Chapter XVII. Question 43
BWeVAWSAAeARBWSR SA SRBARSESERRSRRREREBBSE BRB BBABERRERAABRESB EER EEREEE EEE
HIS last question of the treatise takes up the comparison of the divine persons with one another with regard to their missions ad extra. We have already touched on this matter in question 38, where we treated of the Gift as the name of the Holy Ghost, that uncreated gift, personal love, which is the first of all the gifts that proceed from love. This question about the missions of the divine persons is the principal foundation for that event which is essentially supernatural ad extra, namely, the redemptive Incarnation and the life of grace within us. Under that aspect this question is connected with the question on the love of God, where the principle of predilection is enunciated: No one would be better than another if he were not loved more by God,’ and with the question of the universal salvific will.”
These articles are, therefore, of great importance and should be studied carefully. The doctrine contained in them was the frequent object of contemplation for the saints and it ought to be effectively presented in our sermons. It would become the subject matter of our preaching if our preaching were preceded by diligent contemplation of this matter.*
This question is divided into two parts. The first part treats the matter in general and is divided into the first three articles: 1. whether any divine person is sent; 2. whether the mission is eternal or only temporal; 3. in what manner a divine person is sent invisibly; and the reply: according to grace gratum faciens. This is the principal article of the entire question.12
The second part of this question consists of the special application of these truths to the three divine persons: 4. the Father is not sent because there is no person to send Him, but He comes and dwells in us; 5. whether the Son as well as the Holy Ghost is sent invisibly, and the reply is affirmative; 6. to whom is the mission made? and the reply: to all the just in whom the divine persons become present in a new way or in a higher way; 7. whether it belongs to the Holy Ghost to be sent visibly, as on Pentecost; 8. whether it can be said that the Son is sent by the Holy Ghost; and the reply is affirmative with the qualification that the sending is improperly so called.
The basis of this doctrine of the missions of the divine persons is found in many places in Holy Scripture. We cite here the texts of the New Testament.
From the Synoptics: “Whosoever shall receive Me, receiveth not Me, but Him that sent Me”; * “And I send the promise of My Father upon you.” * The Greek for “send” is apostello, hence apostolos, one sent, or a legate from God.
From St. John’s Gospel: “For God sent not His Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by Him”; ê “And the Father Himself who hath sent Me, hath given testimony of Me”;7 “because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent Me.” ® Concerning the Holy Ghost: “But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things”; ° “But if I go, I will send Him to you.” *°
In St. Paul: “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent His Son.” 1
From the councils: “The Holy Ghost is said to be the Spirit not only of the Father but of the Father and the Son together. This Holy Ghost is believed to be sent by both as the Son is sent by the Father; but He is not less than the Father; and the Son as the Son, because of the flesh He assumed, testified that He was less than the Father and the Holy Ghost.” *”
In the creed of St. Epiphanius we read: “I believe in the Holy Ghost, who was proclaimed by the prophets, who descended on the Jordan (in Christ’s baptism), who spoke through the apostles (on Pentecost), and who dwells in the saints.” 1°
The Council of Trent declared that the Holy Ghost is received with sanctifying grace; ™* and earlier St. John Damascene said that the Holy Ghost gives seven gifts.’®
The most complete and extensive document of the Church on the divine missions and on the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in the just is Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on the Holy Ghost, which Denzinger should have listed.® In almost the same words used by St. Thomas it gives a beantiful presentation of the doctrine of the missions, the indwelling, and the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost.”
First ARTICLE
WHETHER IT IS FITTING FOR A DIVINE PERSON TO BE SENT
State of the question. It seems that no divine person is sent because the one who is sent is less than the sender, and because whatever is sent is separated from the sender. Moreover, the divine persons are already present everywhere and hence they cannot be sent where they already are. The expression “mission” is, therefore, not proper but only metaphorical, as when we say, God is angry.
Reply. The reply is in the affirmative: it belongs to some persons to be sent, that is, analogically, not only metaphorically and analogically, as when we say, God is angry, but by a proper analogy.
This reply is of faith according to the Scriptures, which often use this expression.’
The body of the article contains a conceptual analysis of the idea of mission, and the argument is therefore not an illative but an explicative syllogism: the idea of mission implies the twofold reference of the one sent: to the sender and to the terminus of the sending.
16 The encyclical Divinum illud munus, May 9, 1897.
17 Among St. Thomas’ commentators, consult especially John of St. Thomas, on Ia, q. 43, and Gonet, Clypeus, tractatus de Trinitate.
18 Cf. in particular John 3:17; 8:16; 14:26; and the Eleventh Council of Toledo, Denz., no. 277.
One is sent by the sender either by command, as the servant by his master, or by counsel, as a king by his councilor, or by origin, as the flower is sent out by the plant. One is sent to the terminus of the sending either in the sense that the one sent begins to be there, or at least begins to be there in a new way.
Hence a mission can be predicated of a divine person by a proper analogy inasmuch as this divine person proceeds from the sender and begins to be in another in a new way. Thus the Son is said to be sent by the Father into the world inasmuch as the Son began to be in the world in the flesh assumed by Him, and yet the Son was in the world before this as the Word not yet incarnate. “That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him.” ° Obviously, this syllogism is not objectively illative because we do not arrive at a new truth but only explain a truth already revealed: “For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by Him.” ”°
The reply is confirmed by the solution of the objections.
Reply to the first objection. The one sent is less than the sender if he is sent by command or even by counsel, but not if he is sent according to a procession that is only of origin, which takes place on the plane of equality.
Reply to the second objection. In a divine mission the one sent is not separated from the sender because the one sent does not move locally to a place where he was not before but only begins a new manner of being in one where he had not been before.
Reply to the third objection. Thus a divine person does not leave a place, because God in Himself is not in any place, and the divine person was already present by the general presence of His immensity where now He begins to be in a new way. This will be explained at greater length in the third article.
From this article we obtain the definition of a divine mission: essentially it implies the procession of origin of one person from another with a new mode of existence in another. According to his custom, St. Thomas thus passes from the nominal, or commonly accepted, definition to the real definition, dividing the various kinds of missions, comparing them in order to discover how they agree and
differ analogically so that no imperfection will be posited in God.
Indeed this idea of mission in its formal analogical meaning posits no imperfection in God; on the other hand the concept of anger does imply imperfection. Hence we say that God is angry only metaphorically, but that the Son of God is sent by the Father in the proper sense, as is also the Holy Ghost by the Father and the Son.
First corollary. A mission is more than simple appropriation, for the Son of God is said to be sent in the Incarnation; and He is said to be incarnate not only by appropriation but properly and personally so that the Father and the Holy Ghost are not incarnate.
Similarly the mission of the Holy Ghost is more than simple appropriation, although the Holy Ghost is not united personally with the just, and although the three persons dwell in the just. Mission implies a procession of origin which is more than simple appropriation, and it pertains to the person that proceeds. Thus, as we shall explain below, it cannot be said that the Father is sent, although He dwells in the just with the other two persons.
Second corollary. According to tradition the words, “For from God I proceeded and came; for I came not of Myself, but He sent Me,” *? express not only the visible mission which took place in the Incarnation but likewise the eternal procession. Thus Jesus said, “I proceeded and came.” ** Although this interpretation, making a distinction between “proceeded” and “came,” does not appear at once from the context, it does result from a comparison with other texts about the processions. Indeed, in this very place, Christ says, “I came not of Myself, but He sent Me,” while the Father came of Himself and was not sent, because He does not proceed from another person.
WHETHER A MISSION IS ETERNAL OR ONLY TEMPORAL
State of the question. The difficulty arises because, as we have said, a mission implies a procession, and the processions are eternal. Moreover, whenever anything belongs to another temporarily and not from eternity, that one is changed; but a divine person is not changed.
Reply. Nevertheless the reply is that mission and giving in God are predicated only temporarily.
This is proved from the Scriptures: “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent His Son.” 2*
The theological reason is merely an explanation of the idea of mission: for a mission, besides the reference to the eternal principle, has a reference to the temporal terminus by which the idea of mission is completed. Therefore it must be said to be temporal, even though its principle is eternal, because the effect which it connotes and by which it is denominated is temporal.
In the same way God is said to have created not from eternity but in time. Similarly, the Incarnation and the sending of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost are not from eternity but in time.
On the other hand, generation and spiration are said to be from eternity, because they do not imply a reference to a temporal terminus. Procession and exitus in God, however, are said to be both eternal and temporal, since the Son proceeds eternally as God and temporally as man.
In his conclusion St. Thomas joins mission and giving (datio), not because they are entirely the same but because they are in a certain way in agreement. They agree in this, that both imply a new mode of existence in creatures, They differ inasmuch as mission implies that the person who is sent proceeds from another, whereas the giving does not imply this procession. Thus the Father, who cannot be sent, gives Himself, and the divine essence can be given to the Son and the Holy Ghost by communication.
Reply to the second objection. Why is the person who is sent not changed by the fact that the person becomes present in a new way in another? The reason is that this is solely because of the change in the creature, just as God is said to be the Lord of all things in time not because God is changed but because things arrive at existence. In the same way any object is said to be actually seen now and not before, not because there is a change in the object but because of the change in vision, which is now terminated to this object. Thus the Word is not changed by the visible mission of the Incarnation, that is, by the fact that the humanity of Christ terminates in the Word.
Reply to the third objection. Mission includes the eternal procession and adds a temporal effect. We have then a twofold procession, eternal and temporal; twofold, not with respect to a twofold principle but to two termini, of which one is eternal (and so the procession is
eternal) and the other temporal (and so the procession is temporal, which is the mission itself).
Hence “mission” can be defined as “the procession of origin of one person from another with a new mode of existence in another.” Mission, therefore, is more than appropriation, and is distinguished both from creation and from eternal procession. It is distinct from creation because its eternal principle is the person that sends and not the entire Trinity, which is the one principle of operation ad extra. It is distinct from eternal procession because of its temporal terminus and also because it is somewhat similar to creation. Mission is, therefore, a kind of middle between eternal procession and creation.
Doubt. Does mission principally and directly imply the eternal origin of the person sent or the new effect produced in the creature? With John of St. Thomas ** and Gonet,” it should be noted that there are two concepts of mission held by Scholastics: the one proposed by St. Bonaventure and Scotus, the other by St. Thomas, the Thomists, and others. This question, which seems to be rather subtle, is necessary to distinguish the divine mission from simple appropriation, inasmuch as mission is more than appropriation.
For St. Bonaventure and Scotus, mission is principally not the procession itself but the production of the temporal effect for which the person is said to be sent. Their reason is that the person pre-existed by eternal procession before the free and temporal procession.
The Thomists, like Gonet, say that mission is not the production of the temporal effect, but that it implies directly the eternal origin of the persons, and indirectly the new effect produced in the creature.
This is proved by the authority of St. Augustine, “To go forth from the Father and to come into the world is to be sent.” °° St. Thomas says: “Mission includes the eternal procession but it adds something, namely, the temporal effect.” ° Besides this, St. Thomas held in the eighth article that the Son is not as properly sent by the Holy Ghost as the Holy Ghost is sent by the Son, although the Holy Ghost together with the Father and the Son produces the temporal effect on account of which the Son is said to be sent.”®
Proof from reason. The mission of a divine person essentially
27 Summa theol., la, q.43, a.2 ad 3. 28 In the Commentarium in Sent., 1, d.15, q. 1, a.2, St. Thomas is less clear.
implies the going forth of the person sent. But this going forth can be nothing else than the eternal origin, because the mission of the divine person cannot take place by either command or counsel. Therefore the mission essentially implies such origin, and therefore it is not only the temporal operation of God ad extra, but the eternal origin of the person sent with the connotation of the operation ad extra and the temporal effect.
First confirmation. Otherwise the Father would also be sent, since sanctifying grace is produced in the just, according to which the Father also dwells in the just.
Second confirmation. Our view is confirmed by a comparison of the divine mission with a free act of God, for example, creation, for this free act of creating in God is nothing else than the one unique act of the divine will by which God necessarily loves Himself, with the added connotation of the good that is not necessarily loved.
Third confirmation. The Thomistic view seems more in conformity with the Scriptural language: “From God I proceeded, and came”; °°? and “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world.” 3°
The Greek Fathers regarded the missions as prolongations of the processions ad extra; thus they distinguished the missions from creation. They said that the sending of the persons of the Son and the Holy Ghost differs from creation as to live differs from to command. And they based the communication of divine life, by which we are elevated to the order of grace, not on creation but on the divine missions. In this way they distinguished between the natural order and the order of grace as they distinguished between creation and the missions of the divine persons. Naturally they placed great emphasis on the invisible mission of the Holy Ghost, and this characteristic of the Greek theory should not surprise us, because the Greeks began with the three persons rather than with the unity of nature. St. Augustine, however, preserved the essential point in the doctrine of the Greeks when he said: “To go forth from the Father and to come into the world is to be sent.” *?
The mission is said to be temporal, however, inasmuch as it connotes a temporal effect by which it is denominated; just as creation is said to be temporal by reason of its effect, although the free creative action is eternal.
WHETHER THE INVISIBLE MISSION OF A DIVINE PERSON IS MERELY ACCORDING TO GRACE GRATUM FACIENS
State of the question. This is the principal article of this question, at least with regard to ourselves and our life of grace, for it treats of the principal foundation of this life. Here is presented matter for preaching and contemplation. We will, therefore, examine this truth at some length. Proceeding methodically, we see that there are six points that claim our attention. We shall note: 1. the difference between visible and invisible missions; 2. the crux of the difficulties proposed at the beginning of the article; 3. the testimony of Sacred Scripture and tradition; 4. the point where theologians are generally in agreement; 5. the body of the article; 6. three interpretations, namely, a) the more common interpretation of the Thomists, b) Vasquez’s interpretation, c) Suarez’ interpretation. We shall thus be proceeding in an orderly fashion from what is better known to what is less known, from the revealed foundation of the doctrine to its explanation.*?
I. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE MISSIONS
They differ according to the terminus or the temporal effect connoted by the mission. The visible mission connotes an effect that is at least in some way sensible, by which the person sent is sensibly manifested; thus the visible mission of the Son took place in the Incarnation and the visible mission of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost took place under the species of fire and the gift of tongues. An invisible mission is one which connotes an effect of the spiritual order and which is not sensible. Thus the Holy Ghost is said to be sent to the soul of the just man at the moment of invisible justification, which is accomplished by the infusion of habitual grace.
In explaining these articles we shall see that because of this there are two differences between the two kinds of missions. By the visible missions of the Incarnation and of Pentecost only one person is sent
32 On this point we follow John of St. Thomas, who seems to have penetrated deeply into the teaching of St. Thomas. Cf. P. Gardeil, C.P., La structure de lame et l'expérience mystique (1927), Il, 6-60; Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Lamour de Dieu et la croix de Jésus (1929), 1, 163-206; P. Galtier, S.J., L’habitation en nous des trois Personnes (1928).
and manifested, while in the invisible mission two proceeding persons are sent and the Father gives Himself. The second difference is that the visible mission takes place through some visible effect designed to manifest the divine person who is sent; thus the Holy Ghost is sent in the appearance of fire on Pentecost and in the appearance of a dove at the baptism of Christ, according to the words of St. Matthew, “Jesus . . . saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him.” °
On the other hand, the invisible mission cannot take place except by some supernatural gift, as is shown in this third article. We must determine what this supernatural gift is; whether it is habitual grace (or grace gratum faciens), or actual grace, or by infused faith alone, or hope, or finally by the graces gratis datae, which sinners can receive for the benefit of their neighbors. In this way we will determine the state of the question.
- THE DIFFICULTY INHERENT IN THE QUESTION
This appears from the objections placed at the beginning of the article. First we must explain that it is not only created grace but also a divine person that is given; secondly, we shall see that the grace is according to the Holy Ghost, because grace is given us through Him; and lastly, we ask why the Son and the Holy Ghost are not said to be sent according to the graces gratis datae.
- THE TEACHING OF THE SCRIPTURES
When we seek the teaching of the Scriptures on the invisible mission of the Holy Ghost and the Son, we see that Scripture frequently speaks of the general presence of God the author of nature in all things, which God immediately conserves in being, inasmuch as being is the proper effect of God. Thus we read: “If I ascend into heaven, Thou art there; if I descend into hell, Thou art present.” ** St. Paul speaking on the Areopagus, said: “For in Him we live, and move, and are.” *°
This general presence of God in all created things, which God preserves in being, is explained by St. Thomas as the preserving action which is a continuation of the creative action that produces things
in being immediately and not through any instrument.** Thus God, as the efficient cause, is effectively present in all things inasmuch as He preserves in them what is most intimate, their being, which is the most formal thing of all since it actuates everything in created beings. God also immediately preserves the matter that is produced from nothing as well as the souls produced from nothing.
Sacred Scripture speaks not only of this general presence, which is called the presence of immensity, but also of a special presence of God, which is in the souls of the just and not in all things. Thus we read in the Book of Wisdom: “For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins. For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful, and will withdraw Himself from thoughts that are without understanding.” ** From the context it seems that these words refer not only to created wisdom but also to the Holy Ghost, who is uncreated wisdom. Any doubt that may arise, however, is removed by Christ’s words: “If any one love Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and will make Our abode with him.” *°
In this text every word should be noted, especially the words, “We will come to him.” Who comes? Is it only some created effect, like created grace or created wisdom? No. Those who come are the same as love, the Father and the Son, from whom the Holy Ghost is never separated. Besides this, the Holy Ghost is promised by the Son. Lastly we read not only that They will come but also that They will make Their abode with him, that is, they will not come only transitorily but permanently to abide in the just man as long as he remains just. Thus we read, “God is charity, and he that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him.” 3°
Obviously mention is made here of a special presence entirely distinct from God’s general presence in all things. The condition of this special presence is charity, or the state of grace, by which a man is constituted as just. The just man, then, possesses God in his heart, or perhaps it would be better to say that God possesses the just man inasmuch as God preserves him not only in nature but also in grace and charity.
St. Paul, writing to the Romans, said: “The charity of God is
39I John 4:16, poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us.” *° We receive, therefore, not only the gift of charity but also the Holy Ghost, the giver of charity. Again St. Paul says: “Know you not, that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” ** That is to say, the Holy Ghost dwells in you, in your souls, as He dwells in a temple where He ought to be known, loved, and adored. “Or know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body.” ** These words recall what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman: “Woman, believe Me, that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. . . . God is a spirit; and they that adore Him, must adore Him in ‘el and in truth.” * The Scriptures therefore clearly distinguish between God’s general presence and His special presence, which is often attributed to the Holy Ghost.
Tradition. From documents of the primitive Church we see that this doctrine was admirably preserved from the beginning.
St. Ignatius of Antioch in his epistles often calls Christians “Godbearers” (“theophoroi”), according to St. Paul’s expression, “bear God in your body.” **
This doctrine was explicitly known by the faithful in the early Church and was proclaimed by the martyrs before their judges. St. Lucy said to Paschasius: “Words are not lacking to those who have the Holy Ghost within themselves.” “Is not therefore the Holy Ghost in you?” “Indeed, all those who live piously and chastely are the temples of the Holy Ghost.” 4° The Greek Fathers often say that by the Holy Ghost Christians are made partakers of God and are deified.‘ St. Basil said that our union with the Holy Ghost is founded on the fact that the Holy Ghost dwells in us and makes us spiritual
45 Cf, Froget, De l'habitation du S. Esprit dans les émes justes (1900, 3rd ed.), p. 97; Rouet de Journel, Ench. patrist., pp. 290, 871, 2040, 2126.
46 Cf. Rouet de Journel, op. cit., pp. IOII, 1144, 1216, 1228, 1468, 2107, 2109, 2115, 2193, 2286.
and conformed to the image of the Son of God.** St. Cyril of Alexandria teaches the same thing.** St. Ambrose says that the Holy Ghost is given to us first in baptism and then in confirmation so that we might be able to possess His splendor and His image and His grace.® St. Augustine testifies that the Fathers are in great accord in teaching that God gives Himself as a gift to the just.°
This doctrine has often been affirmed by the Church: in the Creed of St. Epiphanius, “the Holy Ghost, who spoke through the apostles and dwells in the saints.” °* The Council of Trent declared: “The efficient cause of justification is the mercy of God, who gratuitously cleanses and sanctifies, signing and anointing with the Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance.” #? Lastly, Leo XIII in his encyclical Divinum illud munus ** quotes these texts of Sacred Scripture, and in explaining the special presence of the Holy Trinity in the just he quotes the words of St. Thomas."*
Pope Leo XIII writes in the encyclical: “God is in all things; He is in them by His power since all things are subject to His power; by His presence since all things are naked and open to His eyes; by His essence since He is present in all things as their cause of being.” But in man God is present not only as He is in things, but more so because He is known and loved by man, since by our nature we spontaneously love and desire and acquire the good. Besides this, God resides in the souls of the just by grace as in a temple in a singular and intimate manner; and from this it follows by force of charity, by which God is most closely conjoined to the soul, that He is completely and most sweetly enjoyed more than a friend is loved by his dearest friend. This wonderful union, which is called inhabitation, differs only in status from that by which God embraces the blessed in heaven, although it is effected by the very real presence of the entire Trinity, according to the words, ‘We will come to him and make Our abode with him, nevertheless this union is predicated in a special way of the Holy Ghost.” Even though traces of God’s power and wisdom appear in
48 Dialog. VIL
50 De fide et symbolo, chap. 9.
51 Creed of St. Epiphanius, Denz., 13.
58 Ibid. 56 This is to say: the three divine persons dwell in the soul of the just man, but the unjust man, no one except the just man is a partaker of that charity which is the special note of the Holy Ghost. A wealth of heavenly gifts of various kinds follows the Holy Ghost when He inhabits the souls of the just.” 57
The encyclical explains that this special presence of the Holy Trinity is appropriated to the Holy Ghost inasmuch as the Holy Ghost is sent by the two other persons and since charity assimilates us to the Holy Ghost, who is personal love, more than faith assimilates us to the Word. Because of its obscurity, faith is essentially imperfect and thus differs from charity, which alone of the three theological virtues remains in heaven. Our perfect assimilation with the Word takes place only when we receive the light of glory and when we see the Word, by which we are assimilated to the Father inasmuch as the Son is the splendor of the Father.
Thus the special presence of the Holy Trinity is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, although His mission, as we have said, is more than this appropriation. It is also certain that the Son, not by reason of His humanity, but as the Word, is specially present in us and is invisibly sent to us; the Father Himself is present, but He is not sent since He gives Himself to the just.
The encyclical of Pope Leo, therefore, does not favor the opinion of Petavius, according to which the special union of the Holy Ghost with the just is more than appropriation. Petavius does not offer an adequate explanation of our Lord’s words: “If anyone love Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and will make Our abode with him.” 5° Obviously not only the Holy Ghost but also the Father and the Son dwell in the just by this special presence distinct from God’s general presence. No great effort will be required to distinguish clearly between these kinds of presence according to their formal constituent.
- THE COMMON TEACHING OF THEOLOGIANS
Theologians commonly teach about this inhabitation: a) that this union is not hypostatic or personal and substantial, but that it is accidental and moral, although real; b) that the Holy Ghost is in the souls of the just not properly as a formal cause but as an efficient and the indwelling is appropriated to the Holy Ghost; appropriation is nothing more than predicating something of a person as peculiar to him.
57 Here the traditional doctrine of the seven gifts is given, following St. Augustine and St. Thomas.
exemplary cause, and as an object that is known and loved; c) that this habitation belongs to the three persons but is appropriated to the Holy Ghost.
a) This inhabitation is entirely distinct from a hypostatic union, since the just man retains his own personality, and the soul is not only a substance distinct from the Holy Ghost but it retains its own proper being. It is therefore a union that is not personal or substantial but accidental through knowledge and love; thus it is a moral union. Nevertheless it is a real union because the Holy Ghost is present not only as the effect of a divine operation but also by the divine substance; that is, without any change in Himself, the Holy Ghost is infused into the soul according to the degree by which He elevates the soul to grace and charity.
b) The Holy Ghost living thus in the soul sanctifies it not as a formal cause but as an efficient and exemplary cause; not as a formal cause, because infused charity is something created and is not uncreated charity.” The Council of Trent declared: “The one and only cause of justification is the justice of God, not the justice by which God is just but that by which He makes us just,” °° namely, created grace. If the Holy Ghost were the formal cause of our justification, the soul would have to be considered the material cause, in which the Holy Ghost inheres intrinsically; and by these two as parts there would be constituted a third being more perfect than the parts, which is impossible. This would open the way to pantheism.’ Hence the Holy Ghost is called only “the quasi-soul of our soul and the quasilife of our interior life.” But together with the Father and the Son the Holy Ghost is properly the efficient cause of grace and charity inasmuch as He infuses, conserves, and increases them. The Holy Ghost may also be called the exemplary cause, since He imprints on the soul the divine likeness,® and at the same time He is also the ultimate end. In the explanation of St. Thomas’ articles we must explain how the Holy Ghost is in us as the known and loved object.
c) This indwelling in the soul, as Pope Leo remarks,®* is common to the three persons but it is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, because
59 Peter Lombard was refuted on this point by St. Thomas; cf. Summa theol., Ila Iae, q. 23, a.2.
it takes place by charity, which assimilates us more to the Holy Ghost than faith assimilates us to the Son. By the light of glory we will be perfectly assimilated to the Son, who will perfectly assimilate us to the Father, of whom He is the image.
This is the common teaching in opposition to Petavius, Scheeben, and Jovene, who believe that the indwelling is common to the three persons, but, citing certain texts of the Greek Fathers, they hold that the union belongs properly to the Holy Ghost, who is united to us by reason of His person rather than by reason of the divine nature. This opinion is generally rejected because “in God all things are in common except where there is opposition of relation.” And not only the indwelling but the union of God with the soul by grace can be attributed to the three persons as long as there is no opposition of relation. This union of the Holy Ghost with the soul of the just man is not personal because it is not hypostatic, and thus it cannot be more than appropriation. This was the teaching of Pope Leo, namely, the presence is “that of the entire Trinity, although it is predicated as peculiar to the Holy Ghost.” *
- ST. THOMAS TEACHING IN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE
St. Thomas’ argument is an explanation of the doctrine of faith and not a theological conclusion; or it may be said to be a deduction of an explicitly revealed proposition from two truths of faith.
A person is sent inasmuch as He exists in a new way in another and is possessed by that other.®* But a divine person, already present in the ordinary way in all things as the efficient cause (preserving their being) does not exist in man in a new way except inasmuch as He is known and loved by man, by an operation which attains to Him and which cannot take place without habitual grace and charity. Therefore a divine person is not sent invisibly except according to grace gratum faciens, which is connected with charity. The reader is referred to the article.
The whole force of this explanation of the doctrine of faith lies in the distinction between the general presence of immensity, by which God is present as the efficient cause (preserving the being of creatures) by the continuation of the creative action, which is immediate, namely, without any instrument (thus there is an immediacy of power and
the suppositum), and that special presence by which God is present in the just man, not only as an efficient cause but also as the object that is known and loved.
The difficulty arises because the humanity of Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary are known by the just through faith and they are loved by charity and yet they are not said to be really present in the just; indeed they are physically distant, for according to their natural being they are in heaven. The humanity of Christ is not really present except in heaven and in the Holy Eucharist. In the Eucharist it is really present sacramentally.
God is not said to be especially present in the philosopher who in the state of mortal sin knows the existence of God and some of His attributes by demonstration. Neither does God dwell in the Christian who preserves faith and hope without charity.
To solve this difficulty, St. Thomas, in the body of the article, says that it is by the knowledge and the love of God that the just man attains to God Himself. These words require explanation, and St. Thomas seeks to throw light on them from the words of Sacred Scripture. This supplementary explanation is found in the last paragraph of the body of the article and in the replies to the objections.
In the second paragraph we read: “Similarly, we are said to possess only that which we can freely use and enjoy (we use creatures and enjoy God). The possession of the power to enjoy a divine person is vouchsafed only according to grace gratum faciens (and charity). But in the very gift of grace gratum faciens the Holy Ghost is possessed and through it He dwells in the soul. Hence it is the Holy Ghost Himself who is given and sent. It follows from this that we are dealing not with any kind of knowledge of God but with a quasiexperimental knowledge, by which we enjoy God really present within us and not removed from us. That is to say that natural philosophic knowledge, or the knowledge of faith, especially unformed faith, or prophetic knowledge, is not sufficient; the knowledge of a living faith, of a living faith endowed with gifts, is required, as we shall explain below.
That the three persons be present in a special way in the just man it is not necessary that this knowledge be actual; it is sufficient that it be habitual, because the indwelling perdures as long as the just man remains just, even in sleep. But it is necessary that God be in the just man not only as the efficient cause preserving his being but also as an object that is experimentally knowable (if not actually known) and lovable (if not actually loved) and enjoyable. St. Thomas states these truths more explicitly in the replies to the objections. In the reply to the third objection he says: “Although the Son can be known by us by certain other effects (besides habitual grace), He does not dwell in us nor is He possessed by us by these other effects.” St. Thomas is speaking here of that knowledge and love by which we enjoy the divine person.
In another place St. Thomas said: “Not every kind of knowledge is sufficient for this mission (of a divine person) but only that knowledge which is received from some gift appropriate to the person, that is, from the gift by which the conjunction with God is effected in us, and this must be according to the proper mode of that person. Thus, when the Holy Ghost is given, it must be according to love, and hence this knowledge is quasi-experimental.” °° This is the basis of mystical contemplation, which is experienced as something eminent on the normal road to sanctity.®”
Experimental or quasi-experimental knowledge concerns an object that is not absent or distant but that is really present, not only effectively, as an efficient cause, but also as an object experimentally known.**
Commenting on the words, “For the Spirit Himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God,” °° St. Thomas says that He gives testimony through the effect of filial love which He produces in us, that is, as the soul experimentally knows itself through its acts, so proportionally the soul quasi-experimentally knows God present within itself inasmuch as God is the principle of filial love, which proceeds under God’s special inspiration. This is expressed in the words of the disciples on the way to Emmaus, “Was not our heart burning within us, whilst He spoke in the way?” 7° Although the just man does not have absolute certainty that he is in the state of grace, under God’s special inspiration he knows quasi-experimentally that God is present within him.
As John of St. Thomas explains,” this knowledge proceeds from
69 St. Thomas, Commentarium in Ep. ad Rom. 8:16.
a living faith illumined by the gift of wisdom, as St. Thomas says: 7? “From the quest of reason about divine things a right judgment may be reached which leads to wisdom, which is an intellectual virtue. But reaching a right judgment about divine things through a state of being connatural with them belongs to that wisdom which is the gift of the Holy Ghost, as Dionysius said, “Hierotheos is perfect in divine things, not only learning them but also experiencing them (that is, by being connatural and sympathetic with them under the special inspiration of the Holy Ghost). This sympathy or connaturality with divine things takes place through charity, which unites us to God, according to the words, But he who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit.’ ” ** This gift is possessed by all the just.’
In the reply to the third objection, St. Thomas says that the prophetic spirit is not enough, because it does not unite us to God and to His inner life; it only manifests something announced by God. With regard to the reply to the second objection, it should be noted that grace and charity are, as it were, the disposition for receiving the Holy Ghost Himself, and that the Holy Ghost is the efficient cause of grace. Thus in the same moment in the order of efficient causality the Holy Ghost first infuses charity, and in the order of material causality charity is first in disposing the soul to receiving the Holy Ghost. Thus charity is the disposition for the form, and later it becomes the property of that same form.
Doubt. Does this special presence of the Holy Trinity as an object necessarily presuppose the other presence of God as the efficient cause that preserves us in being; and even if it presupposes this other presence, is the special presence real of itself like an accident, which is real of itself although it presupposes a substance, or is it only representative, as when something physically distant is represented ?
According to the common opinion of the Thomists, especially John of St. Thomas, this special presence of God as an object necessarily presupposes the other presence of God as the efficient cause that preserves us in being. But even of itself this special presence is real and not merely representative as of some distant thing. To explain this reply we present two mutually opposed interpretations, proposed by Vasquez and Suarez.
72 Ibid., IIa Mae, q.45, a.2. 78 I Cor. 6:17. Cf. Dionysius, De div. nom., chap. 2. T4 Summa theol., IIa Uae, q.8, a.3, 4; 9-45, a-5-
According to Vasquez, God’s special mode of existence in the just by grace does not of itself require the real presence of God, so that, if God were not really present by His general presence, He would not be really present by charity but He would be present affectively, as a distant friend, or as the humanity of Christ or the Blessed Virgin, who are physically distant. Vasquez lost sight of the fact that the Blessed Trinity is in the just as an object that is quasi-experimentally knowable, namely, as an object really present and not distant.
Suarez,‘® on the other hand, held that the mission of the divine persons so gives the divine persons that they are really present in the just even if God were not present in them causally and physically present as preserving them in being. And this real, special presence of God in the just, according to Suarez, is based on that exigency of created charity of the just, even here on earth, which demands that God be really present as a friend and not only affectively present.
The reply of the Thomists given above appears to be between these two mutually opposed opinions. For, in opposition to Vasquez, the Thomists hold that this special presence of God is not only the affective presence of a loved and distant friend, but that it is the presence of God quasi-experimentally knowable as present, and as sometimes experimentally known in act.
To depart from this view is to minimize the words of Scripture and depart from their obvious sense. Our Lord said: “If anyone love Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and will make Our abode with him,” ™ that is, we will really come. This would not be true of a person who is distant and who becomes present only affectively and by representation as by a letter or by memory. Again the sense of St. Paul’s words would not be preserved: “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us,” "° but who is not given to the unjust, in whom God is already present by His general presence. Again, St. Paul would not be speaking the truth: “Know you not, that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” 7° that is, really dwells in you. This is not said of the Blessed
76 Suarez, De Trinitate, XII, chap. 5.
Virgin, although she is venerated by the faithful as their spiritual mother.
Finally, in opposition to Vasquez we should say that, if his opinion were true, this special presence, minimized in his sense, would be verified not only in the just but also in believing sinners, in whom God, already present by His general presence, is present as the known object of unformed infused faith and as the object of hope and of inefficacious love. According to Vasquez’ opinion we would not be able to explain St. Thomas’ texts: “The invisible mission takes place according to the gift of grace gratum faciens, and yet the divine person Himself is given,” and “the just man enjoys the divine person Himself.” *°
St. Thomas also says: “Besides grace, no other perfection added to the substance makes God to be present in another as the known and loved object, and therefore grace alone brings about this singular mode of God’s presence in creatures.” ** Therefore, according to St. Thomas, by grace and charity the Trinity is not only objectively and affectively present as a distant friend, but the Trinity is also really objectively present as an object quasi-experimentally knowable and as sometimes actually known in some such manner as the soul is really and objectively present to itself, as an object quasi-experimentally knowable through its actions. Hence we cannot admit the opinion of Vasquez.
What are we to think of Suarez’ opinion? According to him the charity of the Christian here on earth requires not only the affective but the real presence of God, who is therefore really in the soul even if He had not already been present as the efficient cause.
In reply many Thomists, especially John of St. Thomas, say that the love of friendship, even when it is supernatural, effects a formal effective union, which exists between distant friends, but it does not effect a real union, which cannot be had without experimental knowledge of the object really present.** Thus St. Thomas says that love formally produces a union according to affection and desires a union in fact, or a real union.** Moreover, the fact that by charity we love
82 John of St. Thomas, Com. in lam, q. 43, no. 3. 88 Summa theol., Ja Iae, q.28, a.1.
the humanity of Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary does not make them really present in us but only affectively present.
Finally St. Thomas says: “Bliss, which is the attainment of the last end, formally consists in the beatific vision and not in love.” * He goes on to say, “The attainment of the last end does not consist in the act of the will itself. The will is directed to the end when it is absent, and then it desires the end, and also to the end when it is present, and then the will rejoices in the possession of the end. We attain the end, however, when it becomes present to us by the act of the intellect, and then the will rests in the fruition of the end.” Hence John of St. Thomas and other Thomists conclude that the real presence of the three divine persons is a prerequisite for their special presence, and that the real presence takes place by efficient causality, according to which God preserves us in being (by contact with His power), whether this be the being of nature or the being of grace.
Nevertheless this special presence is in its own right real because we are speaking here of God as quasi-experimentally known. Analogically, an accident, in order that it be real, presupposes a substance, at least the accident inheres in a substance according to its aptitude, and yet the accident in its own right is something real, that is, being is intrinsically found in it. Somewhat similar to this is the dependence of the special presence of God on His general presence, and both presences are real, although in a different manner. The general presence is formally the presence of the efficient cause preserving us in being, whereas the special presence is the presence of an object quasiexperimentally knowable and enjoyable and sometimes actually known and enjoyed.
We may add with the Salmanticenses ** that, if by an impossible hypothesis God were not already present in the soul of the just man as preserving his natural being, in the instant when grace and charity are infused God would begin to be really present as preserving grace and charity, which are His most proper effects, and at the same time God would be present as the object quasi-experimentally knowable and sometimes actually known and loved.
This may be illustrated by two analogies. 1. When God is clearly seen He is present in the saints in two ways: a) as preserving them
84 In lam, q.43, 2.3, dub. V, nos. 96, 99. 85 Summa theol., la, q.43, 2-3- in their natural and supernatural being; b) as the object clearly seen and experimentally known and continually loved above all things. 2. Our souls are really present to themselves, a) as the radical, physical principle of the soul’s own actions; b) as an object that is not distant and that is experimentally knowable in its operations. This opinion of John of St. Thomas has recently been presented again as the true interpretation of St. Thomas’ doctrine by Father Gardeil.** Thus the triune God is the principle and the efficient cause of our supernatural life, especially with regard to those acts which are not produced without God’s special inspiration; and thus sometimes God manifests Himself in the shadows of faith as an object that is quasi-experimentally known.
Doubt. Does Sacred Scripture speak of this quasi-experimental knowledge of God dwelling in the souls of the just? The reply is in the affirmative. Sacred Scripture frequently mentions it: “For the Spirit Himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God”; ê “His unction teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie”; *° “But you shall know Him; because He shall abide with you, and shall be in you”; 8° “To him that overcometh, I will give the hidden manna, . . . which no man knoweth but he that receiveth it”; °° “He that loveth not, knoweth not God,” °! that is, does not know God quasi-experimentally, although he may know Him by reason or faith.
Doubt. Why does St. Thomas call this knowledge quasi-experimental? °” For two reasons: 1. because this knowledge does not attain to God altogether immediately but only in the filial affection which God excites in us; °? 2. because we are not able with complete certitude to distinguish this supernatural filial affection from a similar natural and inefficacious affection which comes from sentiment. Therefore we have no absolute certainty that we are in the state of grace. But still amid the shadows of faith the just man here on earth
2 St, Thomas, Com. in I Sent., d.14, q.2, a.2 ad 3. 23 St. Thomas, Com. in Ep. ad Rom. 8:16.
under the special inspiration of the Holy Ghost can sometimes say with the disciples on the road to Emmaus: “Was not our heart burning within us, whilst He spoke in the way?” ** St. Thomas remarks: “He who truly receives grace knows it by experiencing a certain sweetness, which he who does not receive grace does not experience.” °° In this way St. Thomas explains the words of the Apocalypse,°® “To him that overcometh, I will give the hidden manna, . which no man knoweth but he that receiveth it.” °
Finally the effects and signs of the indwelling of the Holy Trinity are described by St. Thomas in the Contra Gentes ** and also in the following articles of this question. The signs listed in the Contra Gentes are as follows: 1. the testimony of a good conscience; 2. the frequent hearing of the word of God; 3. an inner taste for divine wisdom; 4. conversation with God; 5. joy in God by fully assenting to Him even in adversity; 6. the liberty of the sons of God, by which the just are freed from inordinate passions; 7. conversation about divine things from the fullness of the heart. It would be a great mistake to confuse these signs with sentiment, which is nothing more than an affectation of the love of God, where there is actually no love of God or where it is only cold and indifferent.
WHETHER THE FATHER IS SENT
Reply. It is not congruous for the Father to be sent, since mission implies procession from another according to origin. But the Father is not from another. Therefore He is not sent.
Reply to the first objection. The Father gives Himself inasmuch as He liberally communicates Himself to be enjoyed by creatures, and He dwells in creatures by grace, according to our Lord’s words: “If anyone love Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and will make Our abode with him.” °°
24 Luke 24:33. 95 Summa theol., Ia Iae, q.112, a.5. 96 Apoc. 2:17. 97 Summa theol., Ila Ilae, q.45, a.2. 98 Contra Gentes, Bk. IV, chaps. 21 f. 88 John 14:23.
FirtH ARTICLE
WHETHER THE SON IS INVISIBLY SENT
Reply. The Son was sent visibly by the Incarnation, but He is also sent invisibly, for He said: “And We will come to him, and will make Our abode with him”; ‘°° and besides this the Son has His origin from the Father. Thus He is sent invisibly according to the gift of grace gratum faciens.
Reply to the first objection. Certain gifts are appropriated to the Son, namely, those which pertain to the intellect and incline to love, as the gift of wisdom, which is a kind of taste for knowledge and is called a kind of experimental knowledge.
Reply to the second objection. We treat here only of the knowledge which inclines to love, since the Son of God is the Word spirating love.
Reply to the third objection. We distinguish two invisible missions, which are inseparable: “the one cannot be without the other, because neither takes place without grace gratum faciens, nor is one person separated from the other.”
WHETHER THE INVISIBLE MISSION IS TO ALL WHO PARTICIPATE IN GRACE
Reply. The reply is affirmative according to St. Augustine, for this mission takes place through sanctifying grace.
Reply to first objection. The Holy Trinity dwelt in the Fathers of the Old Testament by the fact that they were in the state of grace, and the Sòn and the Holy Ghost were invisibly sent to them. But the Holy Ghost was not sent visibly except at our Lord’s baptism and on Pentecost.
Reply to second objection. It is noted that “the invisible mission takes place even in the progress of virtue or in the increase of grace
. especially when anyone progresses to some new act or new state of grace. For example, when a person offers himself in martyrdom out of the fervor of charity, or renounces his possessions, or undertakes some arduous work.”
An invisible mission also takes place after the passive purification of the senses, which is a kind of second conversion, in the transition from the state of the beginner to the age of spiritual proficiency or to the illuminative way. The Holy Ghost is sent invisibly a fortiori after the passive purification of the soul, when a profound transformation of the soul takes place at the moment when the soul enters into the perfect life of union, as occurred to the apostles on Pentecost.
Reply to third objection. The Holy Ghost is sent to the blessed in the exact instant when the beatific vision begins; then the three divine persons are present in the just soul as in a‘living temple, no longer shrouded by the shadows of faith, but appearing in a bright vision, which is called the splendor of the saints. Then the soul is perfectly assimilated not only to the Holy Ghost but also to the Word, by whom the soul is assimilated to the Father, inasmuch as the Word is the figure of His substance. The reader is referred to this third reply.
Reply to fourth objection. A mission of a divine person is not made to the sacraments, because the missions do not take place except with regard to a terminus, that is, to those who receive grace through the sacraments.
WHETHER THE HOLY GHOST IS SENT VISIBLY
In this article St. Thomas explains the congruity of the visible mission of the Holy Ghost descending on our Lord at His baptism in the figure of a dove and on Pentecost in the figure of fire.
Reply. This visible mission is fitting, because it is connatural to man to be led by visible things to the invisible. These visible missions are to the Trinity of persons as creatures are to the one God, that is, God manifests Himself as triune in these visible events, namely, in the incarnation of the Son and in the heavenly fire of Pentecost.
The difference between the two visible missions is that the Son is sent as the principle of sanctification, and therefore as a person united to human nature to perform a work as the Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost is sent as the sign of sanctification through some symbol, as the dove and fire.***
Reply to second objection. With St. Augustine, St. Thomas holds that the dove that descended on Jesus was not merely the object of
101 Cf, the reply to the fourth objection.
an imaginary vision, but something real and extramental; so also with the fire on Pentecost. The reason is that “those who saw this dove and this fire saw them with their eyes,” that is, all the witnesses present saw them.
Reply to fifth objection. These creatures (the dove and the fire) were formed externally by the ministry of the angels.
Reply to sixth objection. St. Thomas explains the different visible missions which took place in the early Church to propagate the faith. Thus the Holy Ghost manifested Himself in the guise of fiery tongues to make known the office of teaching.
EICHTH ARTICLE
In this last article St. Thomas shows that a divine person is properly sent by that person from whom He proceeds. Thus the Holy Ghost is sent by the Father and the Son, and the Son is sent by the Father. But in a less proper sense we may say that the Son is sent by the Holy Ghost inasmuch as the person sending is understood as the principle not of the person who is sent but of the effect for which the mission takes place. Thus we read in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, “And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.” +°?
Thus we conclude the treatise of the Trinity with a consideration of the manifestation of this mystery ad extra. By way of conclusion we may briefly speak of the importance of this supreme mystery, having in mind particularly the relation of the mystery to the two orders of nature and grace and to the life of grace.
EPILOGUE
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUPREME MYSTERY OF THE TRINITY
- The distinction between the two orders of nature and grace appears more clearly from the fact that the mystery of the Trinity is entirely indemonstrable. Indeed, as has been said, the possibility or repugnance of this mystery cannot be proved or disproved; it can only be set forth as plausible. If the possibility of this mystery could be proved, by this very fact the existence of the Trinity would be proved, because the existence of the Trinity is not contingent but necessary.
By the revelation of the Trinity the dogma of the freedom of creation is confirmed, and a clear solution is offered to the objection presented by the absolute optimism of Plato, Leibnitz, and Malebranche. This objection is clothed in the following syllogism: good is essentially diffusive of itself; but God is the highest good; therefore He is essentially diffusive of Himself by creation, which is, therefore, at least morally necessary so that the actual world must be the best possible world. Leibnitz said: “If God had not created, He would not be good or wise.” To which Bossuct replied: “God is not any greater for having created the universe.’
The Vatican Council defined the absolute freedom of creation in these words: “By His most free counsel God created all things .. . , not for the sake of increasing His happiness or acquiring it, but to manifest His perfection by the good things which He bestows on creatures.” ? Therefore creation is an expression of God’s most voluntary liberality and generosity.”
To the objection based on the principle, “good is diffusive of itself,” we reply by making a distinction: good is diffusive either according to nature, as the sun diffuses its light, or according to the will and liberality. “Since the goodness of God is perfect and can exist without any other, and since nothing of perfection accrues to Him from others, it follows that it is not absolutely necessary for God to will other things besides Himself.” *
This reply is confirmed by the revelation of the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, for in this mystery is verified completely and necessarily the aforesaid principle, “good is essentially diffusive of itself.” This principle is verified in the infinite fecundity of the divine nature. In the Contra Gentes St. Thomas states: “The higher a nature is the more that which emanates from that nature is intimate to the nature.” * Thus in generating the Son, God the Father communicates to Him not only His ideas as in the creation of things, not only grace and charity as in our justification, but His entire nature.” If the necessary diffusion or the necessary fecundity is such in the Trinity, it fol-
lows that creation, which is diffusion ad extra, is free and in no way necessary, since the principle, “good is diffusive of itself,” is verified in God before the creation. And the principle is verified on a plane which is above the order of causality whether efficient or final by the communication of the entire divine nature to the Son after the manner of intellection and likewise to the Holy Ghost after the manner of love.
- This mystery shows that the intimate life of God is the perfect life of intellection and of love.
It is the perfect life of intellection, in which not only a multiple and accidental word is conceived but in which the unique and substantial Word is conceived, in whom in one instant all possible and future things are known. The reason is that in God intellection is not an accident but the same as substantial being, and the terminus of the intellection, the Word, is likewise substantial.® In this perfect life of intellection the three divine persons live by the one intellection out of the same infinite truth in the perfect comprehension of their own intimate life.
The mystery of the Trinity also shows that God’s intimate life is the perfect life of love, so that the three persons, by one and the same essential love, love the supreme good, with which they are identified. In this love there is a perfect union of the three persons without any inordination of love, without any egoism; indeed the entire personality of the Father is the relation to the Son, the entire personality of the Son is the relation to the Father, and the entire personality of the Holy Ghost is the relation to the Father and to the Son.
This mystery may be summed up as follows: the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God, but the Father is not the Son, because no one generates himself, and the Father and the Son are not the Holy Ghost. All this remains hidden to us, but in speaking of the mystery we avoid contradictions, although we are unable to demonstrate the possibility or non-repugnance of the mystery. This possibility is neither proved or disproved; it is only set forth as plausible, as is the fitness of the Trinity or the fecundity of the divine nature ad intra, Again and again we can return to the study of the reasons for the fitness of the Trinity since these reasons are most profound, although they are not demonstrative; they tend to the evidence not
of demonstration but of the beatific vision, as the polygon inscribed in a circle tends to the circumference of the circle as its sides are multiplied in infinity.
- In the revelation of the Blessed Trinity the intimate life of God appears as the supreme exemplar of the life of grace, especially since our adoptive filiation is an analogical likeness participating in the eternal natural filiation.
As God communicated to His Son His entire nature so He communicates to us a participation of His nature, or the principle of operation by which we are able to see God directly as He sees Himself and to love Him as He loves Himself. Speaking of the similarity of these two filiations, St. Thomas said: “The adoptive filiation is a certain likeness participating in the natural filiation; but it takes place in us as appropriated to the Father, who is the natural principle of filiation, and through the gift of the Holy Ghost, who is the love of the Father and the Son.” 7 St. Thomas refers to this adoptive filiation in explaining the following texts: “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son; that He might be the first-born among many brethren”; ê “That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship may be with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ”; ° “Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.” *°
The procession of the Holy Ghost is also a supreme exemplar of our charity, for, as St. Thomas says, “The Son is not any Word but the Word that spirates love.” ** Therefore all our knowledge of God should spirate charity toward God and our neighbor. St. Thomas defines a devil as “one who does not love.” This similarity between God’s love and ours was expressed by our Lord Himself: “Holy Father, keep them . . . , that they may be one, as We also are. .. . As Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee; that they also may be one in Us.” 1? That is, as the Father and the Son are one in the unity of nature and as they love each other in the Holy Ghost, who is personal love, the terminus of notional love, so Christians should be one in God and
10 Matt. 5:48; cf. Commentarium in Joannem, Ill.
among one another by grace, which is the participation of the divine nature.
In this way the image not only of the one God but of the triune God will be perfected in the soul, for as God the Father knows Himself in the Word and loves Himself and the Son in the Holy Ghost so the Christian soul should not only know itself but God Himself quasi-experimentally and continuously and to love Him always. In heaven this image of the Trinity will be definitively perfected, for there the blessed continually and directly know God as He knows Himself and they love Him as He loves Himself.
With regard to the special relations of the sons of God with each divine person, it should be noted: 1. that the three persons are one principle of operation ad extra,'* because they operate through the intellect, the will, and the omnipotence, which are common to all three; further, the adoption of men belongs to the entire Trinity, and therefore in the Our Father, “Father” is predicated essentially and not personally of the first person alone; ** 2. nevertheless the adoption is appropriated to the Father as the author, to the Son as the exemplar, and to the Holy Ghost as to the one who imprints the character on the soul. St. Thomas says: “The adoptive sonship is a certain likeness participating in the (divine) natural filiation, but it takes place in us as appropriated to the Father, who is the principle of natural filiation, and through the gift of the Holy Ghost, who is the love of the Father and of the Son”; '* “Although this adoption is common to the entire Trinity, it is appropriated to the Father as the author, to the Son as the exemplar, and to the Holy Ghost as the one who imprints on us the likeness of the exemplar.” *° This adoption is imperfect by grace in this life and perfect in glory. God, dwelling in the saints, in the one immobile instant of eternity generates the Son in the saints and spirates in them the Holy Ghost, and He assimilates the saints to Himself by preserving in them consummated grace, the light of glory, and charity that can never be lost, so that the prayer of Christ will be verified in them: “That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee; that they also may be one in Us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.”
14 Summa theol., Ia, q.33, a.3. 15 Ibid., Ila, q.23, a.5 ad 2. 16 Ibid., a.2 ad 3.
THE PLACE OF THIS TREATISE IN THEOLOGY
BBVBWBVBBWeBeBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBEBBBEBBEBEBLRRHEBREREEEREERE
TS understand this treatise we should first consider the place it holds in St. Thomas’ now classical synthesis. The first part of the Theological Summa, which treats of God, the primary and formal object of theology, is divided into three parts: 1. the one God or the divine essence (questions 2-26); 2. the Trinity of persons (questions 27-43); 3- God the creator and governor of the universe (questions 44-119).
The reason for this division is that sacred theology, which is the science of God based on revelation, should in the light of revelation first treat of its formal object, namely, God in Himself, in His essence and in the Trinity of persons, before it treats of God’s operation ad extra, which is the creation and governance of the universe, because operation follows being, and the mode of operation follows the mode of being.
Here we see the difference between the method of metaphysics and that of sacred theology. Metaphysics, which is the science in the natural order which treats not of God but of being as such and of being as known by man, that is, in the mirror of sensible things, ascends gradually from the sensible to the spiritual and divine. Therefore Aristotle, after his physics or natural philosophy of mobile being and his psychology of animated being, began his metaphysics concerning being as such, namely, the metaphysical critique of the value of reason and of being as knowable (JV Metaphysica); then he considered being in itself in his ontology; and finally he undertook the demonstration of the existence of the first mover and pure act (XII Metaphysica). Metaphysics, therefore, the science of being as being, primarily considers being as such as it is knowable naturally, that is, by ascending from sensible things to the supreme cause of being, to God, the author of nature.
Sacred theology, on the other hand, being a supernatural science not of being as being but of God as God from the viewpoint of the
Deity or of the intimate life of God as knowable by revelation, begins in the light of revelation with the consideration of God not only as the author of nature but also of grace. Theology therefore treats of God before creatures, it treats of God in His essence and in the Trinity of persons before it turns to God the creator and governor of the universe. St. Thomas explains this important difference between the metaphysical and theological methods: “The two sciences do not proceed in the same way. In the discipline of philosophy, which considers creatures in themselves and from them goes to the knowledge of God, the first consideration is of creatures and the last of God; in the doctrine of faith, however, which considers creatures only in their ordination to God, the first consideration is of God and then it turns to creatures. Thus theology is more perfect since it is more like the knowledge of God, who knowing Himself sees all other things in Himself. Hence, according to this method, after having treated of the things that concern God in Himself in the first book, it remains to treat of those things that come from God.” *
St. Thomas follows this order not only in the Summa theologica but also in the Summa contra Gentes, which is not really a philosophical summa, since it begins with God, although it deals first with the truths that can be known naturally and treats of the Trinity only in the fourth book.
This distinction between the metaphysical and theological methods applies also to the theological treatise on man and the philosophical treatise on man as presented by Aristotle in his De anima. The philosophical treatise on man begins with the sensible manifestations of the life of the soul, of vegetative, sensitive, and intellective life, and only at the end is there mention of the spirituality and incorruptibility of the human soul. This is the method of discovery and ascent. On the other hand, the theological treatise on man descends from God to the spiritual soul created by God, and therefore the first question is about the spirituality and incorruptibility of the soul (Ia, q. 75, a. 1, 2, 4, 5); then follow questions on the union of the soul with the body (q. 76), the powers of the soul both common and special (q. 77), the intellective operations, which alone with the help of grace can attain to God, particularly the knowledge of the separated soul, about which the philosopher knows little (q. 84), and finally the questions
TREATISE IN THEOLOGY 339 on the first production of man as the image of God (q. 90) and the state of justice and original sanctity (q. 93).
This difference between the philosophical and theological methods should be noted in the beginning, since St. Thomas as a speculative theologian makes extensive use of philosophy in treating of God. Many have thought that he was too much addicted to philosophy in theological matters, but St. Thomas carefully observed the distinction between the two disciplines. Theology makes use of philosophy as a superior uses an inferior for a higher end, and thus before theology makes use of a philosophical proposition it examines it in a higher light and approves it at least negatively as not contrary to revelation; then it uses the philosophical proposition as an instrument and confers on it a higher certainty so that the theological conclusion, derived from the major of faith and the minor of reason, although less certain than faith, is still more certain than a philosophical conclusion because it enjoys the approbation and confirmation of the superior light of virtual revelation, which is the formal object of theology.
DIVISION OF THE TREATISE ON GOD THE CREATOR
The treatise on God the creator is divided into three parts:
the production of creatures.
the distinction of things in general and in particular. This part has three treatises: a) the angels, b) corporeal creatures, c) man.
the conservation and governance of things in general and in particular.
The order of this division is logical. First we treat of the production of being created from nothing, clearly distinguishing between creation and every other production of things; secondly, we treat of the distinction between created things, and here we take up the problem of how a multitude can proceed from the supreme unity. Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus were unable to solve this problem. The first two did not attain to an explicit notion of creation from nothing, and Plotinus substituted pantheistic emanationism for creation. In this second part we also consider the distinction between good and evil. Finally, we logically treat of the governance of all these creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, inasmuch as their actions are ordered by divine direction and motion to the end of the whole universe.
Footnotes
Chapter 18 of 46