§5 — The Divine Appropriations and Missions

§5: The and Missions

THE AND MISSIONS I. The Divine Appropriations. — The 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: ( i ) 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, l Cfr. St Thomas, S. Theol., la, 2 Abllard and Gunther were guilty qu. 39, art. 7. of this error. 244 THE quam commune trahere ad propriuni”* (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, 6 ©cos). The Son, because of the dominion He has received from the Father over all creation, is commonly called ” Lord ” (Dominus, 6 kv/oios).5 The law of appropriations is, however, sometimes set aside in Holy Scripture, as when St. Paul applies to Christ the proper name nw and expressly calls Him “God.6 In 2 Cor. Ill, 17, the Apostle appropriates the name * Lord ” to the Holy Ghost, to whom the Creed also refers as ” Dominum et vivijiccmtem” zDe Verit., qu. 7. art. 3. Scannell’s Manual, Vol. I, pp. 34 4 We follow Scheeben, Dotjmatik, sqq.) Vol. I, pp. 887 sqq. (Cfr. Wilhelm- 5 Cfr. 1 Cor. XII, 4 «qq. • Supra, pp. 79 !• 246 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA b) Of the absolute attributes which form the second class, omnipotence is appropriated to the Father, allwisdom 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 aptf) rip fyx^, the Son, sapientia genita, and the Holy Ghost, Personal Love and Hypostatic Sanctity.1 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 fym avapxosy the Son, cucwv ©cou, and Swpca ®€ov. 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 TCfr. Richard of St. Victor, De Tribus Appropriates, 2 (Migne, P. L., CXCVT, 993 sqq.). 8 De Doctr. Christ., I, 5. 9D Trinit., II, 1. 10 De Trinit., VI, 10, xi. 11 St. Augustine explains this mode of appropriation, /. c. 12 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Th$ol.t ia, qu. 39, art. 8. THE 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, povXrjfjm), to the Son, the execution (executio, foj/uovpyla), and to the Holy Ghost, the perfecting of the work (perfectio, rcActWts). 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.18 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,16 even as He still ” maketh intercession for us at the right hand of God,” lf and generally acts as the “natural Mediator” between God and man, though, of course, the proper object of our 13 Cfr. St. Basil, De Spiritu 15 Cfr. John XVII, I §qq. Sancto, 1 6 (Mignc, P. G., XXXII, 16 Rom. VIII, 34- Cfr. Heb. 134). VII, 25. 14 Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual, VoL I, 343.

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 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 quern. The missio 17 It remains for Soteriology to develop this point. On the special Appropriations of the Holy Ghcst, cfr. St Thomas, Contr. Gent., IV, 20-22 (Rickaby, Of God and His Creatures, pp. 351 sqq., London 190s). 18 Supra, pp. 236 sq. 19 On the concept of * Mission/’ vide supra, p. 175. 20 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., ia, qu. 43, art. 3, ad 3: Missio includit processionem aeternam #f aliquid addit, scil. temporalem effec turn.” THE 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 oKoXovOia Kara rqv ra£iv; 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 quern, 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.28 21 Cfr. supra, p. xxx. 22 Cfr. St August., De Trinit., IV, 20, 28: ” Mittit, qui genuit; mittitur, quod genitum est… . Sed Pater non dicitur missus; … non enim habet, de quo sit out ex quo procedat… . De Spirit u Sancto dicitur: ’ a Pat re procedit,’ Pater vera a nullo — He sends who begot, That is sent which is begotten. • . . But the Father is not said to be sent … for He has no one of whom to be, or from whom to proceed… It is said of the Holy Ghost: ‘He proceedeth from the Father,’ but the Father is from no one.” 23 No one has explained this more clearly than St. Thomas, when he says: “In ratione misstonis duo importantur: quorum unum est habitudq missi ad eumt a quo mils’ 25o DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA b) A Mission is visible or invisible (missio visibiHs — 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 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 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 substantiate in opposition to all other missions, which are merely representortivae.2 Aside from the Mission of the Incarnate Logos, an invisible Mission as such invariably ranks higher than quia print ibi omnino non erat qua mittitur, vel quia incipit aliquo modo esse, quo print non erat. Missio igitur divinae personae convenire potest, secundum quod importat ex una parte processionem originis a mittente, et secundum quod importat ex alia parte novum modum existendi in alio” S. Theol., xa, qu. 43, art. i. 24 Supra, pp. 12 sqq. 25 De Trinity XII, 4, 17, titur; aliud est habitudo missi ad terminum, ad quern mittitur. Per hoc autem, quod aliquis mittitur, ostenditur processio quaedam missi a mittente vel secundum imperium, sicut dominus mittit servum, vel secundum consilium, ut si consiliarius mittere dicatur regem ad bellandum, vel secundum originem, ut si dicatur quod flos emittitur ab arbore. Ostenditur etiam habitudo ad terminum, ad quern mittitur, ut aliquo mo do ibi esse incipiat, vel THE 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. Hie igitur Spiritus Scmctus missus ab utrisque creditur!3 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, potetvtiam 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 convmit 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 /car’ c|ox^v. This also gives us the reason why a person can be sent only to rational creatures. The supernatural communication of the socalled 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 26 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 277, 27 Cfr. St. Thomas, 5”. Theol., ia, qu. 43, art. 3. 28 S. Theol., ia, qu. 43, art. 3. Cfr. John XIV, 17, 23; x Cor. Ill, 16, VI, 19; Gal. IV, 6, and so forth. For a more thorough explanation, see the dogmatic treatise on Grace. r 252 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 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,” 80 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.81 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.82 Readings: — Besides St. Thomas, S. TheoL, ia, qu. 43, and his commentators, cfr. St. Augustine, De Trinitate, 1. II-IV; Petavius, De Trinit., 1. VIII; Suarez, De Trinit, 1. XII; Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 82, 108 sq.; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 42-48; K. v. Schazler, Natur und Ubernatur, pp. 42 sqq., Mainz 1865; Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. II (3rd ed.), pp. 340 sqq.; De Regnon, Etudes de Theologie Positive sur la S. Trinite, Etudes XVII and XXV, Paris 1898. 20 Cfr. Card. Manning, The Internal Mission of the Holy Ghost, 5th cd., New York (s. a.); De Bellevuc, L’CEuvre du Saint-Esprit ou la Sanctification des Ames, Paris 1901. 80 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Cod: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 325 sq. aiCfr. John XIV, 23. 82 Supra, pp. 24 sq. PART II UNITY IN TRINITY, OR THE TRIUNITY OF GOD Monotheism is the foundation of all true religion, and therefore we must not dismiss the subject of this volume without demonstrating that the dogma of the Divine Trinity neither destroys nor endangers the unity and simplicity of God. The Blessed Trinity must be essentially conceived not only as Trinity in Unity, but likewise as Unity in Trinity. It is impossible to separate the one from the other.1 We shall begin this second part of our treatise with a consideration of Tritheism, which is the heretical antithesis of the dogma of the Blessed Trinity. Tritheism is no less destructive of the dogma of the Trinity than Monarchianism (Unitarianism) in its diverse forms.2 It is against Tritheism that the Athanasian Creed teaches: ” Sicut singillatim unamquamque personam Deutn ac Dominum confiteri Christiana religione compellimur, ita tres Deos aut Dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur — For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. 8 l Cfr. Symbol. Athanas.: * Ut is to be worshipped.” (Denzingerper omnia et unitas in Trmitate et Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 39.) Trinitas in u tut ate veneranda sit — 2 Supra, pp. 115 sqq. So that in all things the Unity in 3 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, EnTrinity, and the Trinity in Unity chiridion, n. 39. 253