The Speculative Theological Development of the Dogma of the Trinity — Section 5: The Divine Appropriations and Missions

SECTION 5: THE DIVINE APPROPRIATIONS AND MISSIONS

1. The Divine Appropriations

The Divine Appropriations differ essentially from the Divine Properties. The latter appertain exclusively to this or that Divine Person, while the former attribute to one Person something which is common to all Three. Both are closely related, in so far as the appropriata are apt to lead to a knowledge of the propria. Appropriation (appropriatio) may therefore be defined as a process, based on Scripture and Tradition, by which certain absolute divine attributes and operations, which are essentially common to the entire Trinity, are ascribed to one of the Divine Persons in particular, with the purpose of revealing the Hypostatic character of that Person.¹ From this definition it is manifest: (1) That it would be heretical to make the appropriatum a proprium (i. e., the exclusive property or prerogative of one Person),² for, in the words of the Angelic Doctor, “appropriare nihil est aliud, quam commune trahere ad proprium.”³ (2) That the appropriations are not to be made arbitrarily, but according to a strict law. This law may be formulated thus: Between the Hypostatic character of the Divine Person to whom an attribute is appropriated, and that attribute itself, there must exist some special intrinsic relationship. This law, though strict in itself, admits of a wide latitude in application, because the Personal character of the Divine Hypostases is manifold, and various attributes and operations may be intrinsically appropriated to each.

The Appropriations most commonly employed may be divided into four categories.⁴

a) The first category comprises the substantive names of God. They are distributed among the Three Divine Persons, according to the rule laid down above, in this wise: To the Father, as the principle of the Godhead, is appropriated the name “God” (Deus, ὁ θεός). The Son, because of the dominion He has received from the Father over all creation, is commonly called “Lord” (Dominus, ὁ κύριος).⁵ The law of appropriations is, however, sometimes set aside in Holy Scripture, as when St. Paul applies to Christ the proper name YHWH and expressly calls Him “God.”⁶ In 2 Cor. III, 17, the Apostle appropriates the name “Lord” to the Holy Ghost, to whom the Creed also refers as “Dominum et vivificantem.”

b) Of the absolute attributes which form the second class, omnipotence is appropriated to the Father, all-wisdom to the Son, and all-goodness and sanctity to the Holy Ghost. This is in perfect keeping with the Personal character of the Three Divine Persons, since the Father is ἀρχὴ τῆς ἀρχῆς, the Son, sapientia genita, and the Holy Ghost, Personal Love and Hypostatic Sanctity.⁷ Similarly St. Augustine, starting from the fundamental notion of unity, appropriates unitas to the Father, aequalitas to the Son, and connexio to the Holy Ghost.⁸ The Father, as the “First” Person of the Blessed Trinity, suggests unity pure and simple; the Son, as the Logos and intellectual image of the Father, equality; the Holy Ghost, as the connecting link between the Father and the Son, the harmony of unity and equality. A kindred though not identical appropriation is found in the writings of St. Hilary⁹ and quoted by St. Augustine,¹⁰ viz.: “Aeternitas in Patre, species in imagine, usus in munere — Eternity is in the Father, form [i. e., beauty] in the Image [i. e., the Logos], use [i. e., fruition] in the Gift [i. e., the Holy Ghost].”¹¹ For the Father is ἀρχὴ ἄναρχος, the Son, εἰκὼν θεοῦ, and the Holy Ghost δωρεὰ θεοῦ. Many divines also find an Appropriation indicated in Rom. XI, 36: “Ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia — Of him [i. e., the Father], and by him [i. e., the Son], and in him [i. e., the Holy Ghost] are all things.” The preposition ex, they hold, signifies the primal power and the source of all things, the preposition per, the exemplary cause, and the preposition in, the conservative force which sustains the universe.¹²

c) With regard to the outward manifestations of the Blessed Trinity, which form the third class of Appropriations, Catholic theologians, following St. Paul’s hint in Rom. XI, 36, have laid down the general formula, that “all things have been created by the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost.” To the Father they attribute the decree or resolution to operate (imperium, βούλημα), to the Son, the execution (executio, δημιουργία), and to the Holy Ghost, the perfecting of the work (perfectio, τελείωσις). This is in line with the popular belief appropriating the Creation to the Father, the Redemption to the Son, and Sanctification to the Holy Spirit.¹³

d) The Appropriations of the fourth and last class are based upon the general relations of the creature to its Creator. The worship and sacrificial cult offered to the Blessed Trinity is divided among the Three Divine Persons in such manner that the Father is the object of it, while the Son and the Holy Ghost, besides being its object, are “at the same time mediators of the worship offered to the Father, from whom they originate and whose glory they reveal, and with whom they receive the same worship, because they are one with Him.”¹⁴ As the Church in her liturgical prayers is wont to appeal to “God the Father through Jesus Christ in the unity of the Holy Ghost,” but never to “Jesus Christ through the Father,” so Christ Himself, as man, prayed to His Heavenly Father,¹⁵ even as He still “maketh intercession for us at the right hand of God,”¹⁶ and generally acts as the “natural Mediator” between God and man, though, of course, the proper object of our worship is not the Father alone, but the whole Divine Trinity.¹⁷

2. The Divine Missions

The Divine Missions, so called, throw into relief the hypostatic differences of the Divine Persons, and also their Properties,¹⁸ and hence are of no inconsiderable assistance in elucidating the dogma of the Blessed Trinity. They are related to the Divine Appropriations in so far as an operation common to the whole Trinity is not infrequently appropriated to that particular Person who is said to be “sent” for a definite purpose by another. Cfr. Gal. IV, 6: “Misit Deus [i. e., Pater] Spiritum Filii sui in corda vestra clamantem: Abba, Pater — God [the Father] hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father.”¹⁹

a) A divine Mission (missio divina) is defined as “the eternal procession of a Person sent from a Person sending, in its relation to a creatural terminus in time.”²⁰ It is important to emphasize this twofold aspect of divine Mission, viz.: the fundamental relation of one Person to another as its terminus a quo and its effect in the creature as terminus ad quem. The missio ad intra (i. e., processio) is eternal, but the missio ad extra takes place in time. It follows: (1) that an Eternal Mission must be intrinsically as necessary and unchangeable as Generation and Spiration; while a Temporal Mission, on the other hand (i. e., a proceeding to exterior effects) is subject to the free will of the Triune God. (2) There can be no Eternal Mission except from Person to Person, strictly according to the ἀκολουθία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν;²¹ while Temporal Mission, being an outward manifestation, is a function common to the whole Trinity.²² From this we may deduce a law, which is confirmed by Holy Scripture, viz.: that the Temporal Missions are strictly regulated by the divine sequence of origin. Consequently, the Father alone can send, and He can send both the Son and the Holy Ghost. The Son can be sent, but only by the Father; He can also send, but He can send only the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost, in His turn, cannot send, but can be sent by either the Father or the Son. The Person who proceeds (missus) stands as it were midway between the eternal terminus a quo and the temporal terminus ad quem, because, on the one hand, owing to the sequence of origin, He depends on the Person from whom He proceeds, while, on the other, He produces in the (rational) creature a new effect, which is again, in its turn, appropriated to Him.²³

b) A Mission is visible or invisible (missio visibilis — invisibilis), according as its temporal effect in the creature is sensible or insensible. A visible Mission cannot be conceived without an invisible one, but an invisible does not necessarily suppose a visible Mission. We have an example of a visible Mission in the descent of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost Day. He descends invisibly, secundum gratiam, whenever confirmation is administered or Holy Orders are conferred.

There are two classes of visible Missions, according as the Divine Person who is sent (missus) becomes visible to men by entering into Hypostatic Union with a human nature (the Word made flesh), or merely manifests Himself to men by means of a visible symbol (as the Holy Ghost descending in the form of a dove). The Incarnation is unique as a pre-eminent Mission, of which the Old Testament theophanies,²⁴ so far as they can be considered “Missions” at all, were merely a preparation and preamble. For this reason Suarez calls the Incarnation a missio visibilis substantialis in opposition to all other missions, which are merely representativae.²⁵

Aside from the Mission of the Incarnate Logos, an invisible Mission as such invariably ranks higher than a visible Mission, because it aims at the supernatural sanctification of the creature. “Nec enim Spiritus Sanctus, de Patre procedit in Filium,” says the Eleventh Council of Toledo (A. D. 675), “vel de Filio procedit ad sanctificandam creaturam, sed simul ab utrisque processisse monstratur, quia caritas sive sanctitas amborum agnoscitur. Hic igitur Spiritus Sanctus missus ab utrisque creditur.”²⁶ The creation and conservation of the cosmos, and God’s co-operation with His creatures can no more be attributed to a divine Mission than His omnipresence per essentiam, potentiam et praesentiam,²⁷ and hence all divine missions, properly so called, are confined to the production of supernatural effects, culminating in the infusion and augmentation of sanctifying grace, and in the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost. “Est unus [modus] specialis, qui convenit naturae rationali, in qua Deus dicitur esse sicut cognitum in cognoscente et amatum in amante. Et quia cognoscendo et amando creatura rationalis sua operatione attingit ad ipsum Deum, secundum istum specialem modum Deus non solum dicitur esse in creatura rationali, sed etiam habitare in ea sicut in templo,” etc.²⁸ Consequently, sanctification is a divine Mission κατ’ ἐξοχήν. This also gives us the reason why a person can be sent only to rational creatures. The supernatural communication of the so-called gratiae gratis datae, and of the theological virtues faith and hope, is not to be conceived as a divine Mission in the strict sense of the term, because it does not essentially — ex vi notionis — include sanctifying grace nor theological charity and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which are invariably connected with this grace.²⁹

c) Let us remark, in conclusion, that the concept of divine Mission must be carefully distinguished from the cognate notions of Indwelling (inhabitatio) and Apparition (apparitio). Though every invisible Mission has for its ultimate object the “indwelling” of God in the soul, and the beginning of that indwelling is signalized after the manner of a “coming” or “descent,”³⁰ yet Mission and Indwelling are not identical, — for this reason, among others, that Mission takes place only in conformity with immanent Procession from Person to Person, while Indwelling, though appropriated in a special manner to the Holy Ghost, is common to the entire Trinity.³¹ The concept of “Apparition” also is more extensive than that of Mission. For though the Father and the Blessed Trinity as such cannot be sent, because they do not proceed, there is no reason why they should not appear visibly. We have a classical example of such a Trinitarian theophany in the account of our Lord’s Baptism in the Jordan.³²

Readings

Besides St. Thomas, S. Theol., Ia, qu. 43, and his commentators, cfr. St. Augustine, De Trinitate, l. II–IV; Petavius, De Trinit., l. VIII; Suarez, De Trinit., l. XII; Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 82, 108 sq.; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 42–48; K. v. Schazler, Natur und Übernatur, pp. 42 sqq., Mainz 1865; Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. II (3rd ed.), pp. 340 sqq.; De Regnon, Études de Théologie Positive sur la S. Trinité, Études XVII and XXV, Paris 1898.