|
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.[610]
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.
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."[611] 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."[612]
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,"
or from God I proceeded and came; for I came not of
Myself, but He sent Me, "[613] express not only
the visible mission which took place in the Incarnation
but likewise the eternal procession. Thus Jesus said,
"I proceeded and came."[614] 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.
|
|