D. 16 - Visible sending of the Holy Spirit

Division of the text

After having considered the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit in common, here he descends to his specific modes of sending. And this is divided into two parts: in the first, he considers his visible sending; in the second, the invisible (Distinction 17), at let us now proceed to set out the sending of the Holy Spirit, by which he is invisibly sent into the hearts of the faithful. (Sent. I, 16.1(58).1; I, 17.)

The first is divided into two: in the first, he distinguishes two modes of temporal procession of the Holy Spirit; in the second, he manifests its difference from the visible sending of the Son, at but first it must be asked. (Sent. I, 16.1(58).3.)

And this latter is divided into two: in the first, he manifests the difference through the fact that through his visible sending the Son is said to be less than the Father, but not less than the Holy Spirit; in the second, as a consequence he manifests another mode in which the Father can be said to be greater than the Son, which is on account of his visible sending, at Hilary appears to say that the Father is greater than the Son, and yet the Son is not less than the Father. (Sent. I, 16.2(59).4.)

As regards the first, he does two things: first, he shows that the Son is said to be less than the Father on account of his visible sending, but not less than the Holy Spirit; second, he shows that, on account of the same visible sending, the Son can be said to be less than his very self and less than the Holy Spirit, at but it is to be noted that the Son, according to his having become man, is not only called less than the Father, but also than the Holy Spirit and even than his own self. (Sent. I, 16.2(59).1.)

Question 1

The visible sending of the Holy Spirit

In order to understand this part, four things are asked:

first, about the visible sending itself in virtue of itself;

second, to whom it should happen;

third, by which appearances;

fourth, through whom is the visible sending administered.

Article 1

Whether a visible sending befits a divine person

To the first we proceed as follows. It seems that a visible sending does not befit a divine person.

Obj. 1: For sending occurs insofar as a divine person is present in someone in a new way that he was not before. (Above, d. 15, q. 1, a. 1.) But in no visible creature can he be present in a way that he was not present before, for he is in all created things by his essence, power, and presence; and besides this, he is in the minds of the holy through grace, in which way he cannot be present by any visible body. Therefore it seems that there is no visible sending.

Obj. 2: You might say that he is in those visible creatures in a different way, because he is present as what is signified is in its sign.

On the contrary, every effect representing its cause is a sign of the latter, by which the latter can be discovered in the effect itself. But all created things represent God himself as their cause, as his image or vestige. Therefore in this respect he is sent visibly in all created things, nor will he be in those visible creatures in which he is said to be sent in any way other than he was before.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the account of a sacrament is that God is in it as in a visible sign. Therefore if he is said to be visibly sent on account of the fact that he is in visible realities as in signs of him, then those realities would be sacraments, and in all the sacraments there would be a visible sending.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, Augustine says, in the text, (Sent. I, 16.1(58).2, quoting Augustine, On the Trinity, bk. 2, ch. 5 (CCSL 50; PL 42:851).) that the Holy Spirit is said to be sent visibly from the fact that a certain appearance of a creature occurred within time, wherein he would be shown visibly. But in the apparitions of the Old Testament the divine persons were shown in visible creatures, such as the apparition to Abraham in Genesis 18. Therefore in reference to this it seems that the visible sending is not different from an apparition.

Obj. 5: One might say that the visible sending shows the invisible sending, which does not make an apparition.

On the contrary, through the invisible sending someone is made worthy of the love of God: but no one knows whether he is worthy of love or hate (Eccl 9:1). (RSV: the righteous and the wise and their deeds are in the hand of God; whether it is love or hate man does not know.) Nor does it seem useful to know this, since otherwise it would not have been hidden from man. Therefore it seems that no visible apparition occurs for the sake of manifesting the interior sending.

Obj. 6: Furthermore, nothing can be made manifest through something else unless the latter sufficiently leads one to the former. But no visible created thing sufficiently leads to the knowledge of invisible grace. Therefore it seems that the invisible sending is not made manifest through the visible appearance.

I answer that, just as the temporal procession is not other than the eternal procession essentially, but it does add a certain reference to a temporal effect, so too is the visible sending not essentially other than the invisible sending of the Holy Spirit, but it adds only the account of manifestation through a visible sign. Therefore three things come together for the account of the visible sending of the Holy Spirit: that the one sent be from someone; that he is within someone according to a special mode; and that each of them is shown by some visible sign—by the reason of which the whole sending is called “visible.”

Reply Obj. 1: That visible creature in reference to which the sending is called “visible” stands differently in the visible sending of the Son and in the visible sending of the Holy Spirit. For in the sending of the Son, the visible creature stands not only as that whereby or wherein the sending is shown, but also as that to whom the sending happens. For he assumed a visible human nature into a unity of the person, according to which assumption he is said to have been “sent into flesh.” And therefore he exists in the visible nature itself in a certain new way, that is, through a union not only in the soul but even in the body. But in the visible sending of the Holy Spirit that visible creature does not stand as that to whom the sending happens, but only as manifesting the invisible sending that happens within someone else. And therefore it is not necessary that he is in that visible creature in a new way, except as in a sign; but he is in a new way in the one to whom the sending happens.

Reply Obj. 2: Although every created thing signifies God’s existence and goodness, nonetheless they do not signify in anyone God’s existence through grace, unless they are in a specific way instituted for this, as those visible creatures especially made for making known the presence of the Holy Spirit in them.

Reply Obj. 3: The presence of the divine indwelling is signified through the sacraments as in instituted signs, not for a time but always. But those visible creatures mentioned in the objection were not instituted so as to signify the grace of the divine indwelling always, but only for that determinate time, and therefore they are not alike. Or it should be said differently, and better, that the sacraments of the Old Law indeed signified future grace, but not present grace, in that grace was not conferred in them. But the sacraments of the New Law are not only signs but also in a certain way causes, and therefore they do not signify grace as already possessed, but as to be brought about through those sacraments. But those Old Law appearances are only signs of the presence of grace, not causes of it, just as it is clear regarding Christ, to whom the visible sending of the Holy Spirit occurred, that nothing of invisible grace was brought about thereby. Whence also all those to whom a visible sending happens have grace, but not all those to whom the sacraments are conferred receive grace, since the causality of the sacraments can be impeded. For they signify grace not as something existing, but as something to be caused in some by them.

Reply Obj. 4: The visible sending includes in itself an apparition, and adds something over and above this: namely, the account of the sending. And this consists in the two things spoken of in the body of the article. Whence it belongs to the account of an apparition only that something divine is being manifested in a visible sign, but not that the origin of one person from another is being manifested; nor is there a manifestation of the indwelling according to a specific mode of being in the one to whom the apparition appears, or in anyone else. This is clear in the apparition made to Abraham; for although three appeared, for the sake of manifesting the number of the persons, nonetheless the order of one person as from another was not manifested in that visible sign. This is also why an apparition can befit the Father, but a visible sending cannot.

Reply Obj. 5: No one through himself can know whether he is worthy of hatred or love. But it can be divinely manifested to him for the sake of a certain utility, and not only to him, but even to others. However, what is useful to one may not be useful to all. Whence it is not necessary that if it is revealed to one, then it would be revealed to all.

Reply Obj. 6: Although one visible creature is not enough to lead one to the knowledge of the invisible sending, still from its newness it excites those who see it to wonder and investigate. And then the signified invisible sending can be taught to those investigating, through the invisible grace and the exterior teaching of a preacher.

Article 2

Whether the visible sending should have been made to the fathers of the Old Testament

To the second we proceed as follows. It seems that the visible sending should have been made also to the fathers of the Old Testament.

Obj. 1: For the visible sending is a sign of the invisible sending. But the invisible sending did happen to the fathers of the Old Testament, as was said above. (Above, d. 15, q. 5, a. 2.) Therefore it seems that the visible one should have happened as well.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, it is certain that the grace of the New Testament is the grace of fullness, insofar as we all receive of Christ’s fullness. Therefore if the sending of the Holy Spirit occurred for the early members of the Church on account of the fullness of grace, it seems that it also should have occurred for all the faithful.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, through visible sendings and visible signs the apostles diffused the knowledge of faith to many, as is said in Mark 16:20: and they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. But just as those were bound to the preaching of the faith, so too are the prelates of our time. Therefore it seems that the visible sending should occur for them as well.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, it is certain that the Blessed Virgin possessed the fullest grace among all mere creatures. Therefore if the visible sending occurs to manifest the fullness of indwelling grace, it seems that a special sending should have happened to her.

On the contrary (5), it seems that the sending should not have happened to Christ. For the visible sending is a sign of the invisible sending. But no invisible sending of the Holy Spirit happened to Christ, except perhaps at the beginning of his conception. Therefore it seems that afterward no visible sending should have happened to him.

I answer that, just as grace overflows into the mind in the invisible sending of the Holy Spirit, due to the fullness of divine love, and through that effect of grace experiential knowledge of that divine person is received by the one to whom the sending is brought about, so too in the visible sending another grade of overflow is seen. This happens insofar as the interior grace, on account of its fullness, in a certain way overflows into a visible manifestation; through that the indwelling of the divine person is made manifest, not only to the one in whom the sending is accomplished, but also to others.

Whence two things must come together for the visible sending: that the fullness of grace is in those to whom the sending occurs, and further, that the fullness is ordered to others, so that an abundant grace in some way overflows into them. On account of this, the manifestation of interior grace is made not only to its possessor, but also to others. And this is why the visible sending occurred to Christ first, and later to the apostles, because grace has been diffused through that multitude, insofar as through them the Church has been planted.

Reply Obj. 1: Although some fathers of the Old Testament received the fullest personal grace, nonetheless it was not yet the time of grace, on account of the impediment of original sin, for which human nature had not yet received the remedy by Christ’s death. Therefore the fullness of grace should not have been signified as present, but only as to come, in apparitions and the sacraments of the law. On the other side, it was not then the time of spiritual propagation, whereby the diverse nations are regenerated in a spiritual way by the knowledge of God; rather, the divine worship proceeded from fathers to sons by a fleshly propagation. And therefore grace should not have been signified through a visible sending, which signifies grace stretching out to the others.

Reply Obj. 2: The faithful of the early Church were, as it were, a certain spiritual seed through whom the faith had to sprout forth in all the nations. And therefore the visible sending happened to them, to show that the Church was to be planted through them in the knowledge of God throughout the entire world.

Reply Obj. 3: For two reasons the visible sending is not necessary now, as it was then. For first, it is the natural order that one go from visible things to invisible. This is why visible signs were shown to the first believers as to those who are yet underdeveloped in the knowledge of God, whereas now, with the faith already made known and public, the knowledge in the invisible signs, which are the gifts of the graces poured into minds, is enough. For we see that something profits a new sapling that later should not be applied to it when it has come to adulthood. The other reason is that those signs and visible sendings were, so to speak, an argument for confirming the truth of the faith. However, once its proof has been completed, the proof need not be repeated; rather, one should proceed on the supposition of the prior proof. So too it is not necessary that faith be proved now through new signs, but through the ones that were done then.

Reply Obj. 4: The visible sending of the Holy Spirit happened to the Blessed Virgin along with the others who belonged to the early Church, on the day of Pentecost. But even though she attained a singular fullness of grace, nonetheless a special visible sending did not occur for her. For her grace was not ordered to the planting of the Church through the mode of teaching and administering the sacraments, as was accomplished by the apostles. Whence the Apostle says in 1 Timothy 2:12, I permit no woman to teach in the Church. (RSV: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.)

Reply Sed Contra 5: The visible sending does not always show the invisible sending to be happening right then and there; rather, it is also enough if it occurred beforehand. However, why the visible sending happened to Christ at that point, we will discuss below, in the next article.

Article 3

Whether the visible sending occurs only by means of a bodily appearance

To the third we proceed as follows. It seems that the visible sending occurs not merely in a bodily appearance.

Obj. 1: For there are three kinds of sending: bodily, imaginary, and intellectual, as is said in a Gloss of Isaiah. (Three kinds of vision (genera visionis) are noted in the Glossa Ordinaria, at Isaiah 1:1, 4.9 (PL 113:1231). The Latin of the Parma edition refers to a “Gloss of Isidore” rather than “of Isaiah,” and Isidore does enumerate the three kinds of vision in his own work: The Etymologies, bk. 7, ch. 8, paras. 36–40 (PL 82:286).) Now, a manifestation of divine things can occur in each of these. Therefore it seems that just as there is a certain sending that happens according to intellectual vision, that is, through invisible grace, and another that happens according to bodily vision, that is, according to bodily appearances, so too there is one that happens according to an imaginary vision, through imaginary appearances.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, to the degree that something is more noble, so much nobler properties does it have. But the nobler creature represents the divine goodness by its nobler properties. Therefore, since the visible sending is for the sake of manifesting the divine persons, it seems that it should always happen through the noblest created things, such as through the stars or something like this, and not through a dove or a fire.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, no dissimulation becomes the Spirit of truth. But the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, as is said in John 15:26. Therefore it is unbecoming that he appear through any appearances that do not belong to the truth of reality. And thus it seems that that dove in which he appeared was a true animal, and those tongues and fire were true tongues and true fire. But that does not seem to be the case, since the fire did not burn anything, and the dove, having performed that office, turned back into its previous matter, as the saints say. And furthermore, if they were the true realities, the appearances would not lead one to something other than themselves.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is one, as is said in 1 Corinthians 12:13: by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. But the sign should correspond to the thing it signifies. Therefore it seems that in only one sign ought the Holy Spirit to appear.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, just as the Holy Spirit is sent into the mind invisibly, so too is the Son. And through each sending someone becomes ordered to the planting of the Church. Therefore, since the visible sending was done to show this, it seems that just as the Holy Spirit was sent to certain ones by visible signs, so also was the Son even without his having assumed flesh.

I answer that, as was said in the previous article, the visible sending occurs to signify the fullness of the grace overflowing into the multitude, on account of which this manifestation happens to others also. Now, grace overflows in two ways: through instruction and through an action, insofar as he in whom is the fullness of grace stands in a certain way as the efficient cause of the grace.

Now, each mode of overflow was present in Christ. For through his teaching he led us to the knowledge of God, as is said in John 1:18: the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. Also, he has given the grace as God, as an efficient cause, and as a man, by way of merit. Whence, to signify the overflow of his grace into us through the mode of action, the visible sending happened to him at his baptism. For then he, while receiving nothing from the baptism, by the contact with his most pure flesh, conferred on the waters a regenerative power—doing so efficiently as God, and meritoriously as man. And therefore the sending of the Holy Spirit happened to him under the appearance of the dove in order to signify spiritual fecundity, since the dove is a most fecund animal.

For the same reason also the Father appeared in the sound of a voice testifying to his natural sonship, saying in Matthew 17:5, this is my beloved Son. According to a likeness of this sonship we are regenerated through baptismal grace into the sons of adoption, as is said in Romans 8:29: those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. Indeed, to make known the overflow of grace from him to others through the mode of teaching, the Holy Spirit appeared upon him in a luminous cloud, to which it belongs to scatter light; the clouds scatter his light (Job 37:11). In this is signified the pouring forth of teaching through preaching, according to Gregory. (Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, bk. 27, para. 31 (CCSL 143B; PL 75:432).) And this occurs in the Transfiguration, as is recounted in Matthew 17, according to a Gloss of Augustine (Augustine, Adnotationes in Iob, ch. 37 (CSEL 28.2:594; PL 34:868).) and that of Bernard. (We have been unable to locate this Gloss of Bernard; see Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermones de diversis, sermon 91, para. 6 (PL 183:713); On the Epiphany of the Lord, sermon 1, para. 7 (PL 183:146).) And this is why, when the voice of the Father then intoned upon him, this is my beloved Son, it is added, hear him.

Whence it is clear that it is not necessary that the visible sending to Christ happen at the beginning of his conception, but rather when his grace began to overflow into others. Similarly also, the visible sending of the Holy Spirit was accomplished twice for the apostles.

The first instance was to make known the overflow of grace from them through the mode of action, for the sake of the administration of the sacraments, in the appearance of his breath, as is recorded in John 20:22. This is also why it is said there, if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained (John 20:23), so as to show that such authority did not come to them except from the influence of the head, that is, Christ.

However, he came to Christ immediately from the Father, and on account of this, this authority was signified as being in him through the flight of the dove coming upon him from above, whereas it is signified for the apostles through the appearance of a breath coming forth from Christ.

The second time the visible sending happened to them was to make known the overflow through the mode of teaching, and this is read as having occurred on the day of Pentecost, in Acts 2. And this is why he appeared on them in fiery tongues, so that they might flow forth with words, and be ardent in charity, (The passage quotes the hymn Beata nobis gaudia, from the Gregorian repertory.) being zealous for the salvation of their neighbors.

Reply Obj. 1: An imaginary vision is properly called a “revelation,” and not an “apparition” or “sending,” and visions of this sort often occurred to the prophets. For in the visible sending the presence of indwelling grace is made manifest. However, an appearance that occurs in the imagination is not necessarily of a present reality, unlike an appearance that occurs in sensation. And therefore the interior sending should be manifested more through bodily appearances, subject to exterior vision, rather than through imaginary appearances.

Reply Obj. 2: In the nobler creatures the likeness with the divine perfection, with regard to the essential attributes, is found to be more expressed; nonetheless with regard to the going forth of one person from another, and as regards the mode of the procession of the gifts from God, and their effects, a more fitting likeness can be attended to even in the less noble creatures. Examples are the fecundity in the dove, and speech in the tongues. And it was necessary that this be signified through a visible sending.

Or it should be said, following Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 2, para. 2 (PG 3:138).) that the lower creatures, by the very fact that they are more distant from a participation in the divine persons, more fittingly manifest or signify divine things. For no error can arise from this, on account of their manifest distance from the divine, whereas error could arise if divine things were to be signified through noble creatures. For some could easily err, believing that there is some divine power in a star or in some nobler creature.

Reply Obj. 3: That dove was not a true and natural animal, but only a likeness of a dove visibly made manifest in some matter prepared for this. (Note that in ST III.39.7, Aquinas seems to modify his opinion, asserting that the appearance was a real dove.) This is also why, having performed its office, it turned back into its previous matter. Nor was there any deception there, since that likeness of a dove was not shown in order to manifest some truth in the dove itself, but to manifest the properties of the invisible sending. And therefore no false sign was given there, since the thing signified did correspond to the sign, and the reality to the likeness. Likewise, someone speaking by way of metaphorical expressions is not lying; for he does not intend by his speech to lead one to the realities that the names signify, but more to other things, of which the realities the names signify bear a likeness. The same must be said of the fire. But the visible nature in which the Son appeared was taken up to his existence and not only as a sign. And therefore it was necessary that it have the true existence of a man.

Reply Obj. 4: Those appearances under which the Holy Spirit appeared signify the effects of the Holy Spirit, according to which the Holy Spirit is said to be manifold even though he is substantially one, as is said in Wisdom 7:22–27. And this is why he appeared under many forms and at many times. But because the visible nature in which the Son appeared was taken up into one existence in the person of the Son of God, just as there is one existence of the person, so is there only one such sending.

Reply Obj. 5: An apparition under the appearance of something else—which is included in a visible sending—belongs only to what has no bodily appearance whereby it could be seen. Now, the visible sending, as was said in the previous article, should not occur before the time of grace. However, the time of grace began when the Son of God assumed flesh. And because he assumed it in an inseparable way, therefore at the time wherein it was fitting for the visible sending to occur he always had his own proper visible appearance under which he could be seen. Whence only one visible sending belonged to him, the one in his assumed nature. But we will ask why the Holy Spirit did not assume a nature into the unity of the person in Book III. (In III Sent., d. 1, q. 2, a. 3.)

Article 4

Whether the visible appearances were formed by the ministry of the angels

To the fourth we proceed as follows. It seems that those visible appearances were not formed by the ministry of the angels.

Obj. 1: For Augustine says (Augustine, On the Trinity, bk. 3, ch. 11 (CCSL 50; PL 42:882).) that God’s locutions were not performed by means of angels in the New Testament, but by God himself. Therefore that voice or the sound that was made in the New Testament in Matthew 17:5—this is my beloved Son—was not formed by angels. And for the same reason none of the others that pertain to the visible sending were.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the angel itself is united to the body which the angel forms, as a mover is united to its mobile. Therefore if those appearances were formed by angels, then they are bodies assumed by angels. Therefore the divine person will not be said to be sent in them, but the angel.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, just as the visible sending of the Son happened through his assumed body, so the visible sending of the Holy Spirit happened through those appearances. But angels in no way formed the assumed body of Christ. Therefore neither did they form the other visible appearances.

On the contrary (4), regarding the voice by which the Father answered the Son—I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again (John 12:28)—Gregory says, no doubt speaking from the heavens, which he wanted men to hear, he formed his words with the help of a rational creature. (Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, bk. 28, para. 1 (CCSL 143B; PL 75:449).) And the same account is made for the other instances. Therefore it seems that all of them were made with the help of the angels.

Furthermore (5), according to Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 15, para. 1 (PG 3:327).) the law of the divinity is that last things are perfected by first things through middle things. But the angels are intermediates between God and the bodily creature. Therefore it seems that actions that occur in bodily creatures occur by the ministration of the angels.

I answer that there are two opinions about this. Some say that the sendings of the New Testament differ from the apparitions of the Old Testament in this, that the fact that the apparitions of the Old Testament were brought about through angels, as the saints commonly want to understand it, whereas the sendings of the New Testament were brought about immediately by the divine persons. On account of this, the divine persons, not the angels, are said to be sent in those latter appearances. Others say, on the contrary, that each of them was perfected by the ministry of the angels.

Now, it seems that in some respect both sides speak the truth. For in each sending, the apparition of the Old Testament and the visible sending in the New, one can consider two things: what is apparent exteriorly, and something that is being effected interiorly, or a deed that is being signified. But these things happen in diverse ways, since in the apparitions of the Old Testament the thing that is apparent exteriorly does not, as a sign, refer to something interior, but to something else, like signifying the Trinity or something of this sort. Whence what is interior is nothing other than the soul’s very knowledge or illumination about the realities that are signified by the exterior signs. And because the divine illuminations descend to us, according to Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 4, para. 2 (PG 3:179).) through the angels, therefore both things in those apparitions were brought about by the ministry of the angels—both what is exterior and what is interior. And therefore in no way does one find the sending of a divine person there, as such entails an immediate effect of the divine person himself.

However, in the visible sending, what is externally apparent is a sign of an internal deed, either at that time, or before. This is why not only a certain knowledge is impressed internally, but also a certain effect of grace rendering one favored, and this is immediately from the divine person, by reason of which the divine person is said to have been sent. Whence in the visible sending, what is interior is brought about immediately, without the help of the angels, on account of which, by reason of that effect, the divine person is said to have been sent, whereas the angels do have a ministry with regard to what is external, as Gregory says. (Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, bk. 28, para. 1 (CCSL 143B; PL 75:449).)

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking of the speech that the Son of God spoke in his assumed body. And this was certainly immediately spoken by God.

Reply Obj. 2: Although an angel has its activity on an exteriorly appearing creature, still it does not have it in the interior effect. And therefore the divine person is not said to have been sent by reason of that. Nor is it unfitting that a divine person and an angel be sent simultaneously.

Reply Obj. 3: The assumed body is united to the divine person himself by a union to the one personal existence of the Son. Whence it was not becoming, on account of his dignity, that it not be formed by God. But the account is not alike in the other cases.

Reply Sed Contra 4: Gregory’s statement should be referred only to what is external, and not in reference to what is signified internally.

Reply Sed Contra 5: Dionysius’s statement holds true in the effects that can come from something created, but grace is not such an effect. And therefore as regards the internal part that occurs in the visible sending, the angels do not have an action, but only as regards the external part.

Exposition of the text

And even ‘was made a little lower than the angels.’ (Sent. I, 16.2(59).3, quoting Alypius and Augustine, Epistulae, letter 170 (CSEL 44:629; PL 33:750), and Hebrews 2:9.) But on the contrary, in a Gloss on Hebrews 5, it is said that there is nothing better than the human nature that the Son of God assumed, other than God alone. (This seems to be a reference to Glossa ordinaria, at Hebrews 2:9, 6.813 (PL 114:647).) But it should be said in response that he is called “less” only in a certain respect, that is, on account of the suffering of the body, but not on account of the inferiority of the nature assumed with regard to that individual in whom it was assumed. Although, it is not universally true of human nature that it is not inferior to the angels.

Hilary appears to say that the Father is greater than the Son, and yet the Son is not less than the Father. (Sent. I, 16.2(59).4.) This seems impossible, since more and less are spoken of relative to each other, so if the Father is greater, then the Son is lesser. To this some say that the Father is said to be greater than the Son because he has more notions, but neither is the Son less, since one of the Father’s notions, that is, innascibility, does not have a corresponding notion in the Son, based on which the Son could be called lesser. (On the five notions (notiones) in the Trinity (namely: innascibilitas, paternitas, filiatio, communis spiratio, and processio), see In I Sent., d. 26, q. 2, a. 3; d. 28, q. 1, a. 1.) But proper usage does not admit this. For equality or inequality is not considered in reference to relations, as will be shown below based on the words of Augustine. (Below, d. 19, q. 1, a. 1.) Further, nothing is called greater based on more properties, but only based on greater quantity. And this is also outside Hilary’s intention, as the subsequent words show. (Sent. I, 16.2(59).4, quoting Hilary, On the Trinity, bk. 9, ch. 54 (CCSL 62A; PL 10:325).)

Therefore one should respond in a different way, by saying that giving and receiving can be compared in two ways: either as regards what is given, or as regards the account of giving.

If it is compared in the first way, then the giver is sometimes found to be greater than the one to whom he gives, when the receiver receives not as much as there is in the giver; but sometimes they are equal, when just as much is received, as also occurs in univocal generation. But the giver can never be less.

However, if they are considered in the second way, then the giver, from the fact that he gives, has a certain dignity, but the receiver has no imperfection from the fact that he receives, unless he receives in an imperfect way.

And therefore if we compare the Father and the Son as regards what is given by the Father to the Son, neither is the Father called greater nor the Son lesser. But if we compare them as regards the account of giving, then the dignity of giving is not withheld from the Father, by reason of which he is called greater, such that “greater” rings of the perfection of dignity more than of a comparison of magnitude or greatness. But because the Son receives perfectly whatever the Father has, no diminishment would belong to him, and therefore also no name of diminishment can belong to the Son. And although the saints attribute authority to the Father, nonetheless no lesser authority is attributed to the Son; rather, this is said only by the presumptuous abuse of the speakers. And the words of Hilary indicate this when he says, the giver is greater, but the receiver to whom it has been given to be one with the giver is not less. (Sent. I, 16.2(59).4, quoting Hilary, On the Trinity, bk. 9, ch. 54 (CCSL 62; PL 10:325).)

The Father is greater . . . than the one to whom he imparts by the mystery of his birth . . . the image of his own unbegottenness. (Sent. I, 16.2(59).4.) Expound this as follows: to whom, that is, to the Son, the Father imparts, that is, gives, it to be the image of his own unbegottenness, that is, his own innascibility; and this is done by the mystery of his birth, that is, by his sacred and secret birth.