In this post we will examine the two ways in which a truth can be contained in revelation: formally or virtually. Note that this distinction between formal and virtual revelation is taken from the part of revelation itself (ex parte ipsius revelationis), not from the part of our knowledge of revelation (ex parte cognitionis nostrae revelationis); that is, it is taken from the part of the object, or objectively speaking, not from the part of the knowing subject, or subjectively speaking.
Formal Revelation
A truth is said to be formally contained in revelation if it is revealed there immediately and in itself (immediate et in se). Hence, that which is formally revealed is what is revealed in virtue of the signification of the terms themselves of revelation. This can happen in two ways: explicitly or implicitly. If the signification is given distinctly (distincte) and in express terms, then the truth is said to be “formally-explicitly” revealed through such terms. If, on the other hand, the signification is given only vaguely (confuse) and in equipollent or equivalent terms, then the truth is said to be “formally-implicitly” revealed through such terms. This latter truth is implicitly revealed because, although it is formally contained in, or formally the same as, what is explicitly revealed, nevertheless it does not immediately appear when revelation is proposed; instead, the sense or meaning of revelation must be explicated by another proposition, and revelation must be applied in order for one to assent to it. However, this proposition does not express a new truth; rather, it is the same truth as that which is explicitly revealed and merely explicates what is implicit in it.
Thus, the following truth is formally-explicitly revealed: “Christ is a man.” This truth is handed down distinctly and in express terms in revelation.
However, the various ways in which a truth can be formally-implicitly revealed is explained by the following particular rules.
1. The definition in the thing defined.
If the very thing defined is explicitly contained in revelation, then its definition is implicitly contained in it, and vice versa. Thus, for example, in the proposition “Christ is a man” (the thing defined), which is explicitly revealed, there is contained the proposition “Christ is a rational animal” (its definition), which is said to be implicitly revealed. To say that Christ is a man is the same thing as saying that Christ is a rational animal, because man is defined as a rational animal. Thus, the concept “rational animal” (distinct concept) is implicitly contained in the concept “man” (vague concept).
Here is what this looks like syllogistically.
Christ is a man.
But a man is a rational animal.
Therefore, Christ is a rational animal.
Since it is the very definition of man to be a rational animal, the conclusion of the syllogism given above does not express a new truth; rather, it states the same truth in a more explicated form.
2. The essential parts in a physical whole.