← Back to Distinction 15

Dist. 15, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3

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

Textus Latinus
p. 262

QUAESTIO III.

Utrum missio, passive accepta, sit totius Trinitatis, in specie Patris.

Tertio quaeritur, cuius sit missio ut missi. Et videtur, quod sit totius Trinitatis.

1. Augustinus quarto de Trinitate1: «Mittitur Filius, cum ex tempore cuiusquam mente percipitur». Sed tota Trinitas ex tempore mente percipitur: ergo tota Trinitas mittitur: ergo et Pater.

2. Item, mitti personam est ipsam de novo venire ad habitandum2; sed tota Trinitas de novo

p. 263

venit ad habitandum in peccatore, cum gratia datur ei: ergo etc. Minor patet, Ioannis decimo quarto3: Ad eum veniemus etc.

3. Item, missio connotat effectum in creatura; sed regula4 est, quod omne nomen connotans effectum dicitur essentialiter: ergo missio, passive dicta, dicitur essentialiter: sed quod essentialiter dicitur convenit toti Trinitati: ergo etc.

4. Item, quando aliquid mittitur, mittitur cum eo omne quod ei5 inseparabiliter est coniunctum; sed Pater est inseparabiliter coniunctus Filio: ergo quando mittitur Filius, mittitur et Pater.

5. Item, mittere et mitti aut sunt aequalis nobilitatis, aut non. Si aequalis: ergo qua ratione dicitur mittere de Patre, eadem ratione et mitti; si6 inaequalis: ergo mittens est maior misso: ergo Filius est inaequalis Patri.

Contra:

1. Augustinus secundo de Trinitate7: «Pater nusquam legitur missus»; sed non debemus aliquid asserere de Deo, quod non habemus ex Scriptura: ergo mitti non convenit toti Trinitati.

2. Item, Augustinus8 dicit, quod Pater absurdissime dicitur missus; sed sermones veri non sunt absurdissimi, sed potius falsi: ergo mitti non vere dicitur de Patre.

3. Item, Augustinus9 dicit, quod mitti est cognosci esse ab alio; sed Pater non cognoscitur esse ab alio: ergo Pater non mittitur.

4. Item, omne mobile reducitur ad immobile10, ergo missibile ad immissibile: ergo in divinis est aliqua persona immissibilis, sed non nisi Pater: ergo etc.

CONCLUSIO.

Missio, passive accepta, nullatenus dici potest de Patre.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod missio, sicut patet ex ratione Augustini et melius infra patebit11, semper duo habet ex suo intellectu, scilicet emanationem et manifestationem per effectum. Quia ergo importat semper12 emanationem passive missio passive dicta, hinc est, quod cum Pater omnino careat principio, quod de ipso nullo modo potest dici missio passiva; unde non invenitur, et si inveniretur, esset tanquam falsa et velut impropria exponenda13.

1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo et secundo14, quod missio est perceptio ab intellectu, vel inhabitatio de novo; dicendum, quod non dicit totam rationem missionis, sed solum a parte termini in15 quem; unde debet addi cum illis emanatio ab alio; et tunc non valet.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur tertio, quod connotat16 effectum, ergo est essentiale; dicendum, quod nomen connotans effectum aut dicit solum respectum ad effectum, et tunc est pure essentiale, ut creare; aut dicit etiam cum hoc respectum ad personam, et sic potest esse notionale, sicut creare per Filium solius est Patris. Sic est de hoc quod est mitti, quia non dicit tantum comparationem missi ad suscipientem17 effectum, sed etiam ad principium. Significat enim, ipsum esse ab alio et in alium; et sic patet illud.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod inseparabilia simul mittuntur; dicendum, quod illud est verum de illa missione, quae est per separationem; sed de illa missione, quae est per distinctionem, non est dicere, quod simul18 mittantur necessario illi qui distinguuntur, sicut nec in alia missione illa quae separantur. Et quoniam Pater distinguitur a Filio, et missio in divinis dicit distinctionem; ideo non oportet, quod cum mittitur19 Filius, mittatur Pater.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod aequalis nobilitatis est mitti ut20 mittere; dicendum, quod mitti non removetur a Patre, quia dicit ignobilitatem, sed quia dicit emanationem et subauctoritatem, quae quamvis non sit ignobilitatis, tamen non convenit Patri21.

p. 264
Scholion

Conclusio est sententia communis; communiter etiam conceditur, Patri convenire manifestationem factam in aliquo effectu ipsi appropriato, v. g. in aliqua apparitione. Sed quia missio praeter hoc connotat in persona missa emanationem, et Pater non emanat, ideo haec eius manifestatio non est missio.

Ita Richard., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 73. m. 2. a. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 2; S. I. q. 43. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

---

English Translation
p. 262

QUESTION III.

Whether mission, taken passively, belongs to the whole Trinity — specifically to the Father.

Third it is asked of whom mission belongs as the one sent. And it seems that it belongs to the whole Trinity.

1. Augustine, On the Trinity IV1: «The Son is sent when from time he is perceived in someone's mind». But the whole Trinity is from time perceived in the mind: therefore the whole Trinity is sent: therefore the Father also.

2. Likewise, for a person to be sent is for him to come anew to indwell2; but the whole Trinity comes anew

p. 263

to indwell in the sinner when grace is given to him: therefore etc. The minor [premise] is plain from John 143: We will come to him etc.

3. Likewise, mission connotes an effect in the creature; but it is a rule4 that every name connoting an effect is said essentially: therefore mission, passively spoken of, is said essentially: but what is said essentially belongs to the whole Trinity: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, when something is sent, there is sent with it everything that is inseparably joined to it5; but the Father is inseparably joined to the Son: therefore when the Son is sent, the Father also is sent.

5. Likewise, to send and to be sent are either of equal nobility, or not. If of equal nobility: then for the same reason that to send is said of the Father, by the same reason to be sent [is said of him]; if6 unequal: then the one sending is greater than the one sent: therefore the Son is unequal to the Father.

On the contrary:

1. Augustine, On the Trinity II7: «The Father is nowhere read as having been sent»; but we ought not to assert anything about God which we do not have from Scripture: therefore to be sent does not belong to the whole Trinity.

2. Likewise, Augustine8 says that it is most absurd to say that the Father is sent; but true statements are not most absurd, but rather false ones [are]: therefore to be sent is not truly said of the Father.

3. Likewise, Augustine9 says that to be sent is to be known to be from another; but the Father is not known to be from another: therefore the Father is not sent.

4. Likewise, every movable [thing] is reduced to an immovable10; therefore [every] sendable to a non-sendable: therefore in the divine [persons] there is some person who cannot be sent — and this is none but the Father: therefore etc.

CONCLUSION.

Mission, taken passively, can in no way be said of the Father.

I respond: It must be said that mission, as is plain from Augustine's reasoning and will appear better below11, always has two things in its meaning — namely, emanation, and manifestation through an effect. Therefore since mission spoken of passively always imports emanation passively12, hence it follows that, since the Father is wholly without principle, passive mission can in no way be said of him; hence it is not found, and if it were found, it would have to be expounded as something false and as it were improper13.

1. & 2. Therefore to what is objected first and second14 — that mission is perception by the intellect, or new indwelling — it must be said that this does not state the whole account of mission, but only [its] part on the side of the term to which15; whence there must be added with these the emanation from another; and then [the objection] does not hold.

3. To what is objected third — that it connotes16 an effect, therefore it is essential — it must be said that a name connoting an effect either asserts only a respect to the effect, and then it is purely essential, as to create; or it asserts also along with this a respect to a person, and so it can be notional, as to create through the Son belongs to the Father alone. So it is with to be sent, since it asserts not only a comparison of the one sent to the one receiving17 the effect, but also to the principle. For it signifies that he is from another and into another; and so the [objection] is plain.

4. To what is objected — that inseparable [things] are sent together — it must be said that this is true of that mission which is by separation; but of that mission which is by distinction, it cannot be said that those who are distinguished are necessarily sent together18, any more than in the other mission [are] those things which are separated. And since the Father is distinguished from the Son, and mission in the divine [persons] asserts distinction, therefore it is not necessary that, when the Son is sent19, the Father be sent [along with him].

5. To what is objected last — that to be sent is of equal nobility as20 to send — it must be said that to be sent is not removed from the Father because it asserts ignobility, but because it asserts emanation and subauthority [subauctoritas], which, although it is not [a mark] of ignobility, still does not belong to the Father21.

p. 264
Scholion

The conclusion is the common opinion; it is also commonly granted that to the Father belongs manifestation made in some effect appropriated to him — for example, in some apparition. But because mission, besides this, connotes in the person sent an emanation, and the Father does not emanate, therefore this manifestation of his is not a mission.

So Richard [of Mediavilla], here a. 2, q. 1. — Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 73, m. 2, a. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 2; S. I, q. 43, a. 4. — Bl. Albert, here a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here, second principal q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cap. 20. n. 28. — In fine argumenti post ergo ex aliquibus mss. ut H Q X adiecimus particulam et.
    Chap. 20, n. 28 [of De Trinitate IV]. — At the end of the argument, after ergo, we have added the particle et from some manuscripts (H, Q, X).
  2. Codd. aa bb melius inhabitandum.
    Codices aa and bb read better, inhabitandum ["to dwell-within"].
  3. Vers. 23.
    Verse 23 [John 14:23].
  4. Vat. cum cod. cc ita loco regula, sed obstat auctoritas aliorum codd. et ed. 1. Mox post omne ex pluribus codd. ut H M V aa bb ff cum ed. 1 adiecimus nomen, quod et infra in responsione habetur ab omnibus mss. Dein ed. 1 notatis loco connotans.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc reads ita in place of regula, but the authority of the other codices and ed. 1 is against this. Soon after omne, from several codices (H, M, V, aa, bb, ff) with ed. 1, we have added nomen, which is also held below in the response by all the manuscripts. Then ed. 1 reads notatis in place of connotans.
  5. Ex mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus indebite omissum ei, et paulo infra post coniunctus expunximus cum, loco cuius cod. W ponit ipsi.
    From the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied ei ["to it"], improperly omitted; and a little further on, after coniunctus, we have expunged cum, in place of which codex W puts ipsi.
  6. Vat., plurimis mss. et ed. 1 refragantibus, addit est.
    The Vatican edition, with most manuscripts and ed. 1 disagreeing, adds est.
  7. Cap. 5. n. 8. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.
    Chap. 5, n. 8 [of De Trinitate II]. See here the Letter of the Master, c. 2.
  8. Libr. IV. de Trin. c. 21. n. 32; vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 9.
    Book IV of On the Trinity, c. 21, n. 32; see here the Letter of the Master, c. 9.
  9. Libr. IV. de Trin. c. 20. n. 28; vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 7–9.
    Book IV of On the Trinity, c. 20, n. 28; see here the Letter of the Master, c. 7–9.
  10. Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 34. seqq. (c. 5.). — Mox post primum ergo cod. M cum ed. 1 adiicit et. Paulo infra fide plurimorum mss. et edd. 1, 4, 5 substituimus aliqua pro minus apto alia.
    Cf. Aristotle, Physics VIII, text 34 ff. (c. 5). — Soon after primum ergo, codex M with ed. 1 adds et. A little further on, on the testimony of most manuscripts and editions 1, 4, 5, we have substituted aliqua for the less apt alia.
  11. Quaest. seq. in corp. et ad 3. — Mox nonnulli codd. ut aa bb ff cum ed. 1 de loco ex, et dein cod. Y post emanationem explicative addit passive.
    The following question, in the corpus and in reply 3. — Soon some codices (aa, bb, ff) with ed. 1 read de in place of ex, and then codex Y after emanationem adds passive by way of explanation.
  12. Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus semper, et mox post missio ope plurium mss. ut A H I M T V aa bb ff supplevimus passive, qua lectione omnis ambiguitas tollitur. Ed. 1 omittit primum passive.
    From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have added semper ["always"]; and soon after missio, with the help of several manuscripts (A, H, I, M, T, V, aa, bb, ff), we have supplied passive, by which reading every ambiguity is removed. Ed. 1 omits the first passive.
  13. Praeferenda videtur lectio cod. T, in qua post esset addita particula tanquam deest, utpote quae verbo exponenda non bene adaptatur, pro qua unus alterve codex habet inquam. Cod. X valde loco velut. Cod. K velut haeretica reprobanda pro velut impropria exponenda.
    The reading of codex T seems preferable, in which the particle tanquam added after esset is absent — since it does not adapt well to the verb exponenda — for which one or another codex has inquam. Codex X has valde in place of velut. Codex K has velut haeretica reprobanda ("to be rejected as heretical") in place of velut impropria exponenda ("to be expounded as improper").
  14. Licet mss. cum ed. 1 omittant et secundo, retinuimus tamen, quia revera ad duo prima obiecta respondetur.
    Although the manuscripts with ed. 1 omit et secundo, we have nevertheless retained it, since in fact reply is made to the first two objections.
  15. Cod. T ad. In fine solutionis codd. L O loco non valet legunt vera est.
    Codex T reads ad. At the end of the solution, codices L and O read vera est ["it is true"] in place of non valet ["it does not hold"].
  16. Plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 notat.
    Most codices with ed. 1 read notat ["it indicates"].
  17. Cod. R susceptionem seu. In fine responsionis fide plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 post patet adiecimus illud.
    Codex R reads susceptionem seu ("of receiving, or"). At the end of the response, on the testimony of most manuscripts and ed. 1, after patet we have added illud.
  18. Auctoritate antiquiorum codd. et ed. 1 substituimus simul pro sic. Paulo ante codd. N R verum loco dicere. Cod. X praecedentem propositionem ita exhibet: missione non est verum, quae est per distinctionem, non enim est dicere. Paulo infra sub alia missione intellige illam, quae est per separationem, in qua inseparabilia simul mittuntur, separata vero non.
    On the authority of the older codices and ed. 1, we have substituted simul ["together"] for sic. A little before, codices N and R read verum in place of dicere. Codex X displays the preceding proposition thus: missione non est verum, quae est per distinctionem, non enim est dicere. A little further on, by the other mission understand that which is by separation, in which inseparable [things] are sent together, but separated [things] are not.
  19. Vat. cum aliquibus mss. mittatur, sed minus apte. Cod. T si loco cum. Mox post mittatur cod. Z addit et.
    The Vatican edition with some manuscripts reads mittatur, but less aptly. Codex T reads si in place of cum. Soon after mittatur codex Z adds et.
  20. Ed. 1 et loco ut.
    Ed. 1 reads et in place of ut.
  21. In cod. K additur imo repugnat proprietati eius, quia Pater est non ab alio.
    In codex K it is added: indeed it is repugnant to his property, because the Father is not from another.
← Dist. 15, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2Dist. 15, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 4→