The text of the following lecture was published and can be found in the Josephinum Journal of Theology, Volume 17, Issue 1 Winter/Spring 2010. I am grateful to William F. Murphy, Jr., editor of the Journal, for granting me permission to post the lecture here. It is a lecture on a theological topic about which I am somewhat vehement. Saint Thomas, the commentator on Sacred Scripture, continues to guide my thoughts on a variety of contemporary issues affecting the life and witness of the Church.
Thomas,
The Apostle Paul,
and
the Summit of
Theological Formation
Daniel E. Flores,
STD, Bishop of Brownsville
Abstract: The
following was delivered as the Pio Laghi Lecture at the Pontifical College
Josephinum on March 11, 2009. In it, Bishop Flores makes a strong case for
understanding St Thomas Aquinas first a commentator on Scripture or Scriptural
theologian, who enters into disputation for the sake of ordering and teaching
the wisdom revealed through the Sacred pages. He does so primarily through a consideration
of Thomas’s commentaries on the letters of Saint Paul, showing how they profoundly
affected the Dominican Saint’s teaching in the Summa
Theologiae. In so doing, he is able to show that Thomas
was no proof-texter but a man of Scripture who articulates an integrated
theological wisdom that is profoundly grounded in biblical revelation. Bishop
Flores concludes with some remarks on how Aquinas’s work can contribute to
contemporary theological formation.
Introduction
Thomas
appears to Dante in Paradiso canto X,
and the pilgrim lingers in the company of the saint to hear three lectures. The
lectures take place within ear-shot of the disputational masters of the age:
Peter Lombard, Anselm, Albert, Bonaventure, and even the controversial Siger of
Brabant. A generation later, Catherine of Siena will place Thomas in different
company, invoking a different point of reference. She mentions him in the same
breath with Augustine and Jerome, Doctores
of Sacred Scripture.[1]
Dante’s
verse seems to have anticipated how much of the tradition after Thomas sees
him: a theological disputant of unparalleled clarity and rigor. For, indeed,
few there are who do not think of Thomas without first thinking of the Summa Theologiae or Commentary on the Sentences. This evening, I would like to make a
case for the primacy of Catherine’s vision: Thomas is first a commentator on
Scripture, and from this his primary labor, he energetically descends to the
fray of disputation for the sake of ordering and teaching the wisdom of Scripture.
 |
The Vision of Saint Thomas
Santi di Tito (1593)
|
For
much of this lecture, I will direct our attention toward Thomas’s commentaries
on the letters of Saint Paul,
with the intention of indicating how his reading of Paul profoundly affected
his teaching in the Summa Theologiae. This, I hope, will give us
some appreciation of Thomas, the Scriptural theologian, for whom the Scriptural
commentaries are prior, in the order of being and in the order of knowing, to
his pedagogically ordered synthetic works like the Summa Theologiae. As a man captivated by the love and discipline of
wisdom, Thomas would be the first to tell us that it makes all the difference
in the world which endeavor is primary.
I
hope that by the end of this evening you will have a sense that Thomas is not a
disputant who uses Scripture; he is not a proof-texter
(as some have argued) who stakes out a theological position, and then searches
for Scriptural texts to provide decorative support. On the contrary, he is a
man of Scripture who lets the contour and flow of the Scriptural revelation
establish the shape of his integrated theological vision. If we understand this
order in Thomas’s life and mind, we will better be able to understand the order
and purpose of his teaching. And, I would add, we will be in a better position
to examine critically the order and purpose of our own contemporary theological
plans of studies. After directing our attention to Thomas the Scriptural
Master, I will conclude with some brief observations on exactly this issue of
the order and purpose of contemporary theological formation.
The Pauline Commentaries
Scholars
note that Thomas probably attended to the serious exposition of the Pauline
Corpus twice during his teaching life. The first time likely occurred in the
middle to late 1260’s, about the time he began his work on the Summa Theologiae. The work he did then appears reflected in the texts we
currently possess of his commentaries on Paul. There is an exception though;
the lecture notes we possess of his comments on Romans and 1 Corinthians, up to
chapter 10, seem to reflect a second round of commentaries initiated later in
Thomas life, probably during the second Parisian regency, 1268-1272. There is
general agreement that these exceptional texts reflect mature signs of his
personal editorial hand. Did Thomas start to lecture on Paul again? There is
some resistance in the community of historical Thomists to the idea that Thomas
was lecturing on Paul again so late in his life, occupied as he was at that
time with so many other voluminous projects.[2]
At the very least, late in his life, he was editing his notes.
For
our purposes, suffice it to say that Paul was very much on Thomas’s mind at the
beginning of and during the most mature period of his work, while he was, at
the same time, working on the Summa Theologiae.
And, let us grant that together with his commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew
and John, and the Psalms, the Pauline commentaries represent the focus of his
Scriptural attentions from the middle 1260’s to his death. Influences of his
Pauline reading appear at key points throughout the Summa Theologiae, and, I
would argue, this reading underlies some of the most distinctive aspects of
Thomas’s teaching. It is to certain of these key and distinctive Pauline
aspects that I would like to turn now.
Christ
on the Cross:
To
illustrate this, I would begin with Thomas’s treatise on the Passion of Christ.
In Question 46, Article 3 of the Tertia
Pars Thomas asks whether there was
any more suitable way of delivering the human race than by means of the
Passion. He responds with a number of reasons of theological convenience, drawn
from the tradition of Scriptural interpretation, synthesizing them admirably.
But the first reason he gives reads as follows:
In
the first place, man knows thereby how much God loves him, and is thereby
stirred to love Him in return, and herein lies the perfection of human salvation;
hence the Apostle says in Romans 5, 8: "God
commendeth His charity towards us; for when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ
died for us" [3]
Please
note the four operative verbs Thomas judiciously chooses in this text: diligere, cognoscere, provocare, consistere.
God loves us; we now know this; we are thereby provoked, or stirred, to love in return. And salvation consists in loving God in return. Let us be clear, these four verbs
represent a theologically rigorous and anthropologically sound account of the
teleology of grace, and they signal how Thomas understands the entire economy
of salvation revealed in Sacred Scripture. There are many sources for Thomas’s
teaching on grace, but none as decisive as his reading of Paul. As he says in
the prologue to his commentaries on the epistles: "The entire doctrine of these letters is about the grace of Christ." [4]
Thomas cites Romans 5, 8
in ST III,
46, 3: “God commends His charity towards us; for when as yet we were sinners .
. . Christ died for us.” His textual reference indicates to us the Scriptural
context from which we can gain a better sense of his meaning in the Tertia Pars. If we look at Thomas’s
commentary on Romans, focusing first on how he reads Romans 5, 8,
we find that he uses the verb ostendere (to
show) four times:. “God commends his charity
to us, that is to say,” Thomas says, “through this he shows forth that he loves
us to the greatest extent.”[5]
Thomas reads Saint Paul’s
teaching in this particular passage to signal that the death of Christ on the
Cross was a great showing, a singularly effective manifestation to us of his
great love. He takes Paul’s sense to be related to what he says in Ephesians 2, 4:
“on account of his great love by which he loved us, while we were yet sinners,
he gave us life in Christ.”[6]
The showing, however, further establishes the possibility that we might grasp
something we did not know before, namely the extent of God’s love.
This leads us to examine Thomas’s
pointed use of the verb provocatur,
in ST III,
46, 3. He indicates that by perceiving this love given in Christ Crucified, we
are roused, or prompted to a love of God in return. Here, it is useful to
attend to Thomas’s wider approach to Romans 5, specifically verses 5 through 7,
where Saint Paul says the following: “The love of God is poured forth into our
hearts, by the Holy Spirit, who is given to us. For Christ, while we were as
yet weak, at the appointed time, died for the ungodly. For scarce for a just
man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man some one would dare to die.”
Commenting here, Thomas says that Paul’s
overall purpose is to confirm his hearers in the certitude of our hope, and
that he does so first by a statement about the gift of the Holy Spirit, and
then by a statement about the death of Christ.[7] Concerning the death of
Christ as understood by Paul, Thomas explains that “that which Christ did, that
someone might die for the impious and the unjust, has never been found before.
And thus,” Thomas continues, “rightly
should it be regarded with astonishment that Christ has done this.”[8] Astonishment, wonder,
amazement, these are all terms describing the reaction of the human person
confronted with the death of the Son of God on the Cross. Speaking of the Holy
Spirit in this context, Thomas says that “for us to be given the Holy Spirit,
who is the love of the Father and of the Son, is to prompt (induce, incite) us to
a participation in the love who is the Holy Spirit, by participation in whom we
are indeed made lovers of God.” [9]
This prompting of charity in us comes by
way of the graced amazement. For we are rightly amazed at the display of the
death of the just man, Christ Jesus for us sinners, and this amazement is part
of the inciting of the Spirit which induces us through this manifestation to
love the loving God who has so loved us.
Thomas, following Paul, never dissassociates the death of Christ from
the work of the Spirit inciting us to a real sharing in the love there
manifested on the Cross. This is described in great textual detail in the
commentary on Romans 5, and it is reflected in the first three verbs I pointed
out to you in ST III,
46, 3: God manifests, we know, we are provoked to a love in return. I think we can say that both by
Christ on the Cross and by the Spirit we are provoked, and by faith in this
love manifested, we are made capable of loving God in return. This love in
return is of course a real participation in the love of the Spirit, by which
the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father.
But there is a fourth verb: consistere. Thomas says that the
perfection of salvation consists in
loving God in return. Thomas’s approach to the whole of Romans 5,
rigorously insists that the twin realities of the Spirit poured into our
hearts, and the death of Christ on the Cross converge at the point of our
justification. But, I think we have to look briefly at the dynamism of our
justification from the point of view of the subject, that is to say, the
sinner, in order to appreciate what Thomas implies by consistere. And to do this, we need to look at how Thomas
understands Pauline teaching about the human renewal by grace.
I would like, therefore, to move to
Thomas’s comments on Galatians 6, 15, where Paul
says “for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumscsion,
but a new creature.”
Faith formed by
charity, therefore, is the new creature.
We were created and brought forth into the being of nature through Adam; but
that creature was already old, and grown
old, and thus the Lord bringing us forth and constituting us in the being of
grace, made a new creature. [...] And it is said new because through it we are renewed in a new life, and this
through the Holy Spirit, [for it says in] Psalm 103, 30:
send forth your spirit, and they will be
created, and you will renew the face of the earth. And this occurs through the Cross of Christ, [for it says in] II
Cor 5, 17:
if any are in Christ Jesus, they are a
new creature, etc. Thus therefore, through the new creature, namely through faith in Christ and the charity of
God, which is poured into our hearts,
we are renewed, and conjoined to Christ. [10]
Clearly,
Thomas reads Saint Paul
as one who both teaches the complete gratuity of justification, and the
effective manifestation of that justification in the interior transformation of
the human person into a free agent capable of loving as God loves. The first
effect of this transformation is the act of faith;
its consummation is the enkindling of charity in the human heart. Grace runs
its course, so to speak, when we are able to love God in return, in a way
commensurate to the grace of our perception, in faith, of the love manifested
by Christ on the Cross.[11]
In treating this passage in Galatians,
Thomas is traversing the same intense terrain he covers when he says that by
the death of Christ on the Cross, and by the response of love in return we are
saved. Salvation comes to us through a reception in the mind (faith) that
permits us to perceive the grandeur of the gift, and through the stirring up of
supernatural charity, by which we respond to the gift so perceived. The
provoking of our affections is first and foremost a work of Christ and the
Spirit; but its aim is the utter and complete sweeping of our human intellect
and will into the whirlwind thus revealed: and
in this consists the perfection of human salvation.
Charity as a kind of Friendship:
From
this heavily Pauline perspective upon Christological soteriology, with its
emphasis upon justification as a grace of the Holy Spirit enabling us to love
God in return, it is not difficult to see that a line flows immediately both to
ecclesiology and to moral theology. I will not enter into ST II,
8, where Thomas treats ecclesiology precisely under the heading of Christ, Head
of his body the Church. Nevertheless, were I to develop how ecclesiology flows
from the dynamic displayed and reciprocated in the mystery of the Cross and the
Spirit, I would focus upon how Thomas often uses the verb conjungimur when describing the effect of this love returned. When
commenting on Pauline passages involving the analogy of the body, and in many
other places, he speaks frequently of how in charity we are conjoined to Christ.[12]
This adhesion in love is an adhesion to Christ in his body, which is the
Church.
I
will, however, examine in rapid steps his treatment of charity in particular.
Thomas carefully accounts for the virtue of charity in the Secunda Secundae. Reading Thomas here, we witness him treat the
mystery of the human heart’s renewal by the Spirit. At the same time he is treating of the heart
of Catholic moral theology.
So
we move now to the Second Part of the Second part, Question 23, article 1: Whether charity is friendship. Now
Thomas’s teaching here is somewhat innovative given the tradition of theology
before him. Much of the patristic and medieval accounts of charity focused upon
the nuptial analogy; Christ is the groom, the Church and the soul are the
bride.[13]
But Thomas deliberately opts for the analogy of friendship as the one best able
to describe the character of what we have been given by grace. In the corpus of ST II-II,
23, 1, Thomas says the following:
[…]
Yet neither does well-wishing suffice for friendship, for a certain mutual love
is requisite, since friendship is between friend and friend: and this
well-wishing is founded on some kind of communication. Accordingly, since there
is a communication between man and God, inasmuch as He communicates His happiness
to us, some kind of friendship must needs be based on this same communication,
of which it is written in 1 Corinthians 1, 9: God is faithful: by Whom you are called unto the fellowship of His Son.
The love which is based on this communication, is charity: wherefore it is
evident that charity is the friendship of man for God.[14]
Basically,
friendship is a specific kind of love based upon a mutual good will, which is
in turn based upon a kind of communication between persons. By communication
here, Thomas means something more than a general awareness based upon a book or
letter describing the character of the writer. This would not do to establish
friendship. (So, reading the New Testament, by itself, will not suffice to make
you a friend of God). The mutuality of the relation requires a personal
concourse, the mutual exchange of person specific knowledge. I say this because
I read the citation of Saint Paul
at the end of the article as decisive to get Thomas’s meaning here. “God is
faithful: by Whom you are called unto the fellowship of His Son.” This
citation of 1 Corinthians 1, 9, speaks of
fellowship, familiar association, so to speak. This clearly points us to the
motives of the Incarnation, and specifically to the manner of Christ’s life. In ST III,
40, 1, Thomas notes that the Lord chose not to lead a solitary life in the
desert (as, for example, John the Baptist did) specifically because his purpose
was to “give men confidence in approaching Him by associating familiarly with
them.”[15]
But
the manner of Christ’s life does not suffice to account for the kind of
communication Thomas refers to when describing charity as a kind of friendship.
There is more involved here than having access to familiar conversation, which
in any event would have been available only to those who knew Christ in the
flesh. Thomas specifically says in ST II-II, 23, 1, that God communicates his happiness to us, and
this is the basis of the relationship of friendship that is unique to the
virtue of charity. To understand this, we can look to his commentary on 1
Corinthians 1, 9.
Commenting
on this passage Thomas elaborates on what he refers to here in assigning the
friendship we have with God to both a sharing in God’s beatitude and a
fellowship with Christ.
Paul says that God will confirm you, that you ought to hope, because God is faithful, through whom you are called
into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord; so that namely you
might have fellowship in Christ [toward Christ] and this in the present age
through the similitude of grace, according to 1 John 1, 7,
if we walk in the light, as he himself is
in the light, we will have fellowship with him toward one another. [And we
will have fellowship in his Son Jesus Christ] in the future through the
participation of glory, [as it says in] Romans 8, 17:
if we suffer with him we will likewise be
glorified with him. God would not seem to be faithful if he called us to
the fellowship of his Son and then denied to us, insofar as it is in him, those
things through which we might arrive, at length, to him.[16]
This
fellowship involves two things: a share in the present similitude of grace, and
a future sharing in the glory of Christ. Both of these are accessible to us
exactly through the grace of the Cross. This perspective is properly Pauline,
and comes forth eloquently while Thomas comments on Galatians 6, 14.
You will recall that the Apostle announces that he glories in the cross of our
Lord Jesus Christ; “by which the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.”
I wish that I could read for you the entirety of Thomas’s beautiful comments on
this passage, but they are quite lengthy. It will meet my purposes here to give
you a short excerpt:
Now then, people glory in the friendship
of great men (like kings or princes); and this the Apostle finds most in the
Cross, because there is shown forth the evident sign of the divine friendship:
as it says in Romans 5, 8 God commends his charity towards us ,
etc. Nothing shows forth his love
for us like the death of Christ. [17]
Note
the recurrence of the theme about God’s love being manifested to us through the
Cross, as the great sign of the offer of divine friendship, and about how this
sign engenders in Paul a love of friendship with Christ in return. The
friendship of which Thomas speaks in ST II-II,
23, 1, is therefore, a deeply personal communication, based on a true
receptivity to the offer of love from the Cross. It involves also a share in
the happiness which Christ has with the Father, a happiness, I might add, that
only Christ can communicate to us.[18]
Now this friendship with God in Christ further implies a renewal of heart, mind
and living that amounts to the promulgation of the Law of the Spirit. It is to this aspect of Thomas’s theology that I
will now briefly turn.
The
Law of the Spirit:
One
of the most distinctive parts of Thomas’s approach to moral theology, indeed to
the whole dynamism of Christian living, is his incorporation of the Pauline
teaching about the Law of the Spirit at
the summit of his treatise on law. The treatise on law, as you know, comes at
the end of the first part of the second part; it is an extensive treatment
considering law under its various historical manifestations. In the history of
Thomistic studies, philosophers and theologians have often focused upon the
teaching found there about the natural law, and its relation to eternal law and
human law; yet, while this is of great importance, Thomas the Scriptural
theologian is interested in marshaling a cohesive account of law sub aspectu Dei, that is to say, viewed
from the perspective of divine revelation. Thus, the question on the Law of the Spirit caps the entire
account of law by describing the aim toward which earlier manifestations of
divine governance tend. As the final aspect of law treated, the articles about
the Law of the Spirit set the stage
for the treatise on grace, which begins immediately thereafter.[19]
Thomas
denies that, at its core, the Law of the Spirit is a written law. There are
written texts associated to the Law of the Spirit, disposing us to the ways of
God, --the books of the New Testament being paramount among them-- but as for
the Law of the Spirit itself, it refers primarily to that internal
transformation effected by the grace of the Holy Spirit: this grace is the New Testament. In ST I-II,
106, 1, Thomas says the following:
Now that which is preponderant in the law
of the New Testament, and whereon its entire efficacy is based, is the grace of
the Holy Ghost, which is given through faith in Christ. Consequently the New
Law is chiefly the grace itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who
believe in Christ. This is manifestly stated by the Apostle who says in Romans
3, 27: Where is. . . thy boasting? It is
excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith: for he calls the
grace itself of faith "a law." And still more clearly it is
written in Romans 8, 2: The law of the
spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of
death.[20]
Let us look at the two Pauline texts from Romans cited by
Saint Thomas. Commenting on Romans 3, 27, Thomas notes first that the
Apostle wishes to exclude all human boasting before God. To do this, Paul
distinguishes between the law of works and the law of faith. The law of works,
Thomas says, refers to the law proposed and delineated from the outside;
through this law the exterior acts of men are ordered in terms of what he ought
to do, and what he ought not to do. The law
of faith, on the other hand, is a law which is delineated interiorly, and
disposes the movements of the heart. Among those movements, the first is the
movement of faith, from where the law of
faith derives its name. And, he
notes, it is by the law of faith that
all boasting before God is excluded, for we are justified by faith, and not
through any works of our own.
Now, Thomas is careful and subtle here, for he
understands that faith is not a work of man; rather it is a work of God who by
the Spirit disposes our hearts to an act of faith. I say the teaching is subtle
here, because Thomas fully recognizes that the act of faith is also a free
human act; he describes the complete gratuity of grace in terms of God’s free
gift whereby the heart is inclined to this act. The act of faith is a graced
act in response to a prior grace from the Spirit. And this dynamic of gift and
graced response is, for Thomas, equivalent to the new law. Thomas concludes his commentary on Romans 3, 27 by saying
that “the heart believes unto its own justification, as the Apostle says here
and in Romans 5. And concerning this law he speaks in Romans 8, 2:
The law of the spirit of life which is in Christ Jesus.”[21]
Thomas’s comments on Romans 3, 27, suggest how
closely he associates Pauline teaching about justification without works and
the subsequent Pauline teaching about the “love of God poured into our hearts” in Romans 5, with the fully expressed
teaching about the New Law in Romans
8. But to have access to
Thomas’ fuller appreciation of these connections within Pauline teaching, we
need to examine briefly his comments on the second Pauline text he cites in the
response to the question in the Summa
about the New Law, Romans 8, 2: “The law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus,
hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death.” Thomas comments:
The law of the spirit frees a man from sin
and death; but the law of the spirit is in
Christ Jesus: therefore, through this that someone is in Christ Jesus, he is freed from sin and death. [...] There is no
damnation except through sin and death: thus, for those who are in Christ Jesus nothing of damnation
exists. This is, therefore, what he says: the
law of the Spirit, which is in Christ Jesus. This law can be taken, in one
way, as the Holy Spirit Himself, so that the sense of the text is the law of the Spirit, that is, the law
that is the Spirit. For the law is given for this, that through it, men might
be conducted towards the good. Whence, the philosopher says in II Ethics that
the intention of the legislator is to make good citizens. Which thing human law
does only by making known what ought to be done; but the Holy Spirit dwelling
in the mind not only teaches what is fittingly done, by illuminating the
intellect about things to be done, but also inclines the affect to right
acting. […] The law of the Spirit can be understood in another way: as the
effects of the Holy Spirit, namely faith
operating through love. Which indeed teaches both interiorly concerning
things to be done, according to that text which says the anointing will teach you about all things, and which also inclines
the affect toward things to be done, according to II Cor. 5, 14: the love of Christ urges us.[22]
Here,
more emphatically, Thomas hears Paul teach that the Law of the Spirit is the law that justifies, that is to say, frees
us from sin and death. The Law of the Spirit,
Thomas continues, can be taken in two ways: it either refers to the Holy Spirit
Himself, as the agent of our transformation, or it can be taken as the effect
of the Spirit’s presence in our minds. The Spirit inclining us to goodness and
the inclination itself are two distinct realities. The latter refers to the
fruitfulness of the Spirit’s presence in us, creating in us a capacity to
desire and seek the true goodness of the Gospel.
And this law of the spirit is called the New Law, which is either the Holy
Spirit Himself, or that law in our hearts which the Holy Spirit makes. As it
says in Jeremiah 31, 33: I will give my law in their bowels, and I
will write it in their hearts.[23]
The
Spirit promulgates the New Law in Christ
Jesus, that is to say, through Christ’s redemptive death on the Cross, and through
the grace of faith in the Cross, we have access to the justice effected by this
death. This, in turn, sets in motion the transformation of the heart through
the affection of charity. And, Thomas concludes, the justifying law conjoins us
in the Spirit to that body which draws life from Christ the Head.
[…] He adds
in Christ Jesus, because namely this
Spirit is not given if not to those who are in
Christ Jesus. Like the natural spirit does not arrive to the members of a
body that does not have a connection to the head, so also the Holy Spirit does
not come to the man who is not conjoined to Christ the head.[24]
In
reality, Thomas on the New Law is explicating the Pauline context underlying
the first reason Thomas gave for the efficacy of the Cross as the way for our
salvation. For the New Law is the grace of the Cross brought to maturity in the
dynamism of grace, moving from faith to hope and love. By faith we are given a knowledge of the gift
of Christ, and by the love of God poured
into our hearts, we are able to love in return. The grace of the return is
the New Law reigning in our hearts.
But in saying this, I should add, we are not far from the terrain of
Trinitarian Theology. And to this I shall turn now.
The Processions and the Missions of the WORD and the
SPIRIT
Early
in Thomas’s treatise on the Trinity, Question 27, article 3, of the First Part
of the Summa Theologiae, he
asks whether the there is any other procession within God besides the
procession of the WORD. One can properly anticipate a response in the
affirmative, since Thomas’s aim in asking the question is to provide a basis
from which to understand the Church’s handling of the Spirit’s procession. In
evidence whereof Thomas says, we must
look at the difference between intellect and will. Obviously, Thomas is
building upon the tradition flowing from Augustine’s De Trinitate here, but the lucidity and order of his expression is
itself a major contribution to that tradition.
Specifically,
Thomas notes that within an intellectual nature, only two actions do not
proceed to anything outside the nature, namely the action of the intellect and
of the will. In other words, these are interior movements proper to the
character of intellectuality. The intellect generates a word, and this reality
understood is in the intelligent agent.
Further, there is an operation of love, by which operation “the object loved is
in the lover.”[25] The aim of the article is to establish the
basic analogy for speaking of two processions within the Godhead, but I wish to
note particularly the way Thomas emphasizes how the word known and the object
loved both remain within an intellectual nature, each according to its
particular mode: the word inhabits the intellect, the thing loved inhabits the
will. It is part of the dignity of the intellectual nature to be able to
possess what it knows and what it loves according to a spiritual mode of
possession.
A
little later in the same article, Thomas responds to an objector who argues that
it is not possible to distinguish these two processions in God based on the
difference between intellect and will, since in God intellect and will are the
same as his essence. Therefore,
argues the objector, “in God there is no other procession but the procession of the Word.”[26]
Responding, Thomas grants that the intellect and will are not diverse in God;
but then, there is no diversity between principle of generation (i.e.
intellect) and WORD generated from that principle, either. So we must grant
that the operations of an intellectual nature are in act according to the
nature of the intellect. Thus, though there is no diversity between intellect
and will in God, the nature of intellect requires an ordered distinction from
which we can speak of an ordered procession, first of intellectual word, and
then of love. Just as the principle
of intellect is metaphysically prior to the WORD generated, so also the WORD
generated is prior to the spiration of Love in God: “inasmuch as love requires
by its very nature
that it proceed only from the concept of the intellect, there is a
distinction of order between the procession of love and the procession of the
Word in God.”[27]
Now
this is all a rarified discourse, stretching the limits of analogical language
to speak about the Triune Godhead. Thomas works assiduously throughout the
treatise on the Trinity to purify the language of creaturely limitations, at
one time affirming what we can say, and at other times negating concepts that
cannot be applied to the Triune mystery. It is both a rigorously theological
and profoundly contemplative concourse with the Trinity.[28]
All of it, however, aims toward
the conclusion of the Treatise on the Trinity, question 43, on the Trinitarian
Missions. Here Thomas makes the theological move from the Trinity in itself to
the Trinity addressing itself to us. I shall always be grateful to the late
Father Dalmazio Mongillo, OP, for his lectures at the Angelicum on ST I,
43, and his love for this question. I encourage you to meditate it when you
can. For my purposes in this lecture, I would direct our attention to ST I,
43, 5, reply to objection 2. The objector feigns a Pauline sympathy, for he
argues based on 1 Corinthians 13, 2, (if I have not love, I am nothing) that
the invisible mission proceeds by way of the Spirit only. Put another way, the
unseen work of human transformation operates by way of the gift of charity
within us. The Son, the objector seems to think, preceded visibly into the world at the incarnation, and by virtue of this visible mission,
the invisible mission of the Spirit into our hearts was made possible. We
cannot, therefore speak of an unseen mission of the Son.[29]
Thomas’s response is to my mind
breathtaking. He delineates in a few lines the manner in which the ordered
processions within the Trinity, first of WORD than of Love, translate, so to
speak, into the temporal order of human salvation. I must insist on reading for
you the whole of this majestic text.
The soul is made like to God. Hence for a divine
person to be sent to
anyone by grace, there
must needs be a likening of the soul to the divine person Who is sent, by
some gift of grace. Because the Holy Ghost is Love, the soul is assimilated to
the Holy Ghost by the gift of charity: hence the
mission of the Holy Ghost is according to the mode of charity.
Whereas the Son is the
Word, not any sort of word, but one Who breathes forth Love. Hence Augustine says (De Trin.
ix 10): The Word we speak of is knowledge with love. Thus
the Son is sent not in
accordance with every and any kind of intellectual perfection,
but according to the intellectual
illumination, which breaks forth into the affection of love, as is said (John 6, 45): Everyone that hath heard from the Father and
hath learned, cometh to Me, and (Psalm 38:4): In my meditation a fire shall flame forth. Thus
Augustine plainly says
(De Trin. iv, 20): The Son is sent,
whenever He is known
and perceived by anyone. Now perception implies a certain experimental knowledge; and this is
properly called wisdom [sapientia], as it were a sweet knowledge [sapida
scientia], according to Sirach 6:23: The wisdom of doctrine is according to her
name.[30]
Grace
involves a likening of the soul to that activity which is proper to the
internal processions of the Trinity. Just as in the Trinity, the Father
possesses the WORD who proceeds as a word known and loved by the Father, and
just as the WORD’s generation involves the spiration of the Spirit as
reciprocal love of the Father and the Son, so also the life of grace involves
our interior possession of the WORD/Son in Christ Jesus, breathing into us a
participation in the procession of the Spirit. Our return of love makes us
sharers in the reciprocity of love between the Father and the Son, which Love
is the Holy Spirit Himself, proceeding from the Father and the Son.[31]
To use technical Trinitarian phrases: The ad
intra of the Godhead enters into the ad
intra of the human person, creating a real participation and likeness
within us of the Trinitarian processions.
The
visible mission of the Incarnate Son must reach all the way to an invisible
mission of the Son into the human heart. This mission is consummated in the act
of faith, whereby we conceive within ourselves his admirable identity and love.
We possess him in our minds as the One known who is also the One loved.
Possessing him in this way is already a share in the Spirit, a love returned: and herein lies the perfection of human
salvation.
At
length, we are back to ST III,
46, 3, on the divine motives governing the death of Christ on the Cross. Thomas sees
the whole perception/response dynamic provoked by Christ on the Cross and the
gift of the Spirit as the grand manifestation of the regime of grace. By grace
one perceives who Christ is, and by grace one perceives the magnitude of the
love poured out on the Cross. By grace one responds with the love of charity
for God in return. This love is not of any sort, but is rather a new reality
generated in the heart of the believer, elevating him or her to a share in the
love between the Father and the WORD, which love is itself the Holy Spirit. Love
thus established as a mutual sharing between Christ and the believer is a kind
of friendship; it generates a kind of sharing even now with that happiness
which is God’s inner life by means of what Thomas calls the similitude of grace. It generates also an affective inclination
toward all that God loves, in the way that God loves.[32] The grace of responsive
love, understood as the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit into our hearts constitutes the justification of the sinner,
and the promulgation of the New Law. This promulgation is equivalent to our
being conjoined to Christ the Head, as a member of his body, the Church. This
law is primarily the human person interiorly attracted and enabled to live
under the regime of the Holy Spirit. Finally, this entire dynamism has as its
source and summit the Trinitarian processions extended into time by means of
the mission of the WORD of truth addressed to the mind, and the mission of the
Spirit engendering the ardor of love in the heart.
Concluding Remarks on Scripture and the Summa:
This
evening, I have traced a little bit of how the teaching of Saint Paul is reflected in the whole of the
theological vision explicated in the Summa,
from the event of the Cross, to the Trinity itself. Throughout, Thomas remains
true to his own epistemology.[33]
No matter how high his theological contemplations, he always returns to the
phantasm, the image, the word spoken in Scripture and understood in faith. He
studied Scripture first and last, and from it he proposed in the Summa a cohesive vision of the whole.
Thomas’s study of the Pauline corpus, indeed, his study of the entire body of
Scripture, accompanies him throughout his theological expositions.[34]
From this perspective, I think we can say that the Summa is an extension, majestic and efficacious, of Thomas’s
Scriptural labor. G. Lafont describes this labor as an
intellectual asceticism that undertakes the difficulty of trying to see all
things from the point of view of the Word of God.[35]
It is an asceticism that seeks the sapiential ordering of all things revealed
from the point of view of the highpoint of the Scriptural revelation.
I
agree with those scholars who note that the Summa,
for the most part, follows an order from the most universal principles to the
most particular manifestations of those principles in operation. [36]
Whoever he had in mind when he addressed the work to the beginners, it appears that he aimed rigorously to unfold in the
First Part the revealed truth about the divine nature so that all that follows
about creation in general, humans in particular and Christ most particularly,
might be seen as flowing from the wisdom and love of the Triune God already
understood according to the mature appropriation of the Church’s faith. This is
wisdom, strictly speaking: to know in some small but real way how the highest
principle includes within itself all the effects that flow from it. The Summa, therefore, as an integrated work
actually moves—if I might be permitted a bit of theological shorthand-- from
the Trinity to the Cross and on to the Sacraments.[37]
As
a practical pedagogical matter, I often recommend to students who are just
beginning to read the Summa Theologiae,
to read it backwards. By this I mean, begin with the Tertia Pars, the treatises on Christ and the Sacraments. Then move
to the beginning of the Second Part, with its multiple treatments of the
operations of the human organism, of law and grace, and of the virtues. Then,
at length, focus on the First Part with its rigorous exposition of the Triune
Mystery. I suggest this as a possible help to those who wish to learn from
Thomas; for we begin with the historical in our learning; or, as Thomas would
say, we begin with the sensible, particular contingent, and then we move to the
knowledge of the more universal causes. As it happens, I have followed this
order in this lecture, for I have deliberately aimed at moving from the most
particular to the most universal: from the Cross to the Trinity.
We
are not trained, for the most part, to appreciate the value of the order of
exposition followed in the Summa, for
we are more historically minded. We do not just begin from the particular
historical order in our thinking (as human beings invariably must do), but we
like to linger there. This in turn is a function of our modern suspicion of
metaphysics. Such is the intellectual culture of our age. But, to linger
exclusively or excessively over the particular is to consign ourselves to the
rumination of a myriad of parts, without ever rising to a contemplation of the
whole. This, I think, is why students of theology today can sometimes express
frustration with not being helped by their education to prioritize and order
their thinking. This invariably has consequences in a stunted ability to
prioritize and order the various disciplines of theology, not to mention
Christian living.
I
would argue that Thomas’s achievement in the Summa Theologiae is a singularly important moment in the history of
Scriptural exegesis: For the order of the Summa
presupposes a prior and rigorous study of the particulars of Scriptural
teaching. Only after moving from the effects (i.e. the things God has done) to
cause (i.e. the God who does them for a reason), can one contemplate the effect
in the cause. Having dedicated his
life to reading from the particulars to the summit, he
moves to teach the particulars from
the summit of Trinitarian faith. But more than being a singular historical
achievement, his aim should be our aim; for the cohesive intellectual
appropriation of the whole of revealed truth remains vital to a complete
theological formation in the Scriptural faith of the Church. We must try to see
things from the highest perspective. Only this mature seeing is capable of
helping us order our teaching and living according to the priorities established
in the Word of God itself. And, only by being purified in our intentions with a
profound sense of what is first in the divine intention can we keep from
becoming diluted in our sense of mission and purpose in living and teaching the
gift we have received.
In
the end, we want theologically educated laity, religious, deacons and priests
who perceive that the mission we receive can only be understood in the light of
the missions of the WORD and of the Spirit first proceeding from and then sent
to us by the Father. To say this is to insist upon a theological culture that
promotes the study of Scripture as culminating in the New Testament
manifestation of Trinitarian life, and that promotes the contemplation of all
other things in this light. I will conclude by quoting a particularly striking
passage taken from Thomas’s prologue to his commentary on the First Book of the
Sentences:
Thus it is said in Matthew 11, no one knows the Father except the Son and
to whom the Son wills to reveal him. And it says in John 1, No one has seen God, except the
only-begotten who is in the bosom of the Father. Rightly thus it is said
from the person of the Son: I, Wisdom,
have poured forth rivers (Eccli. 24, 40). These
rivers I understand to be the flow of the eternal procession, by which the Son
proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from each in an
ineffable way. These rivers were of old hidden and in a way confused, first in
the similitudes of creatures, then even in the enigmas of Scripture, such that
barely a few wise ones held by faith the mystery of the Trinity. The Son of God
came and in a certain way spilled forth the closed rivers, by announcing the
name of the Trinity. In Matthew, at the end, it says: Teach all nations, baptizing the in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit.[38]
I
hope that my remarks this evening have helped you to appreciate that for Thomas
the mission of the Son to “spill forth the closed rivers by announcing the name
of the Trinity” is a work culminating on the Cross, precisely as the Lord thus
displayed spills forth the Spirit that enkindles in us a love for the Son, and
for the Father who sent him.
Why
was it, then, that Christ suffered the Cross?
In the first place, man knows thereby how
much God loves him, and is thereby stirred to love Him in return, and herein
lies the perfection of human salvation; hence the Apostle says in Romans 5:8: God commendeth His charity towards us; for
when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for us.
Thank you for
your kind attention.
+df
[1] See Dante’s Paradiso, Canto X through Canto XIII, and see Catherine’s Il Dialogo, cp lxxxiv-lxxxv.
[2] During the late period of his life,
Thomas apparently lectured on Matthew and John, and wrote the bulk of the Summa Theologiae. Meanwhile, he seems to have been writing commentaries
on the Aristotelian corpus, (the Nichomachean
Ethics and the Metaphysics, for
example). He is also commenting on the Psalms just prior to his death in 1273.
Add another series of lectures on Paul, and it would represent a remarkable
crescendo of theological labor On Weisheipl’s dating of the Pauline
commentaries, see Friar Thomas D’Aquino:
his Life, Thought and Works. (Washington: Catholic University of America
Press, 1983), 246-250; on Torrell’s
dating see Initiation a saint Thomas d’Aquin: Sa personne et son
oeuvre. (Paris: Cerf,
1993), 365-376, and 496-497.
[3] III, 46, 3, c.: […] Primo enim, per hoc
homo cognoscit quantum Deus hominem diligat, et per hoc provocatur ad eum
diligendum, in quo perfectio humanae salutis consistit. Unde apostolus dicit,
Rom. V, commendat suam caritatem Deus in nobis, quoniam, cum inimici
essemus, Christus pro nobis mortuus est. [...]. English translations of the
Summa Theologiae are invariably taken from the The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, (Benzinger Brothers, 1948), translated
by Fathers of the English
Dominican Province.
All other translations from Latin to English are my own. Latin texts from the Summa Theologiae are taken either from
the Biblioteca de autores cristianos
edition, (Madrid, 1978), or from Textum Leoninum Romae 1888 editum ac automato translatum a Roberto Busa SJ in taenias
magneticas denuo recognovit Enrique Alarcón atque
instruxit,
which text is available online at http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth1028.html.
[4] Super Epistolas S. Pauli
Lectura, Prologus, Marietti
no. 11.: Est enim haec doctrina tota de gratia Christi, [...]. Citations from the received Latin text of
Thomas’s commentary on the Pauline Epistles are taken either from the Marietti
edition, Super Epistolas S. Pauli
Lectura, cura P. Raphaelis Cai, OP, in two volumes, editio VIII revisa (Taurini, Marietti, 1953) or from the Textum Taurini 1953
editum ac
automato translatum a Roberto Busa SJ in taenias magneticas denuo recognovit Enrique Alarcón atque instruxit,
which text is also
available on line at http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth1028.html. For the
sake of easing the location of these texts, I will refer to them by what are
known as the Marietti numbers, although the Busa edition does not provide them.
[5] Ad Romanos, cap. 5, lect. 2; Marietti no. 399.: […] Deus suam charitatem
commendat in nobis, id est per
hoc ostendit se nos maxime diligere.
[6] Ad Romanos, cap. 5, lect. 2; Marietti no. 399.: [...] Dicit ergo primo: quaesitum est
quare Christus pro impiis mortuus est; et ad hoc est responsio, quia per hoc Deus
suam charitatem commendat in nobis, id est per hoc ostendit se nos maxime diligere, quoniam si cum adhuc peccatores
essemus, Christus mortuus est pro nobis, et hoc secundum tempus, sicut
supra expositum est. Ipsa autem mors Christi pro nobis charitatem ostendit Dei, quia dedit filium suum,
ut pro nobis satisfaciens moreretur. Io. c. III, 16: sic Deus dilexit
mundum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret, et cetera. Et ita sicut charitas Dei
patris ad nos ostenditur per hoc
quod spiritum suum dedit nobis, ut supra dictum est, ita et per hoc quod dedit
filium suum, ut hic dicitur. Sed in hoc quod dicit commendat,
immensitatem quamdam divinae charitatis assignat, quae quidem ostenditur, tum ex ipso facto, quia
scilicet dedit filium suum, ut moreretur pro nobis, tum ex parte nostrae
conditionis, quia hoc non fecit provocatus nostris meritis, cum adhuc
peccatores essemus. Eph. II, 4 s.: Deus qui dives est in misericordia
propter nimiam charitatem qua dilexit nos, cum essemus mortui peccatis,
convivificavit nos Christo, et cetera.
[7]Ad Romanos, cap. 5, lect. 1; Marietti no. 391.:
[...] Secundo, ibi quia charitas Dei, etc., ponit certitudinis spei
duplex argumentum, quorum primum est ex dono spiritus sancti, secundum ex morte
Christi, ibi ut quid enim Christus, et cetera.
[8] Ad Romanos, cap. 5, lect. 2;
Marietti no. 396.: [...] Rarum enim est propter hoc quod est maximum, ut enim
dicitur Io. XV, 13: maiorem hac dilectionem nemo habet, et cetera. Illud
autem quod Christus fecit, ut quis moriatur pro impiis et iniustis, nunquam
invenitur. Et ideo merito admirandum est, quare Christus hoc fecerit.
[9] Ad Romanos, cap. 5, lect. 1;
Marietti no. 392.: [...] Spiritum enim sanctum, qui est amor patris et filii,
dari nobis, est nos adduci ad participationem amoris, qui est spiritus sanctus,
a qua quidem participatione efficimur Dei amatores.
[10] Ad Galatas, cap. 6, Lect. 4; Marietti no. 374.: [...] Fides ergo charitate
formata est nova creatura. Creati namque et producti sumus in esse naturae per
Adam; sed illa quidem creatura vetusta iam erat, et inveterata, et ideo dominus
producens nos, et constituens in esse gratiae, fecit quamdam novam creaturam.
Iac. I, 18: ut simus initium aliquod creaturae eius. Et dicitur nova,
quia per eam renovamur in vitam novam; et per spiritum sanctum, Ps. CIII, 30: emitte
spiritum tuum, et creabuntur, et renovabis faciem terrae. Et per crucem
Christi, II Cor. V, 17: si qua est in Christo nova creatura, et cetera.
Sic ergo per novam creaturam,
scilicet per fidem Christi et charitatem Dei, quae diffusa est in cordibus nostris, renovamur, et Christo coniungimur.
[11] See II-II, 24, 8, c.,
for how charity is commensurate to the knowledge of faith, and perfected in the
knowledge of the blessed.
[12] See the text cited in note 10, for
example.
[13] See
a good presentation of how Thomas takes a different path within the dominant
medieval tradition’s accounts of Christian charity in Denys Turner, Eros and Allegory: Medieval Exegesis of the
Song of Songs, (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications,
1995).
[14] II-II, 23,
1, c.: [...] Sed nec benevolentia sufficit ad rationem amicitiae, sed
requiritur quaedam mutua amatio, quia amicus est amico amicus. Talis autem
mutua benevolentia fundatur super aliqua communicatione. Cum igitur sit aliqua
communicatio hominis ad Deum secundum quod nobis suam beatitudinem communicat,
super hac communicatione oportet aliquam amicitiam fundari. De qua quidem
communicatione dicitur I ad Cor. I, fidelis Deus, per quem vocati estis in
societatem filii eius. Amor autem super hac communicatione fundatus est
caritas. Unde manifestum est quod caritas amicitia quaedam est hominis ad Deum.
[15] III, 40, 1,
c: […]Tertio, venit ut per ipsum habeamus accessum ad Deum, ut dicitur Rom. V.
Et ita, familiariter cum hominibus conversando, conveniens fuit ut hominibus
fiduciam daret ad se accedendi. Unde dicitur Matth. IX, factum est,
discumbente eo in domo, ecce, multi publicani et peccatores venientes
discumbebant cum Iesu et discipulis eius.
[16] Ad 1 Cor. cap. 1, lect. 1; Marietti no. 18.: [...] Tertio rationem suae
promissionis assignat, dicens quod Deus vos confirmabit, quod debetis sperare,
quia Deus est fidelis (Deut. XXXII, 4: Deus
fidelis et absque ulla iniquitate), per quem vocati estis in societatem
filii eius Iesu Christi domini nostri, ut scilicet habeatis societatem ad
Christum, et in praesenti per similitudinem gratiae, secundum illud I Io. I, 7:
si in luce ambulamus, sicut et ipse in
luce est, societatem habemus cum eo ad invicem, et in futuro per
participationem gloriae, Rom. VIII, 17: si
compatimur, ut et simul glorificemur. Non autem videretur esse fidelis
Deus, si nos vocaret ad societatem filii et nobis denegaret, quantum in ipso
est, ea, per quae pervenire ad eum possemus. Unde Iosue I, v. 5 dicit: non te deseram, neque derelinquam.
[17] Ad Galatas, cap. 6, lect. 4; Marietti no. 371.: [...] Nam gloriantur
aliqui de magnorum (puta regum aut principum) amicitia: et hoc maxime apostolus
invenit in cruce, quia ibi ostenditur evidens signum divinae amicitiae, Rom. V,
8: commendat autem suam charitatem Deus in nobis, et cetera. Nihil enim
sic charitatem suam ad nos ostendit, sicut mors Christi.
[18] See also this remarkable passage, in a
similar vein. Ad Galatas, cap. 2,
lect. 6; Marietti no. 110.: [...] Secundo ostendit quod confixus est cruci,
dicens: quia amor Christi quem ostendit mihi in cruce moriens pro me, facit ut
semper ei configar. Et hoc est quod dicit qui dilexit me. I Io. IV, 10: ipse
prior dilexit nos. Et intantum dilexit me, quod tradidit semetipsum pro
me, et non aliud sacrificium. Apoc. I, 5: dilexit nos, et lavit nos a
peccatis nostris in sanguine suo. Eph. c. V, 25: sicut Christus dilexit
Ecclesiam, et semetipsum tradidit pro ea, et cetera.
[19] See, as an introduction to this aspect of
Thomas’s moral / historical vision, Edward Kaczynski, La Lege Nuova: L’elemento esterno Della legge nuova secondo San
Tommaso, (Roma: LIEF, 1974).
[20] I-II, 106, 1, c.: […] Id autem quod
est potissimum in lege novi testamenti, et in quo tota virtus eius consistit,
est gratia spiritus sancti, quae datur per fidem Christi. Et ideo principaliter
lex nova est ipsa gratia spiritus sancti, quae datur Christi fidelibus. Et hoc
manifeste apparet per apostolum, qui, ad Rom. III, dicit, ubi est ergo gloriatio
tua? Exclusa est. Per quam legem? Factorum? Non, sed per legem fidei, ipsam
enim fidei gratiam legem appellat. Et expressius ad Rom. VIII dicitur, lex
spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu liberavit me a lege peccati et mortis. Unde
et Augustinus dicit, in libro de spiritu et littera, quod sicut lex factorum
scripta fuit in tabulis lapideis, ita lex fidei scripta est in cordibus
fidelium. Et alibi dicit in eodem libro, quae sunt leges Dei ab ipso Deo
scriptae in cordibus, nisi ipsa praesentia spiritus sancti? [...]
[21] Ad Romanos, cap. 3, lect. 4; Marietti nos. 315-316.: [...] Et ideo interrogando
subdit factorum? Quasi dicat: numquid per aliquam legem factorum, eorum
gloriationem exclusam dico? Et respondet quod non sed per legem fidei.
Et sic patet quod duplicem legem hic inducit apostolus, scilicet factorum et
fidei. Et in promptu esse videtur quod per legem factorum intelligitur lex
vetus, et per legem fidei lex nova, per quam gentilis aequiparatur Iudaeo. Sed
dubitatur de hac distinctione. Nam et in veteri lege necessaria erat fides,
sicut et in nova. Eccli. II, 8: qui timetis dominum, credite illi, et
Ps. CXV, 10: credidi propter quod locutus sum. Immo etiam in nova lege
facta quaedam requiruntur et quorumdam sacramentorum, secundum illud Lc. c.
XXII, 19: hoc facite in meam commemorationem; et etiam moralium
observationum, Iac. I, 22: estote factores verbi, et non auditores tantum.
Dicendum est igitur quod legem factorum dicit legem exterius propositam et
descriptam, per quam exteriora facta hominum ordinantur, dum praecipitur quid
fieri debeat, et per prohibitionem ostenditur a quo debeat abstineri. Legem
autem fidei vocat legem interius descriptam, per quam non solum exteriora
facta, sed etiam ipsi motus cordium disponuntur, inter quos primus est motus fidei.
Corde enim creditur ad iustitiam, ut dicitur hic et cap. V. Et de hac
lege loquitur infra: VIII, 2: lex spiritus vitae quae est in Christo Iesu.
[22] Ad Romanos, cap. 8, lect. 1; Marietti nos. 601-603.: […] Lex spiritus liberat
hominem a peccato et morte; sed lex spiritus est in Iesu Christo: ergo, per hoc
quod aliquis est in Christo Iesu, liberatur a peccato et morte. [...] Damnatio
autem non est nisi per peccatum et mortem: ergo his qui sunt in Christo Iesu
nihil damnationis existit. Hoc est ergo quod dicit lex enim spiritus, et
cetera. Quae quidem lex potest dici, uno modo, spiritus sanctus, ut sit sensus:
lex spiritus, id est lex quae est spiritus. Lex enim ad hoc datur, ut per eam
homines inducantur ad bonum; unde et philosophus in II Ethic. dicit quod
intentio legislatoris est cives facere bonos. Quod quidem lex humana facit,
solum notificando quid fieri debeat; sed spiritus sanctus, mentem inhabitans,
non solum docet quid oporteat fieri, intellectum illuminando de agendis, sed
etiam affectum inclinat ad recte agendum. [...]Alio modo lex spiritus potest
dici proprius effectus spiritus sancti, scilicet fides per dilectionem operans. Quae quidem et docet interius de
agendis, secundum illud infra: unctio docebit vos de omnibus, et
inclinat affectum ad agendum, secundum illud II Cor. V, 14: charitas Christi
urget nos. [...].
[23] Ad Romanos, cap. 8, lect. 1; Marietti no. 603.: […]Et haec quidem lex spiritus
dicitur lex nova, quae vel est ipse spiritus sanctus, vel eam in cordibus
nostris spiritus sanctus facit. Ier. XXXI, 33: dabo legem meam in visceribus
eorum, et in corde eorum superscribam eam. [...].
[24] Ad Romanos, cap. 8, lect. 1; Marietti no. 605: […] Addit autem in Christo
Iesu, quia scilicet iste spiritus non datur nisi his qui sunt in Christo
Iesu. Sicut enim spiritus naturalis non pervenit ad membrum quod non habet
connexionem ad caput, ita spiritus sanctus non pervenit ad hominem qui non est
capiti Christo coniunctus. [...].
[25] 1, 27, 3, c.: Respondeo dicendum quod in divinis sunt duae processiones, scilicet
processio verbi, et quaedam alia. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod
in divinis non est processio nisi secundum actionem quae non tendit in aliquid
extrinsecum, sed manet in ipso agente. Huiusmodi autem actio in intellectuali
natura est actio intellectus et actio voluntatis. Processio autem verbi
attenditur secundum actionem intelligibilem. Secundum autem operationem
voluntatis invenitur in nobis quaedam alia processio, scilicet processio
amoris, secundum quam amatum est in amante, sicut per conceptionem verbi res
dicta vel intellecta, est in intelligente. Unde et praeter processionem verbi,
ponitur alia processio in divinis, quae est processio amoris.
[26] I, 27, 3, Obj. 3.
Praeterea, si sit in divinis alia processio ab
intelligibili processione verbi, non erit nisi processio amoris, quae est
secundum voluntatis operationem. Sed talis processio non potest esse alia a
processione intellectus intelligibili, quia voluntas in Deo non est aliud ab
intellectu, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo in Deo non est alia processio praeter
processionem verbi.
[27] I, 27, 3, ad 3.
Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet in Deo non sit aliud
voluntas et intellectus, tamen de ratione voluntatis et intellectus est, quod
processiones quae sunt secundum actionem utriusque, se habeant secundum quendam
ordinem. Non enim est processio amoris nisi in ordine ad processionem verbi,
nihil enim potest voluntate amari, nisi sit in intellectu conceptum. Sicut
igitur attenditur quidam ordo verbi ad principium a quo procedit, licet in divinis
sit eadem substantia intellectus et conceptio intellectus; ita, licet in Deo
sit idem voluntas et intellectus, tamen, quia de ratione amoris est quod non
procedat nisi a conceptione intellectus, habet ordinis distinctionem processio
amoris a processione verbi in divinis.
[28] This is further related,
in my view, to the medieval appropriation of the Patristic view of “theology”
as essentially Trinitarian contemplation. On this, see Gilles Emery, Trinity in Aquinas, (Naples: Sapientia
Press, 2003), esp. 121-164. He notes (128): “Trinitarian theology offers
believers a foretaste of what they hope to see in the beatific vision of God:
This is essentially contemplative dimension of Trinitarian theology. […] This
purpose of Trinitarian theology, which St. Thomas takes from St. Augustine, is
ambitious and modest at the same time: to manifest the truth “to the exercise
and consolation (exercitium et solatium)
of the faithful.” See the same author’s contribution to Aquinas the Augustinian, edited by Michael Dauphinais, Barry David
and Matthew Levering, (Washington: Catholic
University of American Press, 2007), an essay entitled Trinitarian Theology as Spiritual Exercise in Augustine and Aquinas.
[29] I, 43, 5, Obj. 2.:
Praeterea, missio divinae personae fit secundum gratiam
gratum facientem. Sed dona quae pertinent ad perfectionem intellectus, non sunt
dona gratiae gratum facientis, cum sine caritate possint haberi, secundum illud
I ad Cor. XIII, si habuero prophetiam, et noverim mysteria omnia, et omnem
scientiam, et si habuero omnem fidem, ita ut montes transferam, caritatem autem
non habeam, nihil sum. Cum ergo filius procedat ut verbum intellectus,
videtur quod non conveniat sibi invisibiliter mitti.
[30] I, 43, 5, ad 2: Ad secundum dicendum
quod anima per gratiam conformatur Deo. Unde ad hoc quod aliqua persona divina
mittatur ad aliquem per gratiam, oportet quod fiat assimilatio illius ad
divinam personam quae mittitur per aliquod gratiae donum. Et quia spiritus
sanctus est amor, per donum caritatis anima spiritui sancto assimilatur, unde
secundum donum caritatis attenditur missio spiritus sancti. Filius autem est
verbum, non qualecumque, sed spirans amorem, unde Augustinus dicit, in IX libro
de Trin., verbum quod insinuare intendimus, cum amore notitia est. Non
igitur secundum quamlibet perfectionem intellectus mittitur filius, sed
secundum talem instructionem intellectus, qua prorumpat in affectum amoris, ut
dicitur Ioan. VI, omnis qui audivit a patre, et didicit, venit ad me; et
in Psalm., in meditatione mea exardescet ignis. Et ideo signanter dicit
Augustinus quod filius mittitur, cum a quoquam cognoscitur atque percipitur,
perceptio enim experimentalem quandam notitiam significat. Et haec proprie
dicitur sapientia, quasi sapida scientia, secundum illud Eccli. VI, sapientia
doctrinae secundum nomen eius est.
[31] See I, 93, for an explication of this
teaching from the point of view of the perfection of the image of God in man by
grace.
[32] I-II, 109, 3, ad 1: Ad primum ergo dicendum quod caritas diligit Deum super omnia eminentius
quam natura. Natura enim diligit Deum super omnia, prout est principium et
finis naturalis boni, caritas autem secundum quod est obiectum beatitudinis, et
secundum quod homo habet quandam societatem spiritualem cum Deo. Addit etiam
caritas super dilectionem naturalem Dei promptitudinem quandam et
delectationem, sicut et quilibet habitus virtutis addit supra actum bonum qui
fit ex sola naturali ratione hominis virtutis habitum non habentis.
[33] See, I, 84, 7; II-II, 180, 5.
[34] See the fine collection of essays on
Thomas’s approach to the Gospel of John, Reading
John with St. Thomas Aquinas: Theological Exegesis and Speculative Theology, edited
by Michael
Dauphinais and Matthew Levering, (Washington: Catholic University of
America Press, 2005).
[35] Ghislain Lafont, Structures et methode dans la <<Somme theologique>> de saint Thomas d’Aquin, (Paris: Cerf, 1996), 494.
[36] See Jean-Pierre Torrell,
OP, Aquinas’s Summa, Background,
Structure and Reception, (Washington: Catholic
University of America, 2005). See also John J. Jenkins, Knowledge and Faith in Thomas Aquinas, (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997), esp. 78-98. What Jenkins calls “second level pedagogy”
is equivalent, in my view, to what Matthew Levering speaks of as “the
intellectual virtue of wisdom, […] ordering all things in accord with knowledge
of God as first cause, as well as with knowledge of the first causes of every
particular genus.” See Levering’s Scripture
and Metaphysics: Aquinas and the
Renewal of Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell,
2004), 29. Further, this kind of theological activity is equivalent to the
contemplative dimension described by Gilles Emery (see note 28).
[37] Had time permitted, I would have enjoyed
making reference to the relation between the Thomas’s reading of Paul on the
provocation of charity through the mystery of the Cross and Thomas’s teaching
on the Eucharist as the sacramentum
caritatis.
[38] Scriptum super Sententiis prooemium, (Textum Parmae 1856 editum ac automato translatum a Roberto Busa SJ in taenias magneticasdenuo
recognovit Enrique Alarcón atque instruxit): Unde dicitur Matth. 11, 27:
nemo novit patrem nisi filius et cui filius voluerit revelare: et Joan.
1, 18: Deum nemo vidit unquam, nisi unigenitus qui est in sinu patris.
Recte ergo dicitur ex persona filii: ego sapientia effudi flumina.
Flumina ista intelligo fluxus aeternae processionis, qua filius a patre, et
spiritus sanctus ab utroque, ineffabili modo procedit. Ista flumina olim
occulta et quodammodo confusa erant, tum in similitudinibus creaturarum, tum
etiam in aenigmatibus Scripturarum, ita ut vix aliqui sapientes Trinitatis
mysterium fide tenerent. Venit filius Dei et inclusa flumina quodammodo
effudit, nomen Trinitatis publicando, Matth. ult. 19: docete omnes gentes,
baptizantes eos in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. [...]
