Dist. 15, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/1/d/15/q/bon-sent-I-d15-p1-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### THE SOLE ARTICLE.

*On mission in the divine [persons].*

### QUESTION I.

*Whether mission is in the divine [persons].*

Concerning the first [question] — that mission is in the divine [persons] — it is shown:

1. First, by the Scripture of the Old Testament, Wisdom 9: *Send her forth from the heavens*; and it is speaking of Wisdom, who is the Son of God.

2. Likewise, by the Scripture of the New Testament, to the Galatians 4: *But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son*. And after: *Because you are sons of God, God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts*.

3. Likewise, this is shown by the testimony of Truth himself, John 16: *And when I have gone away, I will send you the Spirit of truth*.

4. Likewise, by reason this same thing seems [to follow]: for to send is nothing other than to bring someone forth from oneself into another, just as the Sun sends a ray into the air; but the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son into the creature: therefore he is sent by them.

5. Likewise, whenever something is given to someone as to one who is absent, it is fittingly said to be *sent*; but the whole Trinity is absent from sinners with respect to indwelling grace: therefore whenever the Holy Spirit is given with respect to indwelling grace, he is not unfittingly said to be sent; if therefore *to be given* exists in the divine [persons] in this mode, as has been said, then so does mission.

**On the contrary:**

1. Wherever there is mission, there is separation; whence Jerome on Ezekiel: «What is conjoined and coupled in one body cannot be sent, but only what is outside»; whence the hand is not sent, but the spear. But in the divine [persons] there is total indivision and no separation: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, wherever there is mission, there is subjection of the one sent to the one sending; which is plain: for the lord sends the servant, and not the servant the lord. But in the divine [persons] there is total equality and no subjection: therefore there is no mission there.

3. Likewise, wherever there is mission, there is change, for nothing is said to be sent where it [already] is; but in the divine [persons] no change at all takes place: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, mission, passively spoken of, insofar as such, is a work of ministry; but in the noblest nature, insofar as such, ministry has no place: therefore etc.

### CONCLUSION.

> Mission is in the divine [persons]; nevertheless, from the threefold respect of mission to the principle, to the term, and to the one sent, every imperfection of the kind that belongs to mission in creatures must be removed.

**I respond:** It must be said that mission is in the divine [persons], as the foregoing authorities and reasons show; and it is transferred from creatures to God.

Now according to how mission is considered in these lower things, it has a respect to three [things] — namely, to the principle, to the term, and to the one sent.

To the principle, or the one sending, it can be compared under a threefold relation: as to the giver of being, and thus the ray is sent by the sun; as to the giver of power, and thus the spear is sent by the thrower; as to the giver of jurisdiction or authority, and thus the messenger is sent by the magistrate. According to all this comparison, mission is in the divine [persons]; for the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son as having from them being and power and authority in operating; and therefore mission according to this respect is most fully in the divine [persons]. For one cannot hold that one Person receives authority except from the one from whom he receives power, nor power, except from the one from whom he receives being.

Similarly, with respect to the term it is compared under a threefold relation. For something is sent *somewhere* — that is, where it comes to rest, as a stone is sent downward; it is also sent *to someone*, that he may have it, as one sends a gift to someone; it is also sent *to* something — namely, that it may be brought about. According to this threefold comparison, mission is in the divine [persons]. For the Son or the Holy Spirit is sent as somewhere, to indwell; as to someone, to be possessed as a gift; as to something — namely, to confer an effect. And therefore mission, by comparison to the term, is found most fully in the divine [persons], much more than in creatures.

But if we speak of mission in comparison to the one sent, then in these lower things it posits a threefold condition of imperfection — namely, separation, subjection, and change; and these indeed are not in the divine [persons]. There is, however, something of perfection there corresponding to these; and the reason for this is plain as follows.

In these lower things the one sent is separated from the one sending on account of the distance of the term from the one sending; as is plain when I send someone to Rome: because Rome is distant from me, if he is to be at Rome, he must be separated from me. But in the divine [persons], because God who sends is everywhere, there is no distance, and therefore no separation; in place of this, however, there is the going-forth, or emanation, of the one sent from the one sending.

**1.** And so the response is plain to the [first] objection concerning the condition of separation.

Similarly, in these lower things there is in the one sent subjection on account of the difference of the one sending to the one sent. For because the one sent receives from the one sending either being, or power, or operation, and is separated from him in substance — for one and the same substance is not participated in by many — it is necessary that he receive from him a different power and a different jurisdiction inferior to that one's. But in the divine [persons] there is no substantial difference, and therefore all things are of equal nobility in the one sending and the one sent. Yet still, in place of this, there is the emanation of derived authority [*subauctoritas*].

**2.** And so the second objection is plain.

Similarly, in these lower things there is in the one sent change on account of the distance of the one sent from the term. For because he is not at the term to which he is sent, he must change place, and so there must be change in him. But because in the divine [persons] the one sent is absent from no place, it is not necessary that he draw near *personally*; and therefore there is no change there. Yet still, in place of this, there is the new production of some effect.

**3.** And so the third objection is plain. For although in the divine [persons] there is no separation, subjection, and change, nevertheless in place of these there is emanation, origin of derived authority [*subauctoritas*], and production of a new effect.

**4.** To what is objected last — that [mission] pertains to ministry — it must be said that this is true where mission implies subjection; but this is not the case in the divine nature, but in creatures.