, sed Filius mittitur. Et Gregorius reddit rationem, quia nulla alia causa est, nisi quod iste12 generatur, ille non, id est Pater.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Beda, dicendum, quod Beda loquitur de processione Spiritus sancti, prout est in creatura, et ita semper est temporalis ut missio.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omne quod active et passive ponitur, in Deo est aeternum; dicendum, quod verum est, nisi habeat ulteriorem respectum ad creaturam; sed missio praeter respectum, qui est mittentis ad missum, importat aliquem effectum in creatura13.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod missio active et passive est Deus; dicendum, quod est quaedam actio, quae solum respicit passum, ut «percutio te»; quaedam, quae passum et alium terminum, ut «doceo te grammaticam», similiter et «mitto te ad illum». Et quod obiicit14 verum est in actione et passione, quae nihil aliud respiciunt nisi principium et obiectum; sed non in aliis, quae requirunt alium terminum, et ideo habet instantiam in proposito.
4. Similiter solvendum est ad sequens, quod verum est, si actio illa omnino terminaretur15 in Deum.
Sed quod obiicit, quod missio respicit Deum ut terminum ad quem; dicendum, quod si terminus, ad quem est missio, esset solum in ratione finientis, verum16 esset; nunc autem non est sic, sed magis in ratione suscipientis.
5. Ad ultimum obiectum dicendum, quod ibi est paralogismus accidentis, sicut hic: omne aes est naturale, statua est aes: ergo etc.; quia quod erat materiae attribuitur statuae ratione artificii. Similiter hic, quod erat divinae essentiae attribuitur missioni ratione connotati.
I. In conclusione omnes conveniunt, etiam ii, qui cum Alex. Hal. statuunt, missionem in suo principali significato dicere quid aeternum, nempe processionem aeternam. Ipse Alex. Hal. (loc. cit.) obiectum hic ultimo loco positum sic solvit: «De missione est loqui quantum ad principale significatum et quantum ad connotatum: ratione principalis significati est quid aeternum; ratione connotati est ex tempore. Cum autem aeternum coniungitur temporali in eodem termino, proprie loquendo, debet iudicari temporale, sicut, quando necessarium coniungitur contingenti, totum iudicatur contingens. Ideo in argumento isto est fallacia accidentis: missio est Deus; et Deus est aeternus: ergo missio est aeterna; quia aeternitas, quae est in principali significato missionis, infertur de connotato. Hoc enim nomen aeternus, cum sit adiectivum, determinat ipsum terminum et ponit rem suam ratione totalis significati».
II. Quoad ipsam quaestionem: Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 71. m. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 4. a. 3; S. I. q. 43. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic d. 15. p. II. prima princ. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.
---
QUESTION II.
Whether mission in the divine [persons] is only from time, or also from eternity.
Second it is asked whether mission in the divine [persons] is only from time, or also from eternity. And that it is from eternity is shown by authority and by reason.
1. By authority, thus: Gregory1: «By that very thing the Son is sent, by which he is generated»; but he is generated from eternity: therefore he is sent from eternity: therefore mission in the divine [persons] is from eternity.
2. Likewise, Bede in a homily2: «The mission of the Holy Spirit is his procession»: but he proceeds from eternity: therefore he is sent from eternity.
3. Likewise, by reason, thus: mission, whether spoken of actively or passively, is God; but every action which actively and passively is God is from eternity: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, every action which has God as term and as principle is from eternity, as is plain when it is said: God understands God3, God generates God: but mission is of this kind, since God sends God: therefore mission is eternal. If you say that mission requires a twofold term — namely, the one who is sent, and the one to whom he is sent — and the one to whom mission is made is temporal; on the contrary: God can be the one who sends, [and] God the one who is sent: therefore by like reasoning [also] God [as the one] to whom he is sent; and it seems that these comparisons of principle and term belong most fully to God. For God is alpha and omega, the beginning and the end4: therefore it is more properly said God to whom he is sent than God who is sent.
5. Likewise, whatever is God is eternal; mission is God: therefore it is eternal; but the premises are true: therefore so also is the conclusion.
On the contrary:
1. John 165: If I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you; but when I have gone away, I will send him to you. Therefore the Holy Spirit can be sent and promised; but what is eternal cannot be promised: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, Augustine, On the Trinity IV6: «The Son or the Holy Spirit is sent when from time he is perceived in someone's mind».
3. Likewise, every mission is to7 something posterior to the one sending; but where there is posteriority, the account of principle and of time necessarily intervenes: therefore etc. The first proposition is per se true, since the one sending has the very thing that8 he sends prior to the one to whom he sends [it].
4. Likewise, every mission is either by reason of change or by reason of operation; but in the divine [persons] there is no change: therefore for there to be mission, an operation must intervene; and if operation, then [also] an effect; and if an effect, then9 [also] time: therefore every mission is from time.
CONCLUSION.
Mission, on account of [its] comparison to a created term, must be called temporal.
I respond: It must be said in reply to the foregoing that mission in the divine [persons] is in no way said except from time. And the reason for this is that it asserts a comparison not only to the principle, nor only to the one sent, but
also to the term. That term10 is necessarily created, because mission in God, since it does not assert change, asserts some operation about a term, and so some effect; and because everything that receives an effect is created and temporal, mission is necessarily temporal.
1. Therefore to what Gregory says — «By that very thing the Son is sent, by which he is generated» — it must be said that he is speaking with the manifestation in the creature presupposed11. For the Father is manifested in the creature, but he is not sent; rather the Son is sent. And Gregory gives the reason, namely that there is no other cause except that this one12 is generated, [and] that one is not — that is, the Father.
2. To what is objected from Bede, it must be said that Bede is speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit insofar as it is in the creature, and so always is temporal, just like mission.
3. To what is objected — that everything which is posited actively and passively is in God eternal — it must be said that this is true unless it has a further respect to the creature; but mission, beyond the respect which is of the one sending to the one sent, imports some effect in the creature13.
To what is objected — that mission is actively and passively God — it must be said that there is a certain action which regards only the patient, as «I strike you»; another which [regards] the patient and another term, as «I teach you grammar», and similarly «I send you to him». And what is objected14 is true in [that] action and passion which regard nothing other than principle and object; but not in others, which require another term, and so it has a counter-instance in the case at hand.
4. Similarly the next [objection] must be solved: it would be true if that action were wholly terminated15 in God.
But to what is objected — that mission regards God as term to which — it must be said that if the term to which mission is made were only in the character of that which terminates, it would be true16; but as it is, it is not so, but rather in the character of that which receives.
5. To the last objection it must be said that there a fallacy of accident is committed, just as here: every bronze is natural, the statue is bronze: therefore etc.; for what belonged to the matter is attributed to the statue by reason of the craftsmanship. Similarly here, what belonged to the divine essence is attributed to mission by reason of what is connoted.
I. All agree on the conclusion, even those who, with Alexander of Hales, hold that mission in its principal signification asserts something eternal — namely, the eternal procession. Alexander of Hales himself (in the place cited) solves the objection placed last here as follows: «We must speak of mission with respect both to its principal signification and to what it connotes: by reason of the principal signification it is something eternal; by reason of what is connoted it is from time. Now when something eternal is conjoined with something temporal in the same term, properly speaking it must be judged temporal — just as, when the necessary is conjoined with the contingent, the whole is judged contingent. Therefore in this argument there is the fallacy of accident: mission is God; and God is eternal; therefore mission is eternal — for the eternity which is in the principal signification of mission is inferred of what is connoted. For this name eternal, since it is an adjective, determines the term itself and posits its content by reason of the total signification».
II. On the question itself: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 71, m. 4. — St. Thomas, here q. 4, a. 3; S. I, q. 43, a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here d. 15, p. II, first principal q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.
---
- Homil. 26. n. 2. in Evang.: Eo enim ipso a Patre Filius mitti dicitur, quo a Patre generatur. In quo textu plurimi codd. et ed. 1 omittunt ipso.Homily 26, n. 2, on the Gospel: For by that very thing the Son is said to be sent by the Father, by which he is generated by the Father. In which text very many codices and ed. 1 omit ipso.
- Vide d. XIV. lit. Magistri, c. 1.See d. 14, Letter of the Master [Lombard's text], chapter 1.
- Reliquimus Deum, quod in fere omnibus codd. et sex primis edd. non bene decidit (forte propter immediate sequentem repetitionem nominis Deus); idem recurrit mox post generat.We have left Deum ["God"] standing, although in nearly all the codices and the first six editions it does not stand well (perhaps on account of the immediately following repetition of the noun Deus); the same recurs soon after generat.
- Apoc. 1, 8.Apocalypse 1:8.
- Vers. 7; ultimam huius textus partem Vulgata ita exhibet: Si autem abiero, mittam eum ad vos. — Mox post eum fide plurium mss. ut F H I T X aa bb ff et ed. 1 expunximus Cum, quod propter formam argumenti melius deest.Verse 7 [John 16:7]; the last part of this text the Vulgate displays as: But if I go away, I will send him to you. — Soon after eum, on the testimony of several manuscripts (F, H, I, T, X, aa, bb, ff) and ed. 1, we have expunged Cum ["When"], which is better absent on account of the form of the argument.
- Cap. 20. n. 28. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 7. et 8. — In principio verborum Augustini nonnulli codd. ut I bb ff cum ed. 1 ponunt Tunc mittitur etc.Chap. 20, n. 28 [of De Trinitate IV]. See here the Letter of the Master, c. 7 and 8. — At the beginning of Augustine's words, some codices, such as I, bb, ff, with ed. 1, put Tunc mittitur ("Then he is sent") etc.
- Ex mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus ad, quod Vat., ut ex subnexis patet, male omittit. Cod. Z particulae ad praemittit ab aliquo, loco cuius cod. O habet aliquo modo.From the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied ad, which the Vatican edition, as is plain from what follows, wrongly omits. Codex Z prefixes ab aliquo to the particle ad; in its place codex O has aliquo modo.
- Unus alterve codex ut T cc quem.One or another codex, such as T or cc, reads quem ["which / whom"].
- Plures codd. ut F G I K T V Y aa bb ee ff cum ed. 1 omittunt et.Several codices (F, G, I, K, T, V, Y, aa, bb, ee, ff) with ed. 1 omit et.
- Sequimur lectionem maioris partis codd. ut A F G K S T V X Y cc ee ff et ed. 4, dum Vat. nomini Terminum praefigit sed, aliqui vero codd. ut I Z bb et, nonnulli demum ut H W post Terminus addunt autem. Mox post dicat cod. B adiungit missi, sed nimis arcte videtur.We follow the reading of the majority of the codices (A, F, G, K, S, T, V, X, Y, cc, ee, ff) and ed. 4, while the Vatican edition prefixes sed to the noun Terminum; some codices (I, Z, bb) prefix et; finally a few (H, W) add autem after Terminus. Soon after dicat codex B adds missi, but the construction seems too tight.
- Postulantibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1, substituimus creatura loco creaturis.As required by the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted creatura ["in the creature", singular] for creaturis ["in creatures", plural].
- Nempe: Filius. — Vat. cum cod. cc minus congrue et contra alios codd. et ed. 1 ille pro iste. Paulo ante plures codd. ut A H bb cum ed. 1 quod loco quia, quorum aliqui ut bb et ed. 1 dein post nisi ponunt quia pro quod. — Aliam expositionem verborum Gregorii vide in secunda parte huius distinctionis, dub. 2.Namely: the Son. — The Vatican edition with codex cc less fittingly, and against the other codices and ed. 1, reads ille in place of iste. A little before, several codices (A, H, bb) with ed. 1 read quod in place of quia, and some of these (such as bb and ed. 1) afterwards put quia in place of quod after nisi. — For another exposition of Gregory's words, see in the second part of this distinction, Dubium 2.
- Haec solutio respicit minorem tertiae et etiam maiorem quartae obiectionis; sed quod sequitur solvit maiorem tertiae.This solution looks to the minor of the third [objection] and also to the major of the fourth; but what follows solves the major of the third.
- Vat. obiicitur.The Vatican edition reads obiicitur ["it is objected"].
- Plures codd. ut A I S T terminetur. Paulo ante cod. W omittit illa.Several codices (A, I, S, T) read terminetur. A little before, codex W omits illa.
- Fide mss. et ed. 1 delevimus sic, quod Vat. vocabulo verum praefigit. — Nota, quod haec solutio respicit illam obiectionem, quae sub Contra in quarta principali continetur.On the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, we have deleted sic, which the Vatican edition prefixes to the word verum. — Note that this solution looks back to that objection which is contained under Contra in the fourth principal [argument].